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.

As has been noted, the main thing to remember about the Leman Russ and its ilk are that they are NOT MBTs, they are tractors with guns on them.

Most IoM vehicles are based off a LEGO philosophy that was the core of the STC system. Everything runs everywhere, run on anything, and can be easily combined. That is also why they are still using riveted, or at least bolted armor. The armor panel itself wasn't designed as "Leman Russ" armor, anymore than a 2x4 lego piece is designed to be a house support.

It is the same with most weaponry, like las cannons. It isn't designed to go on any given tank, it can be placed on ANY STC mount of the proper type.

For the Imperium the Leman Russ is a great tank. No it isn't the most survivable, optimal design. That isn't its purpose. It doesn't operate alone, its not valuable, the lives of its crew are not valuable (this is a big point). It is simply a platform for guns used by a society scavenging for tech they don't understand.

It's cheap to produce.
But it runs anywhere and on anything.
It's cheap to produce.
It is much easier to maintain than actual, specialized battle tanks.
It's cheap to produce.

So the IG gets LOTS of easily maintainable, durable, throw-away vehicles. And that is usually what they want. It perfectly fits the IGs modus operandi, even though it wouldn't fit our own.

But there is another scenario to consider. Imagine you are in a mad-max/fallout style situation. You have little to no technical training, no supply line. Would you rather have a modern MBT or a Leman Russ? I'd choose the Leman Russ every time. Sure it might not perform as well as a specialized battle tank, but it will always perform, and I can fix it on my own. And often that is the exact situation the Imperium is in.

Now I'm not saying it is the most optimal design. I'm sure dark age humans could have devised a battle tank that had the durability, ease of manufacture, and ease of use of the Leman Russ but that was actually designed for war. But they didn't (or at least the IoM doesn't have the plans). That wasn't how they approached warfare.

So the IoM does the best with what they have. And what they have works pretty well for how they operate.

The Leman Russ isn't meant to be a state of the art well designed tank. It's just what the Imperium has.

EmilCrane wrote:As an amateur student of armored warfare this has been bugging me for a very long time now.

The leman russ is possibly one of the worst designed AFV's I've ever seen.

Its incredibly high, meaning it would be quite difficult to go hull down in it. The sides are flat and huge, you would hardly bounce anyhting. Gun depression would be awful due to the location of the hull mount. The turret is tiny, barely looks like it would fit the commander. Tracks also are too thin, meaning poor cross country performance. To top it all off, there's too much "stuff" on the hull front, leading to shot traps.

So, how in gods name did anyone think this was a good design?

And yet that tank is more then capable to blast into bits Necron, Eldar and Tau vehicles that are more tough and more advanced then our own MBT's.
Reality with logic and 40k don't go together occasionally.

Brother Coa wrote:

EmilCrane wrote:As an amateur student of armored warfare this has been bugging me for a very long time now.

The leman russ is possibly one of the worst designed AFV's I've ever seen.

Its incredibly high, meaning it would be quite difficult to go hull down in it. The sides are flat and huge, you would hardly bounce anyhting. Gun depression would be awful due to the location of the hull mount. The turret is tiny, barely looks like it would fit the commander. Tracks also are too thin, meaning poor cross country performance. To top it all off, there's too much "stuff" on the hull front, leading to shot traps.

So, how in gods name did anyone think this was a good design?

And yet that tank is more then capable to blast into bits Necron, Eldar and Tau vehicles that are more tough and more advanced then our own MBT's.
Reality with logic and 40k don't go together occasionally.

It has big guns. This has nothing to do with vehicle design, and is purely a matter of weaponry.

In the fluff IG vehicles don't usually do so well against Necron and Eldar vehicles. On tabletop eve grots and guardsman have a not inconsequential chance of taking down SM Chapter Masters and demon princes. It has to be that way for the tabletop game to work at all.

The fluff is 'usually' a bit more consistent. Usually.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Soladrin wrote:
It has big guns. This has nothing to do with vehicle design, and is purely a matter of weaponry.

And this. As I mentioned before, the LR is just a platform for the IGs lego style weaponry system.

