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.

Meowwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwwww

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/237976.page

There were already a discussion about Leman Russ, some doesn't satisfy with its iconic designs. believing this piece of armor to be useless and need a makeover. Others claimed that it was based on STC (as pretty much every hi-tech gadgets the Imperium has, Bolter is an exception because it didn't appear until just after the Emperor united the Terra.) as Land Raider does. Some goes as far as saying that Leman Russ is purely Mk. 4 with turrets and hi-tech weaponry mounted. its tracks are "dead" tracks, not "live" tracks like those of newer tanks)

For me.
1. I don't think that Leman Russ is STC (or if anyone say it really is.) vehicle. While a heavier Baneblade is (or might be) based on STC print-outs. Malcador (which also a super heavy) is said to be more archaic than even the Baneblade (which, by the time before Malcador was released, this was the oldest designs). I'm not sure when was the first Leman Russ tank make a debut appearance. and how does this tank got a name from Space Wolves primarch (whose the current status is "missing"). ... if the Primarch was once taken command of an IG (or IA) formations. http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Leman_Russ_%28primarch%29#Quotations was this the events that the first Tank also appears?

I don't think that Leman Russ designed these things himself, and nor Malcador an STC designs. Admech should have been designing this vehicle sometimes (as well as the "Normal" power armor Space Marines wear, this technology is purely designed from scratch ) and so should Leman Russ (and later- Chimaera) be designed when Admech realized the shortcomings of Malcador (Engine instability, limited field of fire for main guns, massive size reduced its usefullness in urban warfare, etc..), and the success of both Baneblade and Land Raider. At that time I believe that the compact kins were not even exists at that time. but for the reasons Admech designed Leman Russ with sponsons and a tall sillhouette was because of the Imperial tactical beilefs at that time. citing that a tank is EITHER a mobile fortress OR a siege engine. while believing that tank VS tank battles were rare... but I don't understand why Admech choose rhomboid track designs like what Land Raider uses? maybe Admech might evaluated that Land Raider has better suspension technology than the Blade (there was a cutaway picture of Land Raider, revealing its suspension systems under the fully enclosed bogie plate.)

2. GW confirmed that Leman Russ is ease-of-construction (likes the successful Sherman and T-34 series). and ease of duplication. making this the most common battle tank in the Imperium.... this notions however, came to another contradictions.
in Epic Armageddon, there were another products labelled under Imperial Guard range. these products were marketed as "an alternative IG armours" (while Russ, Chimaera, Basilisks, and Sentinels are 'common' IG armours and materiel) among those products were... Ragnarok tank.



The backstory said that this piece of armour was developed DURING Kreigsche civil war by the Loyalists (Col. Jurten and co.), the reasons of such design was becauase of the war itself had crippled much of the Kriegsche's industry, as well as the good ol' Russ MBT fell in battle in a very very large numbers. for the loyalists to reclaim their world (and contribute it to the Emperor's hand), they need simpler AFVs, even easier to build under available resources, thus this design decision gave birth to the Ragnarok tank, which marketed as "simpler than Leman Russ".

This indicated that even Leman russ still have some construction complexities .I believe that the complexity is the suspension system, in Imperial Armour book 1 (one of my friends in Thailand shown me one =^.^= ), there was a cutaway picture of Leman Russ and Chimaera, both revealed that both tanks have springs in their suspension systems. for Chimaera it looked like Sherman, for Russ it looks closer to either train bogie or early British 1920s tank designs



i mean, look at the tubes on its bogie =^.^=

However, if judging from its appearance, the tank uses "Active" suspension systems. in order for its roadwheels to work, the idler must also be able to move vertically (in some limited arc, to keep it functions.) i'm not sure if the vertical-moving roadwheel tracks ever existed. but look.



One picture worths countless words. FT-17 suspension system is easy to figure out, but hard to explain, judging from the pic, the idlers move up and down along with roadwheels. for me both Chimaera and Leman Russ do have hydraulics "hoppers" and the similar idler concepts FT-17 has (while in later tanks, the idlers are usually fixed into the position)

meh. more to come, about Leman Russ discussion. i'm tired for today


=^.^=

Lone Cat wrote: Others claimed that it was based on STC (as pretty much every hi-tech gadgets the Imperium has, Bolter is an exception because it didn't appear until just after the Emperor united the Terra.) as Land Raider does.

