Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

If you look at the main gun of the Leman Russ, I'd say a modern battleship is the equivalent.

Modern Landship...? Like what?XD

Imho there is no real tank that compares to the Leman Russ, because:
A. No tank is as widely used as the Russ (I mean every country uses their own pattern, not even big coalitions like the Nato or UN have a standard vehicle (if I am not mistaken).
B. No tank exists in as many varieties as the Leman Russ (Leman Russ' come with all kinds of weapons, load outs etc.)
C. No Tank is as cheap and easy to produce and still as efficient (though by all standards far from perfect)

I think the GW guys were heavily inspired by the Russian tanks from WW2 who often also had the "cheap but efficient" feel to it, but I think now a days, most tanks are not built with the thought of saving a lot of money, but rather with the thought of making them as allround perfect as possible. Though this is only my opinion and might as well be wrong...

Fire_for_effect wrote:Imho there is no real tank that compares to the Leman Russ, because:
A. No tank is as widely used as the Russ (I mean every country uses their own pattern, not even big coalitions like the Nato or UN have a standard vehicle (if I am not mistaken).
B. No tank exists in as many varieties as the Leman Russ (Leman Russ' come with all kinds of weapons, load outs etc.)
C. No Tank is as cheap and easy to produce and still as efficient (though by all standards far from perfect)

There's the T-55 that almost fits all of these

Not that it's particularly capable anymore, but it requires little training or logistics to run and operate and there's about 20 of them for every Abrams or Leopard 2 out there.

I think the GW guys were heavily inspired by the Russian tanks from WW2 who often also had the "cheap but efficient" feel to it, but I think now a days, most tanks are not built with the thought of saving a lot of money, but rather with the thought of making them as allround perfect as possible. Though this is only my opinion and might as well be wrong...

That's pretty much spot on. The Russians found that once the shooting starts in a real war with pitched battles, tanks don't tend to last very long so spending huge amounts of resources on each one usually isn't worth it, whereas the Western armies basically hope to end a conflict before attrition becomes an issue.

Leopard 2 is a very nice tank (i personally like the Leopard 2a6 Hel decent looking tank), however i dont think personally its a Leman Russ. However i agree with Fire_for_effect sort of.

Tbh this thread was finding the most like tank, not about finding its exact copy in real life. T-34 i still believe to be the most like to it, everyones welcome to their opinion of course (the other reason why i made this thread )

Keep em coming though, so far some interesting ideas

dakkawolf wrote:Leopard 2 is a very nice tank (i personally like the Leopard 2a6 Hel decent looking tank), however i dont think personally its a Leman Russ.

Oh I agree, I think there are very few western tanks that could be thought of in terms of the Leman Russ aside from maybe the Sherman (in much the same way as the T-34).

In terms of design philosophy the Russ fits the T-34 and especially the T-55 really well, though not necessarily in terms of battlefield role.

Soladrin wrote:

dakkawolf wrote:No offence, but if you really want a modern tank (modern as in post WW-II tanks) then your looking more for a challenger or T-90, Challenger II is quoted as being better then nearly every tank out there. M1 abrams were knocked during Operation Iraqi freedom (not destroyed but knocked out of the fight) whereas no challenger II's have ever been destroyed or knocked out due to enemy fire.

If we'r making this a treadhead topic..

The Leopard2-A6-EX is still considered the best MBT out there. Though the russian "black Eagle" would have been the best one if the project hadn't been canceled... to bad really, the thing was gorgeous.

Oooooh tread head arguments
/popcorn
The Challenger II has yet to engage in large scale operations so saying that one hasn't been knocked out in combat is a lot like saying HMS Victory hasn't been hit by enemy fire in 100 years so is clearly superior to insert name of a ship damaged in combat.
Comparing the Leo and the Abrams is like comparing a Mazda Pickup to a Ford Ranger. Only the Dealer Options and sticker price are really different. Both were designed in conjunction and share a large number of common parts. Some might argue the powerpack in an Abrams is superior, I saw it's just more complex and requires an uneccecary amount of divergent training for tracked vehicle maintenance. Slap a 55 caliber gun and COTS upgrades in a M1A2 and they are essentially the same track. Basically the Challenger, Leo, and Abrams are kissing cousins that share so much commonality that picking the 'best' from them is more a matter of opinion. Currently I'd probably say the latest and greatest Leo is the most advanced and capable tank in the world, which has as much to do with being fielded in small numbers in countries with little or no chance to deploy them to combat in the foreseeable future.