The Imperial Guard does not need, and indeed does not WANT, the highest-quality equipment they can find. What they want is equipment they can drag all over the universe, maltreat horrifically, throw into brutal firefights over and over, and be confident that it will function in practically any environment and be easy to fix when (not if) it breaks down.

The Leman Russ fulfills all of those requirements admirably. We honestly can't say anything about how durable it is or how powerful its weapons are, because we don't know how advanced materials science is in the 40k universe; but, at least relative to what it fights, the Leman Russ is slow but tough, powerful and long-lasting. It has a higher profile than a modern MBT, yes, but those high treads also (assuming a powerful enough engine) allow it to traverse steep slopes, particularly since it's also slightly lighter and wider than modern tanks. They also allow it to mount two heavy weapons on the front chassis instead of one.

It also has a number of HIGHLY valuable advantages. It's essentially the lasgun of armored vehicles; cheap, easy to make, works anywhere. You can run a Leman Russ's engine off anything from highly refined fuel to logs of wood. It's extremely modular, meaning you can adapt it rapidly to the specific conditions of whatever planet it needs to fight on. It has basic, time-proven weaponry that functions effectively under nearly all circumstances. It has integral life support systems, which indicates that when buttoned up it is airtight; you could drive a Leman Russ through clouds of poison gas or across the surface of an airless moon, and it would still work just fine.

The problem with these arguments in defense of the LR's design is that they either regurgitate existing fluff like the fluff itself is anything but something writers need to make their narrative make sense/look cool(as opposed to observations made about a real-life simulation of 40k), or they ignore the obvious flaws in the design of the vehicle and espouse some other trait, as if the two things are mutually exclusive(wouldn't it make more sense if the LR were [all those kick-ass things] AND had a sensible/more effective design?).

BeRzErKeR wrote:The Imperial Guard does not need, and indeed does not WANT, the highest-quality equipment they can find. What they want is equipment they can drag all over the universe, maltreat horrifically, throw into brutal firefights over and over, and be confident that it will function in practically any environment and be easy to fix when (not if) it breaks down.

The Leman Russ fulfills all of those requirements admirably. We honestly can't say anything about how durable it is or how powerful its weapons are, because we don't know how advanced materials science is in the 40k universe; but, at least relative to what it fights, the Leman Russ is slow but tough, powerful and long-lasting. It has a higher profile than a modern MBT, yes, but those high treads also (assuming a powerful enough engine) allow it to traverse steep slopes, particularly since it's also slightly lighter and wider than modern tanks. They also allow it to mount two heavy weapons on the front chassis instead of one.

It also has a number of HIGHLY valuable advantages. It's essentially the lasgun of armored vehicles; cheap, easy to make, works anywhere. You can run a Leman Russ's engine off anything from highly refined fuel to logs of wood. It's extremely modular, meaning you can adapt it rapidly to the specific conditions of whatever planet it needs to fight on. It has basic, time-proven weaponry that functions effectively under nearly all circumstances. It has integral life support systems, which indicates that when buttoned up it is airtight; you could drive a Leman Russ through clouds of poison gas or across the surface of an airless moon, and it would still work just fine.

And so say all of us!
Those that are whinging about the LRBT just wish they had some thing as cool and as awesome that has proven itself on thousands of worlds and millions of battles.
By the way I think is the Rino that was a tractor refitted and the LRBT has alwas been a tank, it was used in the grate crusade remember and tech back then wasn't as lost as it is now.

How is the turret too small?

Its about the same size as a 1/35 scale t-34 turret, and 1/35 scale is much bigger than the 28mm scale of the russ. and the t-34 fits two people not just one.

Ribon Fox wrote:

And so say all of us!
Those that are whinging about the LRBT just wish they had some thing as cool and as awesome that has proven itself on thousands of worlds and millions of battles.
By the way I think is the Rino that was a tractor refitted and the LRBT has alwas been a tank, it was used in the grate crusade remember and tech back then wasn't as lost as it is now.

Thousands of fake worlds, and millions of made-up battles.