Why would the Bolter be an exception, a vast amount of STC's where not found until after the Emperor left Terra. Nearly all technology is based off of STC including rhino/leman russ/land raider and their variants.

OK. there were an official background saying that pre-Imperium human spacefaring settlers uses Rh1 N0 vehicle as military vehicle. (i'm not sure if there were TD using Rh1 N0 chasis exists before the rise if the Imperium)

I've forgot about Arkhan Land's 1st and 2nd expedition. when was it took place? before or after the Emperor ascent to the space?
Arkhan Land played a key role on STC quests, but i'm not sure IF he was the first to propose how important STCs are. for now... three technologies were named after him
- Land Speeder
- Land Raider
- Land Crawler

http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Rhino#Origins

the Leman Russ MBT page in Lexicanum doesn't even says that the tank is based on STC. or if there are any evidence regarding to this.

If Leman Russ was based on STCs designs. i've saw some dudes sayin' that the tank itself was based on agricultural tractors. which I don't believe in this hypothesis once GW released another EPIC ARMAGEDDON products. Siegfried tankette and another field gun (i've forgot its name) with its tractor unit. the marketing backstory said that both of which were based on Land Crawler. which is an STC agricultural tractor.

Page 282 of the 3rd edition 40k rulebook says it is a STC designed tank.

rare items now.

Thanks alot

now let's talk about design phillosophy/concepts.

on backstory. the tank itself is more or less the 20s design. but I'm not quite sure when was the last time sponson mounts were used altogether with "shotgun seat" MG mount and a rooftop turret. but possibly such concepts were of Vickers design but can't remember which.

And about its main gun. Does battlecannon an autoloading weapon likes Autocannon (or like ones featured in soviet M72), or manual loading like ones in a modern M1 abrams.

and can anyone give Russ a size comparision to Sherman, Chaffee, Panzer3, M41 Walker Bulldog, M113, and Hummer please.

The battle cannon is a gyro stabilized 120mm smooth bore manual loaded weapon. Auto loaders would be too fiddly for the imperials to mass produce.

As for size think MBT size, as it weighs as much as an abrams (61 tons I believe)

Lone Cat wrote:
And about its main gun. Does battlecannon an autoloading weapon likes Autocannon (or like ones featured in soviet M72), or manual loading like ones in a modern M1 abrams.

A Battle cannon is not an auto-loading weapon. Its shells are too big and heavy to be manipulated by an auto-loading system small enough to be fitted in a LRBT turret. In addition, auti-loading systems are complex and expensive to produce, thus, only the elite forces of the imperium have access to them (SM, who use autoloaders on predators, or the Legio Titanicus, which uses extremely complex autoloading systems on all its titans).

As a result, a LRBT requires a loader to function properly.

and can anyone give Russ a size comparision to Sherman, Chaffee, Panzer3, M41 Walker Bulldog, M113, and Hummer please.

I scanned this image from my IA vol 1 book. It gives a pretty good impression of the size of the tank.

As for the question whether or not the LRBT comes from an STC design, I would say no. The LRBT comes from a relatively recent design (it was created during the last days of the HH/early Great Scouring IIRC). I have never read anything saying that it used parts of a more ancient STC or was based on a complete STC either. Most of its variants (vanquisher, exterminator) don't come from a STC either.

The biggest problem with the Leman Russ's design to my eye is as follows.

1) Being designed like a WWI tank, it has no suspension. It should be able to navigate fairly well, but the ride will be bumpy (reducing accuracy at speed), and steeper/larger obstacles that a more traditional tank suspension would be able to deal with fairly easily.

2) It is very, very tall. Look at the picture uploaded, the Leman is easily twice the height of the man with the turret, and the main hull is at least a couple of heads taller than him. Assuming he is about six feet tall, that means that the turret is about 12 feet off the ground, and the main hull goes up to about 8 feet. What this means is that the Leman represents a fairly large target at range, espescially compared to modern tanks (the M1A1 stands 8 feet tall, and the T-90 about 7 feet).

More importantly, it's sides are big flat targets, and the tracks are completely exposed to enemy fire. NOt to mention the front which is just at tall, and has a very limited amount of sloping.

3) From the design of the turret, it's unlikely that it'll be getting very good gundepression. This means that when adopting hull down positions, the tank will have to sit mor exposed than a smaller vehicle.

The Leman Russ basically has to work as rule of cool. Barring the existence of extremely advanced armor (which the Imperium seems to have), the Leman Russ would lose in a one on one fight with a vehicle like a T-90 or M1A1. It's simply too big a target.

