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.

The Leman Russ. Reliable. Simplistic. Deadly. Quite possibly the only tank a team of children could operate with minimal training and some steroids to help with lugging shells. However the only issue ive had so far, is placing its real life counterpart, with one tank instantly coming to mind

----------> T-34 is the first that sprange to mind, its mass produced like mad, has decent sloped armour (though cant take a full on barrage of high calibre rounds), and was feared / respected by its enemies / allies.

The Question is whether it resembles the Leman Russ specifically, or whether there is a better RL counter-part to the IG's Hammer that fits in other minds (all suggestions are welcome).

Dakkawolf.

Unlike the Leman Russ the T34 was actualy designed by sane minds who cared about such tiny things like combat performance.

Lol, well played

However the Leman Russ is still a good tank, and can preform really well in situations (i.e. pasks leman russ killing a Gargant, Leman Russ taking on Tau in the book Courage and honour and winning the tank V tank fights). Its all how you use it

In terms of appearance, it is obviously influenced by the French Char B1:

The Lemun Russ is basically what you would get if a Mk-IV british tank and the above Char-B1 had a kid.

Appearance and performance. The Char B1 bis was slow, heavily armed, and nearly invincible to German anti-tank fire at the time.

Overall the Leman Russ is a mix of the Char B1 bis and the British MkV tank from WWI:



Throwing in the tenacity and crude construction of the T-34 rounds out the picture nicely.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Dang, beat me to the punch.

The Leman Russ is quoted as being the most successful battle tank in the galaxy. It is rugged, durable, runs off anything, heavily armed and armoured, capable of surviving the most extreme hostile environments and can be repaired by anyone who can hold a wrench.

A Russ has combat systems such as auspex, laser targeters, landscape scanners, infrared targeting, gyroscopic mounting, suspension, the ability to lock onto the enemy, filters and defences against NBC attacks as well as be vacuum sealed.

While its design is questionable if viewed by our "modern" perspective we have to remember that any Leman Russ must survive in any environment in any warzone. I seriously doubt (although I will freely admit I have no experience of this) that any single modern tank could survive a maneuver war in a desert and then immediately be dumped into a vicious trench war, then travel across a frozen tundra with no modifications without it falling apart.

The size and speed is questionable to say the least, I certainly believe they are faster and smaller than what Forge World states in their books.

I don't think you can really say its any particular tank, It has combat systems like a modern tank but far more tough and rugged and can be manufactured quickly in huge quantities. Probably a curious abrams/ T-34 mix. I'm no expert on tanks.

What I find interesting is the difference between tank technology going into the war compared to the end of the war.


The allies had the massivly armed and armored land battleships and the germens had these small zippy light tanks, some of which only had dual MGs as main armament. and at the end, everything was reversed. The germans had the steel monsters and the allies had the smaller vehicles. of course this was only relative to tanks of the same period. a Sherman would have been virtually invincible in the early war.

that any single modern tank could survive a maneuver war in a desert and then immediately be dumped into a vicious trench war, then travel across a frozen tundra with very few modifications without it falling apart.

The M1A1 Abrams can do this. Most Soviet tanks built in the last 50 years could do this as well... and, in fact, were required to do this.

Though I agree that the Russ... and, really, all 40K war machines... have no direct RL counterpart, simply being inspired in some ways by this WW2 tank, or that modern warfare equipment, or this sci-fi standard, and so on.

Psienesis wrote:

that any single modern tank could survive a maneuver war in a desert and then immediately be dumped into a vicious trench war, then travel across a frozen tundra with very few modifications without it falling apart.

The M1A1 Abrams can do this. Most Soviet tanks built in the last 50 years could do this as well... and, in fact, were required to do this.

Though I agree that the Russ... and, really, all 40K war machines... have no direct RL counterpart, simply being inspired in some ways by this WW2 tank, or that modern warfare equipment, or this sci-fi standard, and so on.

I seem to remember the coalition having a hell of a time getting our tanks working in Iraq but I could be mistaken.

The russ just looks like a WW2 tank with modern electronic gizmos strapped in.

Yarrickshad wrote:

Psienesis wrote:

that any single modern tank could survive a maneuver war in a desert and then immediately be dumped into a vicious trench war, then travel across a frozen tundra with very few modifications without it falling apart.

The M1A1 Abrams can do this. Most Soviet tanks built in the last 50 years could do this as well... and, in fact, were required to do this.

Though I agree that the Russ... and, really, all 40K war machines... have no direct RL counterpart, simply being inspired in some ways by this WW2 tank, or that modern warfare equipment, or this sci-fi standard, and so on.

I seem to remember the coalition having a hell of a time getting our tanks working in Iraq but I could be mistaken.

The russ is just a WW2 looking early cold war tank with modern electronic gizmos strapped in.

That was more to do with the fact that the tanks were designed for pitched battle in an open field and not in an urban environment. MOUT opens up new angles of fire to the vehicle which weren't necessarily foreseen by the designers.

Yarrickshad wrote:

Psienesis wrote:

that any single modern tank could survive a maneuver war in a desert and then immediately be dumped into a vicious trench war, then travel across a frozen tundra with very few modifications without it falling apart.

The M1A1 Abrams can do this. Most Soviet tanks built in the last 50 years could do this as well... and, in fact, were required to do this.

Though I agree that the Russ... and, really, all 40K war machines... have no direct RL counterpart, simply being inspired in some ways by this WW2 tank, or that modern warfare equipment, or this sci-fi standard, and so on.

I seem to remember the coalition having a hell of a time getting our tanks working in Iraq but I could be mistaken.

The russ is just a WW2 looking early cold war tank with modern electronic gizmos strapped in.