The Leman Russ doesn't have a "modern" equivalent in any real sense, being based of a Char 1BiS kit Citdel bought the rights to and somehow shoehorned A MkV male look into. But for sheer slabsided ugliness the Leclerc is probably most like the Russ, thank you France.

Vaktathi wrote:
In practical terms the vehicle would never function, you couldn't fit a breach for that 800mm cannon its got along with room for ammo, electronics, crew, etc in that turret, probably not even just the breach and recoil mechanism.

The basic explaination for this is that LRBT models are compressed and not at proper proportions.


a true scale LRBT would be much longer and wider. the Turret would also be longer and wider. this would accomadate the cannon.


the LRBT battlecannon round is also the HE round. Battlecannons, in the fluff, can fire AP rounds as well. it just doesn't make it to the table top. the existance of the other varients also explains it not being a tank-hunter.

the LRBT is meant to suppress infantry and it does that quite well.

KingDeath wrote:

Uhlan wrote:The T-34 is an excellent analogue for the Leman Russ tank.

Almost 85k built and nearly 35k of those between 1941 and 1945.

A dizzying amount of variants based off of the chassis as well.

Their is anecdotal evidence that the Russians were literally casting the turrets in sand pits while the germans advanced on them a few blocks away. Often driving off the assembly lines and straight into combat at Stalingrad.

Unlike the Leman Russ the T34 was a reasonable and modern design which managed to balance protection, speed, firepower and weight/size while the Leman Russ is huge, slow, with thick but highly inefficient armour ( flat and huge sides, sponson weapons... ) and lacks any real anti tank gun ( the Leman Russ battlecanon, at least on the tabletop, is more like a heavy mortar than a real high velocity AT gun ).
I accept the Leman Russ as a work of fiction but it is in no way a good or efficient tank design.

A Russ's thin treads and suspension are so bad as to make the vehicle practically undrivable off road. Plus bolted armor insures lots of casualties. Its a POS.

Though I agree that the Russ... and, really, all 40K war machines... have no direct RL counterpart,

Oops, I can name one 40k vehicle that absolutely has a modern day counterpart.

Rhino=M113. Lightly armed and armored, light, 'fast' and fairly simple. Also a chasis that was used for a wide variety of variant vehicles.

^ p'rhaps the same reasons why Lasguns have a bigger barrel than any typical military rifles.

Leman Russ seems to attract fanbosy very well =^.^=

product wise. It is said that Leman Russ itself is modelled after french Char B1 Bis Heavy Tank... which GW bought a license to produce models but I DON'T really know if GW ever buy such license and if so.. when?

aesthetic designs are a mixture of 20s-early 40s armour. one might say that its hull is clearly WW1 Mark 4 (in Rise of Nations, a unit called 'light tank' s looks like Leman Russ alot. Mk.4 with churchill turret fitted with a battlecannon and two MGs mounted on sponsons. but only certain civilizations (British, Russians, certain africans) may have a 'light tank' with that designs... (others get FT 17 instead :lol: ). bow gun mount however. is clearly based on ones of Universal Carrier (Bren gun carrier)

here.

closest to the 'leman russ' but this design is purely fictional AFAIK.

about its quantity and the distributions. i'd say.. M4 Shermans.

I don't really know how Leman Russ suspension really works. if IA1 cited that it has springs on each roadwheels (much like train bogies). i'd say that it's really an active suspension. with a very tight elevations to keep roadwheels covered and less vulnerable to gunfire.

AustonT wrote:
Comparing the Leo and the Abrams is like comparing a Mazda Pickup to a Ford Ranger. Only the Dealer Options and sticker price are really different. Both were designed in conjunction and share a large number of common parts. Some might argue the powerpack in an Abrams is superior, I saw it's just more complex and requires an uneccecary amount of divergent training for tracked vehicle maintenance. Slap a 55 caliber gun and COTS upgrades in a M1A2 and they are essentially the same track. Basically the Challenger, Leo, and Abrams are kissing cousins that share so much commonality that picking the 'best' from them is more a matter of opinion.