I mean, compare the Leman Russ's profile.



To the T-90s



Notice how the T-90 is a much flatter target, and its sides are relatively short. The Leman Russ is simply a much bigger target that flies in the face of modern tank design.

My friends theorized that the impeirum has the armour technology to basically say screw your conventional low set design and make a tank that is inspiring. In addition to that during the Yom Kippur war it was proven that in defensive actions a high set tank was better as it could fire over a berm without exposing itself.

EmilCrane wrote:My friends theorized that the impeirum has the armour technology to basically say screw your conventional low set design and make a tank that is inspiring.

WHich I considered. It's possible that Imperial armor is so much better than what we have today that they can have that design.

In addition to that during the Yom Kippur war it was proven that in defensive actions a high set tank was better as it could fire over a berm without exposing itself.

The much more important factor is barrel depression. You want a barrel that can depress more so you have much less of your tank sticking overhead. Indeed, you're right that a high set tank is slightly better in this regard. However, the Leman Russ takes it much too far.



As you can see, even the extra foot that the Abrams has on the T-90 is able to grant it a much better hull down position. You don't need tanks 12 feet high to do that.

ChrisWWII wrote:

As you can see, even the extra foot that the Abrams has on the T-90 is able to grant it a much better hull down position. You don't need tanks 12 feet high to do that.

I suppose if you had a really tall berm or hull down position...

Nah, its just asthetics mostly


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Though, from simply 70 or so years of differing tank design philosophy the russians and NATO produce tanks that are fairly different. Mostly in size, weight, size of the gun, auot loader vs manual etc. Imagine what 40 000 years of completely different military thinking has done to conventional tank design.

EmilCrane wrote:

I suppose if you had a really tall berm or hull down position...

Nah, its just asthetics mostly

Oh I agree. I love the Leman Russ design, it's part of the reason I run an Armoured Company.

The problem is that the Leman RUss is not a well designed tank. It's a cool looking tank, but then again....so was the P.1000 Ratte.

ChrisWWII wrote:

EmilCrane wrote:

I suppose if you had a really tall berm or hull down position...

Nah, its just asthetics mostly

Oh I agree. I love the Leman Russ design, it's part of the reason I run an Armoured Company.

The problem is that the Leman RUss is not a well designed tank. It's a cool looking tank, but then again....so was the P.1000 Ratte.

At least they fixed the god awful turret design on the old russes that couldn't even fit a gunner and loader much less commander and the actual gun

EmilCrane wrote:
Though, from simply 70 or so years of differing tank design philosophy the russians and NATO produce tanks that are fairly different. Mostly in size, weight, size of the gun, auot loader vs manual etc. Imagine what 40 000 years of completely different military thinking has done to conventional tank design.

The difference between Soviet and NATO tank design is simple.

Soviet tanks were meant for offensive operations. The low body mean that the tank will be a smaller target when its advancing, and for that low hull, it trades off its ability to adopt a better hull down position. They also sacrificed side and rear armor for tougher front armor, assuming that they'd be advancing, in which case trhey'd need the tougher front armor more so than the side or rear, and even then were less well armored than the equivalent Allied tank. They needed the speed.

NATO tanks were meant for more defensive operations. The higher body meant they were bigger targets while advancing, but they could adopt superior defensive positions. NATO tanks also were more heavily armored, and more mechanically reliable. If your tank breaks down while your attacking...well, you hold the field where tank broke down, so you can tow it back later. If your tank breaks down while your defending, then you have to abandon the tank.

The problem is that the Leman Russ is an exagerated amalgation of both ideas, and throws out some basic concepts tha tboth had.

ChrisWWII wrote:
The difference between Soviet and NATO tank design is simple.

Soviet tanks were meant for offensive operations. The low body mean that the tank will be a smaller target when its advancing, and for that low hull, it trades off its ability to adopt a better hull down position. They also sacrificed side and rear armor for tougher front armor, assuming that they'd be advancing, in which case trhey'd need the tougher front armor more so than the side or rear, and even then were less well armored than the equivalent Allied tank. They needed the speed.

NATO tanks were meant for more defensive operations. The higher body meant they were bigger targets while advancing, but they could adopt superior defensive positions. NATO tanks also were more heavily armored, and more mechanically reliable. If your tank breaks down while your attacking...well, you hold the field where tank broke down, so you can tow it back later. If your tank breaks down while your defending, then you have to abandon the tank.