By that logic, here, look at this rock. It is become Death, destroyer of worlds. A mere squeeze of the rock can massacre armies. A light toss can destroy worlds. If I were to break it, all of creation would cease to be, or have been, or will be.

Because that's the way I fething wrote it.

Ronin-Sage wrote:The problem with these arguments in defense of the LR's design is that they either regurgitate existing fluff like the fluff itself is anything but something writers need to make their narrative make sense/look cool(as opposed to observations made about a real-life simulation of 40k), or they ignore the obvious flaws in the design of the vehicle and espouse some other trait, as if the two things are mutually exclusive(wouldn't it make more sense if the LR were [all those kick-ass things] AND had a sensible/more effective design?).

Well...yes, GW is a miniature company, and the fluff merely exists to sell mini's. But you are on a fluff board, in a discussion about the fluff, and saying that fluff justifications shouldn't be brought into it? Doesn't that seem silly? We're here to discuss the fluff. Of course we are going to bring up the fluff.

And no one said they were mutually exclusive. No one is claiming the LR is the epitome of tank design, or even that it is GOOD tank design. We are pointing out that, from a fluff perspective, it is NOT a tank design. It's a tractor with guns strapped to it.

We are also pointing out that, while those flaws in design are indeed flaws, they just don't matter that much from an Imperial perspective. The tank continues to be used because survivability is not something the IG cares about, ease of manufacture and maintenance is.

But, really, of course we are going to bring up the fluff explanations for why it is used. This is a fluff board about the fluff of a game. Not sure how pointing that out is an argument.

Ronin-Sage wrote:The problem with these arguments in defense of the LR's design is that they either regurgitate existing fluff like the fluff itself is anything but something writers need to make their narrative make sense/look cool(as opposed to observations made about a real-life simulation of 40k), or they ignore the obvious flaws in the design of the vehicle and espouse some other trait, as if the two things are mutually exclusive(wouldn't it make more sense if the LR were [all those kick-ass things] AND had a sensible/more effective design?).

The problem is that adding a bunch of kick-ass things into a vehicle increases the production cost, makes it more likely to break down, and makes maintenance more expensive and difficult. The fact that the Leman Russ is how it is, and that it's been as successful as it has been for the Imperium, clearly indicates that there is SOMETHING which, in their eyes, compensates for the problems; and no, "they're religious nutjobs" is not (at least to me) a sufficient reason. The Imperium is hard-pressed on all fronts and constantly strapped for resources; if it were possible to make the Leman Russ more efficient even by a tiny, tiny amount, the benefits of doing so would be so massive as to make it practically treasonous NOT to do so. Furthermore, the Mechanicus fetishizes efficiency, and would leap at the chance to improve it.

The conclusion I draw is that the Imperium confronted the typical design triangle; you can make it good, fast, or cheap, pick two. And given their situation, they chose fast and cheap, accepting some compromises in quality in the interests of fielding masses of tanks which are 'good enough' rather than a few tanks that are super-awesome.

infinite_array wrote:
Thousands of fake worlds, and millions of made-up battles.

By that logic, here, look at this rock. It is become Death, destroyer of worlds. A mere squeeze of the rock can massacre armies. A light toss can destroy worlds. If I were to break it, all of creation would cease to be, or have been, or will be.

Because that's the way I fething wrote it.

Uh, yes. And if we were talking about your fluff, that rock would be pretty impressive. And if we cared we would be discussing how that could be, and the implications, and history, etc.

And someone would bring up, "but I don't think that makes sense". And if we cared we would discuss if it did or not. And if you hadn't justified it well enough people would largely agree, "no that doesn't make sense". And if it was poorly justified than you wouldn't have any fans and no one would be discussing it. That is how fiction works, so congradulation on recognizing that.

GW did the same thing, wrote about the LR tank, and the discussion is being had, is there justification for it, and is it good enough. For many the answer is yes, and they are discussing why. They have some good points, so it is a compelling discussion.