Well, if the Abrams had any trouble it certaintly didn't effect what happened. I belive there were 0 tank casualities from enemy fire.

Very true and proves the superiority of the abrams and I can see the the russ being just as successful in the same situation. However the russ ends up fighting vehicles that are superior to it.

Yarrickshad wrote:Very true and proves the superiority of the abrams and I can see the the russ being just as successful in the same situation. However the russ ends up fighting vehicles that are superior to it.

So here is a question,

why did all the Iraqi tanks have their exaust pipes on the front of the tank?

Grey Templar wrote:

Yarrickshad wrote:Very true and proves the superiority of the abrams and I can see the the russ being just as successful in the same situation. However the russ ends up fighting vehicles that are superior to it.

So here is a question,

why did all the Iraqi tanks have their exaust pipes on the front of the tank?

Spoiler:

because Iraqi tanks only drive in reverse of course

They should have tried it, it might have given them a chance when the inevitable duck shoot came.

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.

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.

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.

The Challanger is a british tank right?

Has it even seen more then a few combat missions against a proper tank force?



To be quite honest, we really can't say one thing or another about many "Modern" tank's effectivness as they havn't ever been used in a serious combat. The Iraqi army was a joke in the tank department, heck in just about every department. It has been called the most overestimated army in the world.

I know nothing about tanks, but the char is what GW based their LRBT off of, so I suppose that's its equivalent.

A Challenger 2 had its frontal armor penetrated by an Iraqi RPG-29 in the 2003 Iraq invasion, though it wasn't knocked out. 2-3 Abrams were destroyed by Anti-Tank Missiles and IED's I believe. But one has to keep in mind that there were far more Abrams deployed in Iraq.

These kind of losses really don't demonstrate anything about the tanks quality, there's no such thing as an invincible tank.

A big boost to tank safety in the future will be the application of Active Protection Systems. Basically a sensor detects an incoming shell/rocket/missile and shoots shotgun ball bearings in its direction from a module on the side of the tank, intercepting the projectile and preventing penetration. So far only the Israeli's have APS' deployed in the field and they've been used by Merkava tanks successfully against Russian-made anti-tank missiles in Palestinian hands.

Really if 40k came out now instead of the 80's then I imagine the Leman Russ, Predator, Land Raider, etc. would have an Active Protection System on it. But back in the 1980's these kinds of things were theoretical secret military programs.

Harriticus wrote:A Challenger 2 had its frontal armor penetrated by an Iraqi RPG-29 in the 2003 Iraq invasion, though it wasn't knocked out. 2-3 Abrams were destroyed by Anti-Tank Missiles and IED's I believe. But one has to keep in mind that there were far more Abrams deployed in Iraq.

These kind of losses really don't demonstrate anything about the tanks quality, there's no such thing as an invincible tank.

A big boost to tank safety in the future will be the application of Active Protection Systems. Basically a sensor detects an incoming shell/rocket/missile and shoots shotgun ball bearings in its direction from a module on the side of the tank, intercepting the projectile and preventing penetration. So far only the Israeli's have APS' deployed in the field and they've been used by Merkava tanks successfully against Russian-made anti-tank missiles in Palestinian hands.

Really if 40k came out now instead of the 80's then I imagine the Leman Russ, Predator, Land Raider, etc. would have an Active Protection System on it. But back in the 1980's these kinds of things were theoretical secret military programs.

And that is why the Tau have flechette dischargers.

You do know that flechette dischargers aren't preventing incoming AT fire, right?

They're a defensive mechanism against assaults/offensive mechanism for actually launching assaults with the vehicle. Like the frag launchers on a Land Raider Crusader.

Kanluwen wrote:You do know that flechette dischargers aren't preventing incoming AT fire, right?

They're a defensive mechanism against assaults/offensive mechanism for actually launching assaults with the vehicle. Like the frag launchers on a Land Raider Crusader.

That's because 40K still likes the idea of a group of guys running up and getting into fistacuffs with a vehicle. The wargear has to fit how the game mechanics work.

Jayden63 wrote:

Kanluwen wrote:You do know that flechette dischargers aren't preventing incoming AT fire, right?

They're a defensive mechanism against assaults/offensive mechanism for actually launching assaults with the vehicle. Like the frag launchers on a Land Raider Crusader.

That's because 40K still likes the idea of a group of guys running up and getting into fistacuffs with a vehicle.

When you have weaponry like powerfists which can allow an 'average' human being to punch his way through a MBT...it's not a bad idea.

The wargear has to fit how the game mechanics work.

That and it's to make it less attractive to attack Tau vehicles.

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.

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.

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.

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.

You spray diesel on the engine block, then pump off the smoke for concealment? If I recall, that's how old Soviet tanks did it.

As already stated, the Russ is a bastard child of a B1 and a WW1 British landship.

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.

For best tank out there currently? There's the Leopard 2A7 out now with probably the best gun in the world (Rheinmetal 120mm L55, same gun on the L2A6, more range and projectile velocity than the L44 that is mounted on the L2A5 and M1A1/A2), has a better operational range, response time, acceleration and top speed than an M1, and more armor of a more advanced type than anything else out there, along with being probably the most modular and easy to change tank ever.

And of course the Saudi's just put in an order for 200 of them

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.

I agree with that assessment to a point, but you need to look beyond the modernity of the T-34 and look to the anecdotal evidence associated with the T-34 as I mentioned above. It is only appears modern in the context of our perception of such things. Game play not withstanding (the armor defence, effectiveness and ranges of the weapons are abstracts), the fluff supports a view similar to ours about the T-34 despite its clunkiness. Modernity in 40k is irrelevant.