The problem is that the Leman Russ is an exagerated amalgation of both ideas, and throws out some basic concepts tha tboth had.

Yeah, I knew that. Soviet tank design owes everyhting to the T-34, the tank that saved their country (propaganda-ly speaking). Allied tank design owes much more to the panther, m-26 and the centurion.

I get what you're saying. I do agree the russ tank design is bad.

Laodamia wrote:

Lone Cat wrote:
And about its main gun. Does battlecannon an autoloading weapon likes Autocannon (or like ones featured in soviet M72), or manual loading like ones in a modern M1 abrams.

A Battle cannon is not an auto-loading weapon. Its shells are too big and heavy to be manipulated by an auto-loading system small enough to be fitted in a LRBT turret. In addition, auti-loading systems are complex and expensive to produce, thus, only the elite forces of the imperium have access to them (SM, who use autoloaders on predators, or the Legio Titanicus, which uses extremely complex autoloading systems on all its titans).

As a result, a LRBT requires a loader to function properly.

and can anyone give Russ a size comparision to Sherman, Chaffee, Panzer3, M41 Walker Bulldog, M113, and Hummer please.

I scanned this image from my IA vol 1 book. It gives a pretty good impression of the size of the tank.

As for the question whether or not the LRBT comes from an STC design, I would say no. The LRBT comes from a relatively recent design (it was created during the last days of the HH/early Great Scouring IIRC). I have never read anything saying that it used parts of a more ancient STC or was based on a complete STC either. Most of its variants (vanquisher, exterminator) don't come from a STC either.

Again, as I said, the 3rd edition 40k rulebook states that the LRBT does indeed come from STC technology. Why do you think they are so standardized? thats what STC was all about. They actually reference how they went back to an earlier re-discovered STC to improve on the LRBT's they were using. Without doubt, it IS from STC technology.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

Again, as I said, the 3rd edition 40k rulebook states that the LRBT does indeed come from STC technology. Why do you think they are so standardized? thats what STC was all about. They actually reference how they went back to an earlier re-discovered STC to improve on the LRBT's they were using. Without doubt, it IS from STC technology.

Fair enough.

I've done a bit of research, and the only LRBT variant that, in the more recent fluff, is clearly stated to come from an STC is the conqueror (designs rediscovered by the Gryphonne IV forge world in M38), which was apparently used during the Great Crusade but fell out of favor and became obsolete during the HH.

I have some doubts with the executioner. Apparently, this tank saw intensive action during the Great Crusade (possible STC origins?) but is slowly disappearing from the battlefields due the loss of knowledge on the construction of its main weapon (again, STC loss?).

But other variants, like the vanquisher or the exterminator don't come from an STC design.

but assuming they did have the super advanced armor, why would they not continues to design tanks in an efficient way, its like if the US reverted back to WW1 tank design simply because of the invention of CHOBHAM amrour

^ That means Leman Russ MBT.. .as we've known today, was a variation of the STC thingy. if one said that the first Leman Russ MBT as we known made a debut appearance in the closing stage of HH. AND if another said that the Executioner plasma weapon also a common vehicle during the same day as the Conqueror but phased out of service slowly due to "the loss of technology to make and maintain it".... then
1. the original STC designs are Conqueror (hull and gun, possibly a kin to 75 mm weapons in the second World War), and Executioner (main gun).
2. I'm not sure about the Imperial tank warfare mindsets. at the GC. do they have the similar thinking as Brits during 20s-30s ?. Having two difference class of "Medium Tank" serving two difference purpose. the Cruiser Tank for cavalry style combat (Tank VS Tank), rely on speed and AP weapons and sacrifice the armour thickness. The "Infantry Tank" on the other hand. was around the same size, but give up speed in favor of armor (the weapon might be the same =^.^= or a little bit bigger,) i'm not sure if Executioner was intended to be Infantry tank? but the certain thing is. the plasma main gun was a very complex weapon. and by the time of Horus Heresy, remember that among Horus followers, there were (and still are) some Admech priests who swayed by Horus. leading to the incident that quite a many forgeworlds joined Chaos rebellion, while the loyalists forgeworlds were battered, causing Materiel shortage. as much as this had resulted in the Emperor Edict, limiting the Land Raider access to the Space Marines (and newly-founded Inquisition). this might also forced the Imperuim to rethink on weapon designs, if one discovered that there are alternatives that yield similar effects but cheaper, simpler, more reliable, and quicker. why pay more and wait? AP Shells with 120mm cannon may have a little less armour penetration compared to the big plasma executioner gun. but for the common combat situation, there were reports on the success of the 120mm gun using different shells on different enemies. giving that smoothbore tank gun and its ordnances are simpler than a set of plasma weapon of the same size.