But recognizing how fiction and the discussion of fictional universes works and giving an example of how to do it badly does not constitute an argument against the Leman Russ tank and it's utility and practicality within 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

BeRzErKeR wrote:
The conclusion I draw is that the Imperium confronted the typical design triangle; you can make it good, fast, or cheap, pick two. And given their situation, they chose fast and cheap, accepting some compromises in quality in the interests of fielding masses of tanks which are 'good enough' rather than a few tanks that are super-awesome.

I have to chime in here, this isn't strictly true in this circumstance, and doesn't address the OP's argument. Certain design decisions really don't require any sacrifice (or at least any meaningful sacrifice). The Leman Russ IS a poorly designed tank (because it wasn't designed as a tank). It COULD have all the features it currently has AND good design. There isn't always a tradeoff. Some changes are just good changes.

The problem being, of course, that the Imperium DIDN'T design the LR, and is incapable of designing a new, better model. So the Leman Russ gets used, because of the choices they had, it best suited their needs, and continues to do so.

Again, improvements could be made on the design without negatively impacting it's ease of manufacture or durability. The Imperium is just incapable of doing so.

Ronin-Sage wrote:The problem with these arguments in defense of the LR's design is that they either regurgitate existing fluff like the fluff itself is anything but something writers need to make their narrative make sense/look cool(as opposed to observations made about a real-life simulation of 40k), or they ignore the obvious flaws in the design of the vehicle and espouse some other trait, as if the two things are mutually exclusive(wouldn't it make more sense if the LR were [all those kick-ass things] AND had a sensible/more effective design?).

Did you miss the part where people admitted it's not a great design but that it does what it is made for? And not to forget, if all the IoM's designs were perfect, all of 40k would unravel and the whole point of this universe would be gone.

This is the problem with wanting realistic designs from a sci-fi universe. Yeah, you could make it better, but it would completely break everything the universe is based on.

Blacksails wrote:Leman Russ Battle Tank is protected by grimdark. That is all.

Pretty much.

Thunderhawks wouldn't fly. Dreadnoughts wouldn't be able to negotiate difficult terrain or slopes. Nothing Ork would work period, especially given their apparent complete lack of infrastructure for producing fuel and the near ubiquitous use of internal combustion engines. Numerous laws of physics work against the concept of the Tyranids. Kinda have to just assume the universe isn't meant to be taken 100% seriously, and sorta suspend your disbelief in some sectors.

TedNugent wrote:I always thought the silliest thing about the Leman Russ design is that it uses riveted armor in the 41st millenium. For reference, most first-rate military powers started using welded steel in World War 2.

But, whatever, it's flavor, and like another poster mentioned, it's basically stylized after a World War I-era British tank. By contrast, the Baneblade looks much more modern, with its squatter frame and angled front glacis. It's just art. It doesn't have to make sense, I guess.

But then, we're not considering all the variables, and don't even know all of them.

For example, if the Leman Russ STC is designed to be constructed out of anything, on worlds that potentially have a lower grade of technology, then the riveted design would be more practical for a greater number of materials and a greater number of tech levels. Any planet with a blacksmith could build something that requires only sheet metals and bolts/nails/rivets, but not if the design only worked with weldable materials, or a population capable of welding.

Another example - in todays armies, protecting the crew is the most important factor. In the Imperium, it's largely irrelevant. All the crew could die to the first shot that penetrates the side, but if you can easily take that side off and 'bolt on' a new one and throw five more crew in, who cares? As long as it's possible to do it quickly in ANY situation, it's good....

Well, good luck making the engine if your civilization can't even weld.

Soladrin wrote:Well, good luck making the engine if your civilization can't even weld.

But you don't necessarily have to be able to make an engine. You can make "Armor Plate type XIIV" which is useful in any number of circumstances, and eventually when you CAN make engines you already have a bunch of "Armor Plate type XIIV" and the capacity to make more. That is how Dark Age tech worked. You could start at stone age tech and, using your handy STC, advance all the way to space age tech with no wasted effort along the way.

And if the IG is fighting on your feudal work they can use your "Armor Plate type XIIV" which your blacksmiths can currently produce to repair their vehicles. Or if a feudal world has to pay a tithe it can tithe "Armor Plate type XIIV" which can then be used on any number of other, higher tech worlds.