For the most part yes, however the Leo is the only one with the L55 gun and the newer (A6/Espania/A7) versions have significant armor upgrades over the Chal/Abrams, in addition to higher top end speeds, a longer operational range coupled with the greater modularity really make a big difference. That said, it's also not something that would be impossible for the others to match if they wanted to, save for the armor upgrades which IIRC were made possible due to the Leo's modularity. (I don't think the Abrams turret would tolerate the entire frontal facing being removed and redesigned the same way the Leo's did)

Currently I'd probably say the latest and greatest Leo is the most advanced and capable tank in the world, which has as much to do with being fielded in small numbers in countries with little or no chance to deploy them to combat in the foreseeable future.

Indeed, and aside from a few days in the first Iraq war, none of these tanks have seen real armored combat and likely never will, especially against any sort of opponent that would actually pose a threat to a competent crew (e.g. each other), though if the Saudi's get their 200 L2A7's they may see some sort of use (though probably more in heavy handed police actions than anything else)

SickSix wrote:

Though I agree that the Russ... and, really, all 40K war machines... have no direct RL counterpart,

Oops, I can name one 40k vehicle that absolutely has a modern day counterpart.

Rhino=M113. Lightly armed and armored, light, 'fast' and fairly simple. Also a chasis that was used for a wide variety of variant vehicles.

The Chimera is a very close copy of the soviet BMP as well.

Grey Templar wrote:But seriously, they actually had the exaust pipes on the front. I saw an Iraqi tank in the Patton Museum and it had this very thing. they actually brought it back to study it to figure out why, they couldn't figure it out so its in the Museum now.

Since Iraq had an experience with heat-seeking ATGMs before. ya know the engine room is always a weakspot of any AFVs and tanks. and heat seeking missiles is designed to hit that spot.

I believe that Iraqi tank corps tried to overcome such weapons. make a distraction to the missile so it will hit a less vulnerable spot. (i doubt it really works that way. shaped charge can still pierce through the front hull armor with a relative ease and tank crews are likely to get hurt with that hot magnesium jetstreams

The british MkIV looks like a Land Raider.

and MkIV was the earliest tank to have an APC variant.

Yeah, the Land Raider looks almost identical to the Mk-IV. down to not having a turret but having only sponson and hull mounts.


There is an advantage to that method of weaponry mounting, lower profile. the Turret is always going to be a weak spot on tanks. without it, the tank can have more unbroken armor plating.

While that is very true...I would still rather have a turret 100 out of 100 times than have a Mk4 style vehicle.

Kroothawk wrote:If you look at the main gun of the Leman Russ, I'd say a modern battleship is the equivalent.

the official GW leman russ profile said that its main gun is 120mm, i believe it's GW tabletop scale that makes it looks like its main gun is naval gun.

GW scale is a bit cartoonish. but still maintain its playability.

=^.^=

From what I read about the Leman Russ it is originally design as a heavy breakthrough tank. Similar to Char B1, Tiger I and IS-2. It carries a gun that can defeat most AFVs while able to fire HE against infantry.

if you say 'breakthrough tank' then how well the standard variant Leman Russ performs with fortifications?

Tiger is vanquisher for me. Tiger's 88mm main gun do kill tanks from a very long distance and with frontal hit. Vanquisher is expected to do the same feat

if compare Leman Russ with WW2 armor. it should be close to Panzer 4G or Sherman.. both armed with 75mm main gun. except that one mounted on Pz4G uses bottleneck cartridge and having a reasonably long barrel. while Sherman 's main gun uses straight cartridge. and have a relatively short barrel.
But we should compare Leman Russ with modern armor. it should be some way around T55/T65 or Patton series (both using 100mm and 105mm main gun, respectlively...) . it's more medium tank to me. remember there's still heavier armor that's not yet classified as super heavy.. but i'm not sure which? Malcador or Macharius?

Lone Cat wrote:if you say 'breakthrough tank' then how well the standard variant Leman Russ performs with fortifications?

Tiger is vanquisher for me. Tiger's 88mm main gun do kill tanks from a very long distance and with frontal hit. Vanquisher is expected to do the same feat

They do reasonably well enough, of course, there are more specialized version of Russ variants that are better at that task (Eradicator, Demolisher)
Vanquisher is a Panther, Tigers was design as a breakthrough tank, Panther was design to destroy other tanks.