This might be the reasons why Leman Russ. as we known, appeared very late compared to Malcador, Land Raider, and the two medium tanks above.

romegamer wrote:but assuming they did have the super advanced armor, why would they not continues to design tanks in an efficient way, its like if the US reverted back to WW1 tank design simply because of the invention of CHOBHAM amrour

Because the Imperium relies on STC tech too much, and the STC said that the hull looks like x, so the damn hull still looks like x.

However, like everything else in 40k, the Leman Russ runs off of 'rule of cool', and that justifies its appearance. TO be honest, I LIKE it's shape...we just need to be mindful that it's actually a HORRIBLE design.

All right, so if we sum things up:

The basic design for the leman russ came from an STC. But many variants were developped later without the use of STC blueprints.

LRBT: Created using STC templates.

conqueror variant: Also based on STC blueprints, saw action during the Great Crusade, design rediscovered in M38.

exterminator variant: Apparently a non STC variant (unconfirmed), saw action during the Great Crusade.

executioner variant: Unconfirmed. Saw action during the Great Crusade, technology slowly being lost (hints of STC designs?).

vanquisher variant: Doesn't come from STC blueprints. Was first developed by the forge world of Tigrus sometime prior to M35. Now being only manufactured by Stygies VIII and an small number of other forge worlds.

annihilator variant: Doesn't come from STC blueprints. Was introduced some times after M36, based on the designs for the predator annihilator.

1. Now. about Annihilator (Leman Russ with a giant gatling gun mounted ??). how well does it performs against flyers (and to some extent, skimmers), and compare its antiair efficiency against Hydra SPAA

2. If one says that LRBT is a copy of STC desgins (but made a debut appearance during the late stage of HH) then.
2.1 Did Leman Russ the Primarch discovered the STC himself? this might be possible because he plays prominent roles in the Great Crusade. he might discovered an STC of a "Main Battle Tank" bonne chance.
2.2 Someone else found that STC prinouts, but Leman Russ the Primarch was also taking command of a formation of IA (He referrd them as IG, while he retold his memoirs to his fellows) and those under his command later got an MBT. later they nicknamed the tank after him. in contrast. his rival. Lion El'Jonson, distasted IA (and later. IG) and so does vice versa. I'm not sure if there's any Imperial weapons named after El'Jonson?
2.3 else (please tell me), like why M4 Medium Tank got the nickname "Sherman"?

1) Being designed like a WWI tank, it has no suspension. It should be able to navigate fairly well, but the ride will be bumpy (reducing accuracy at speed), and steeper/larger obstacles that a more traditional tank suspension would be able to deal with fairly easily.

3. Sayin' that Leman Russ has no suspension system (i.e. dead track) is totally wrong! its esthetic is very first world war YES! but... if you've read (some parts of) an Imperial Armour Vol. 1 (by any chance) you'll see that. inside its track bogie, there are coilsprings mounted DIRECTLY to its roadwheels. it needs some few more systems to make the whole things work. as you've saw Land Raider cutaway diagram (present in GW sites some times ago) the tank also has the similar systems but more advanced and more complex.
in other words. both tanks uses active suspension systems. if in DKoK backstory had a referrence to an alternative tank design that said to be even simpler (but serves similar purpose, being an MBT) which called Ragnarok. look at this.


This is the Kriegsche official designs. roadwheels are visible (well if you don't confuse this design with Dave Taylor's one... which made for Vostroyans) this one could also be a live track. and its suspension system might be either Torsion bar or a set of archaic leaf spring bogies (like PzKfw 4)

L.

Lone Cat wrote:1. Now. about Annihilator (Leman Russ with a giant gatling gun mounted ??). how well does it performs against flyers (and to some extent, skimmers), and compare its antiair efficiency against Hydra SPAA.