In 40k everything is lego tech.

Oh I agree there. I was just saying, they won't be making tanks.

If the lemun russ is a tractor with guns, then what is a malacador (or whatever its called...that tank that was in IA Badab War on the renagade's side)?

infinite_array wrote:

Ribon Fox wrote:

And so say all of us!
Those that are whinging about the LRBT just wish they had some thing as cool and as awesome that has proven itself on thousands of worlds and millions of battles.
By the way I think is the Rino that was a tractor refitted and the LRBT has alwas been a tank, it was used in the grate crusade remember and tech back then wasn't as lost as it is now.

Thousands of fake worlds, and millions of made-up battles.

By that logic, here, look at this rock. It is become Death, destroyer of worlds. A mere squeeze of the rock can massacre armies. A light toss can destroy worlds. If I were to break it, all of creation would cease to be, or have been, or will be.

Because that's the way I fething wrote it.

This.

We aren't told, but from the fluff it is an older, inferior design than the LR, heavier and with an unreliable engine.

So if i were to theorize...

My guess would be due to it's similarities to the LR and other STC tractor platforms it was pieced together from various existing STC tractor technologies and existing non-STC technologies by the Ad Mech. When the LR STC was discovered it was quickly phased out.

That's just guessing, obviously, since we are not told outright.

riplikash wrote:
GW did the same thing, wrote about the LR tank, and the discussion is being had, is there justification for it, and is it good enough. For many the answer is yes, and they are discussing why. They have some good points, so it is a compelling discussion.

The problem I have is that all of the 'justification' so far essentially boils down to 'because it was written that way'.

The LR is poorly designed.
'No, cause look at the fluff, it isn't'.

It wouldn't be feasible on the battlefield.
'It is, look at the the battles it's been in.'

Its engine makes no sense.
'Yes it does, they wrote that it does right here.'

As others have said, and I agree with them, the LR trundles forward by the twin powers of the rule of cool and grimdark.

The Russ is rather representative of the Imperium; it's backwards in it's design, as OP pointed out, as is most the Imperium, kept working no doubt by faith and faith alone. Besides, it looks cool.

Rule of cool is now in effect.

infinite_array wrote:

riplikash wrote:
GW did the same thing, wrote about the LR tank, and the discussion is being had, is there justification for it, and is it good enough. For many the answer is yes, and they are discussing why. They have some good points, so it is a compelling discussion.

The problem I have is that all of the 'justification' so far essentially boils down to 'because it was written that way'.

Firstly, you can say that about any discussion about why things are done the way they are in fiction, but then why bother getting involved in the discussion?

Secondly, no they don't, at least beyond the obvious "every discussion about 40k boils down to 'because it was written that way'". They boil down to, "due to the values of the faction, the established history of the faction, and their methods of warfare, the LR tank is has an internally consistent justification for it's design. While it is a sub-optimal design for a battle tank, it's success and continued use within the IG makes sense within the framework it is presented".

Let me put it another way. Let's pretend the real world is fictional. We could start discussing real world weapons with sub-optimal designs that see continued use, the AK-47 is a great example.

One might bring up it is so inaccurate you can't reliably hit a man sized target from 100 yards, has crappy iron sites, and any number of other complains, saying it isn't realistic.

When discussing their continued use I might defend the AK47 by saying ease of manufacture, reliability, maintainability, ease of use, and volume of fire are more important to it's user base than accuracy, peak performance, and other high end features. It would make an interesting debate, and justify the existence of the AK's use in "warhammer 2k".

And you would then argue "your just using fluff to justify its poor design.

And I would say, "why, yes, I am. I thought we were discussing fluff, and it's justification, and if it makes sense within the context".

And you would then reply "yeah, but my problem is all of your justifications just boil down to 'because they wrote it that way'".

And I would say you are being silly. We are discussing what they wrote and if it makes sense and why.

The end.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
You are also misrepresenting your opponents:

The LR is poorly designed.
'No, cause look at the fluff, it isn't'.

No, we agreed it was a poorly designed MBT, and gave in universe justifications for why this was, and it's continued use.

It wouldn't be feasible on the battlefield.
'It is, look at the the battles it's been in.'

Again, no. It IS feasable within the IG's military paradigm. It shoots guns, and that is fine. It isn't survivable due to poor design, they just don't care. It's like an AK47: cheap, reliable, puts rounds down range.

How are they not feasible?

Its engine makes no sense.
'Yes it does, they wrote that it does right here.'

What? Who said any of this? How do their engines not make sense?

I mean, yeah, if your argument against sci-fi tech is "no it wouldn't work" then the appropriate response is "yes, but it does work". That's just sci-fi for you. When it comes to borderline magical tech...well you just kind of have to accept it. You can discuss the implications, but it's pretty silly to discuss it's existence. Sci-fi, beyond the very hardest, near future stories, is always based on what would currently be impossible tech.

Though I don't see how you would argue an engine that runs on most any sort of stored calorie makes no sense in a sci-fi setting.

It's not even that cool a design. I mean when John Blanche draws it sure...



But in the 'flesh'?



i kind of wish GW had redesigned it for the last codex, got totally over the top with gothic nonsense and stop pretending it's a credible tank.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

riplikash wrote:As has been noted, the main thing to remember about the Leman Russ and its ilk are that they are NOT MBTs, they are tractors with guns on them.

Most IoM vehicles are based off a LEGO philosophy that was the core of the STC system. Everything runs everywhere, run on anything, and can be easily combined. That is also why they are still using riveted, or at least bolted armor. The armor panel itself wasn't designed as "Leman Russ" armor, anymore than a 2x4 lego piece is designed to be a house support.

It is the same with most weaponry, like las cannons. It isn't designed to go on any given tank, it can be placed on ANY STC mount of the proper type.

For the Imperium the Leman Russ is a great tank. No it isn't the most survivable, optimal design. That isn't its purpose. It doesn't operate alone, its not valuable, the lives of its crew are not valuable (this is a big point). It is simply a platform for guns used by a society scavenging for tech they don't understand.

It's cheap to produce.
But it runs anywhere and on anything.
It's cheap to produce.
It is much easier to maintain than actual, specialized battle tanks.
It's cheap to produce.

So the IG gets LOTS of easily maintainable, durable, throw-away vehicles. And that is usually what they want. It perfectly fits the IGs modus operandi, even though it wouldn't fit our own.

But there is another scenario to consider. Imagine you are in a mad-max/fallout style situation. You have little to no technical training, no supply line. Would you rather have a modern MBT or a Leman Russ? I'd choose the Leman Russ every time. Sure it might not perform as well as a specialized battle tank, but it will always perform, and I can fix it on my own. And often that is the exact situation the Imperium is in.

Now I'm not saying it is the most optimal design. I'm sure dark age humans could have devised a battle tank that had the durability, ease of manufacture, and ease of use of the Leman Russ but that was actually designed for war. But they didn't (or at least the IoM doesn't have the plans). That wasn't how they approached warfare.

So the IoM does the best with what they have. And what they have works pretty well for how they operate.

All good analysis but not really supported by the rules where the Russ is has the best front armor possible in the game.

If I was rewriting 40k from the ground up I would make Russes AV13 and cheaper, reserve 14 for high-tech composites like the Land Raider. Chimeras would go down to 11, Rhinos up to AV12.

As everyone knows, rules != fluff. In the fluff a LR is not the equivalent in armor to a monolith.

EmilCrane wrote: The sides are flat and huge

Cheaper to manufacturer models I guess.

Kid_Kyoto wrote:It's not even that cool a design. I mean when John Blanche draws it sure...

No. John Blanche's piss-poor quality drawings are not better tahn the model.

Frankly, I honestly believe that if I put my mind to it I could do a better job than he did on that particular piece of art. And I'm not even a dedicated artist.

It looks like something a high schooler lazily doodled during class while ignoring the teacher, not someething put out by a professional artist.

Not that I really expect anything more from Blanche, but still.