Annihilator has TL-lascannons. Pattern that you are looking for is Punisher.

oops.

now compare the AP effect between Annihilator and the standard MBT variant please

=^.^=

Lone Cat wrote:
3. Sayin' that Leman Russ has no suspension system (i.e. dead track) is totally wrong! its esthetic is very first world war YES! but... if you've read (some parts of) an Imperial Armour Vol. 1 (by any chance) you'll see that. inside its track bogie, there are coilsprings mounted DIRECTLY to its roadwheels. it needs some few more systems to make the whole things work. as you've saw Land Raider cutaway diagram (present in GW sites some times ago) the tank also has the similar systems but more advanced and more complex.
in other words. both tanks uses active suspension systems. if in DKoK backstory had a referrence to an alternative tank design that said to be even simpler (but serves similar purpose, being an MBT) which called Ragnarok. look at this.

The problem is that with the design? The way the side panels are, there is no PLACE for the suspension to go to deal with an obstacle. An obstacle that a T-90 or Abrams could just drive over with minimal distruption, the Leman Russ will take a lot harder. That's going to screw up aiming in the tank. Sure, you can put SOMETHING in there for suspension, but a more traditional tread design would serve much better.

I know the Ragnarok, and frankly it strikes me as having a better chassis than the Leman Russ. It's problem is it's giant turret screws up its profile, but its chassis is a better design (except for those damnable high sides). It is likely a much more stable gun platform than the Leman Russ.

IIRc in one of the IA books, The Taros campaign one would assume, the Tau analyse a captured Leman Russ tank and find there is a bewildering array ( over 200 IIRC) mis-used or non functioning features and design elements on the Russ tank. Ones that if the Imperium understood and/or used would improve the tanks performance immeasurably.

ChrisWWII wrote:

Lone Cat wrote:
3. Sayin' that Leman Russ has no suspension system (i.e. dead track) is totally wrong! its esthetic is very first world war YES! but... if you've read (some parts of) an Imperial Armour Vol. 1 (by any chance) you'll see that. inside its track bogie, there are coilsprings mounted DIRECTLY to its roadwheels. it needs some few more systems to make the whole things work. as you've saw Land Raider cutaway diagram (present in GW sites some times ago) the tank also has the similar systems but more advanced and more complex.
in other words. both tanks uses active suspension systems. if in DKoK backstory had a referrence to an alternative tank design that said to be even simpler (but serves similar purpose, being an MBT) which called Ragnarok. look at this.

The problem is that with the design? The way the side panels are, there is no PLACE for the suspension to go to deal with an obstacle. An obstacle that a T-90 or Abrams could just drive over with minimal distruption, the Leman Russ will take a lot harder. That's going to screw up aiming in the tank. Sure, you can put SOMETHING in there for suspension, but a more traditional tread design would serve much better.

I know the Ragnarok, and frankly it strikes me as having a better chassis than the Leman Russ. It's problem is it's giant turret screws up its profile, but its chassis is a better design (except for those damnable high sides). It is likely a much more stable gun platform than the Leman Russ.

Just because there is no place for it doesn't mean it doesn't have it, its got it, the fluff says so

besides no suspension is beyond stupid

Fine, it has it, but the design of the tank says that even if it does have it, it'll be pretty much useless given the way the tracks are built.

ChrisWWII wrote:Fine, it has it, but the design of the tank says that even if it does have it, it'll be pretty much useless given the way the tracks are built.

shhhh, your logic is not needed here

Anyway, tis funny because FW designed tanks (the macharius and baneblade) work, as in the chassis design looks like it would actually be an effective tank, IMHO forge world just design better looking stuff

I believe there IS some systems that will make LRuss suspension work. the spring shaft has to be expanded a little bit and i think that it's quite an automatic system but not digital ones. think of what Citroen cars work.

by the 41st millenium, such systems should be common by then. it requires a littlebit complex technology. while Kriegsche Ragnarok was designed without the need of such technology.

Still. i'm agree on the point that Ragnarok has a better design. except that it has a very big turret like Soviet KV2.

Next. let's go on Sponson and sillhouette issues.

I'm not sure about the battlefield nature during the Imperial days. except that streetfights are quite a common and it IS the bad situation for any battletank. given that many human settlements are designed to be a bane to those tracked steel beasts. any genious commander will deal with armoured formations by avoiding wide-area battles but to lure those into confined space and preferably settlements, then footsloggers will deal with the most vulnerable spot of any MBTs. in this sceario, pintle mounted weapons alone just not quite enough. there should be anti-infantry weapons mounted on each side. but i'm not sure if this feature was also STC thing or developed following what Imperial had been fighting against, or the most successful IA/IG combinations of Infantry formations and AFVs.