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 thing about 'rationalization' is it's very context sensitive, in the sense how are you defining 'rational?' If you compare the Russ to any modern tank or modern design standards, its going to be horrible, because Modern tanks are designed (and in the case of some tanks like the Abrams, optimized) towards particular roles. There are always tradeoffs between different goals and needs/wants (speed, protection, firepower, ammo capacity, fuel efficiency/range, complexity/maintenance, cost, etc.) and you really can't expect to have everything.

The Imperium, for the most part, lacks alot of the 'advantages' modern forces have and faces a dramatically different sort of cultural, political, economic, and military situation. Much wider diversity of enemies it must face (harder to predict or optimize against any one threat without making sacrifices against another.), much wider diversity of 'threats' in terms of weaponry (multiple kinds of kinetic, explosive/chemical energy, and directed energy weapon attacks... again you can't - for example - optimize against one specific kind of attack without sacrificing against others.) The inconsistent and largely non-standardized levels of technology across different worlds and the unreliability of warp travel (you have to be able to run/maintain your tank on what is available, which could mean wood and sunlight, quite literally.) And different kinds of culture, politics, methods of warfare (again lack of any really deeply standardized doctrine/way of war beyond attrition, tactics, etc. You could have a force fighting anything from jungle warfare to highly mobile open plains warfare to cityfighting to trench/siege warfare. Possibly all in the same battle.)

To put it simply, the Russ is meant to be a generalist.. a balance of a bunch of competing necessities and tradeoffs - versatile, adaptable, easily built/maintained, able to be powered by almost anything available and still function, durable and efficient, and a certain minimum level of effectivenss in whatever it does (and probably other factors, I'm just listing off the ones most immediate to mind.) That means it can't really excel at any one particular thing (That's what the more specialist variants are for) and when put up against anything that is specialized, it is going to be less effective (design wise. Technology may or may not factor into this, depending on the comparison of tech levels and perceived capabilities and suchlike. I expect a Leman Russ built to early 20th century industrial standards (WW1) is not going to be the same as one built more towards modern-futuristic level tech bases.

Now beyond that there are two ways to look at it as well. The first is not to pay too much attention to the artwork/drawings in any detail (stats may or may not be another story.) and as odd as this may sound its not unreasonable. The scale/proportions of alot of the models and artwork are, to put it nicely, 'off' - the Russ for example is listed as having a 120mm smoothbore but the actual muzzle is freaking massive and totally not 120mm (Same way with most weapons, or bolters ejecting casings for some people, Power armour looking to be half a foot thick and impossible to move in, etc.) likewise, 'normal' humans are supposed to be able to ilft those shells and you're supposed to be able to stick dozens of them inside the tank (which at the 'battleship/mortar' scale-muzzle sizes you simply couldn't do unless the Russes happen to have a pocket dimension as a magazine and your loader is a micro-ogryn.) Earthshakers arguably have the same issue (125-132mm, but looking much more massive than that, loaded by hand, large ammo stockpile, etc.) Some I have remembered have made similar issues about chimeras and Rhinos and transport capability (at least with space Marines) so there might be another reason to not take the visuals quite so literally. But given that (and the absence of any centralized canon policy) you could certainly fudge the appearance of the Russ (local hull variation, modification, etc.) you might like. Even if you can't though, the 'multi-role' aspect still matters - it has to conduct WW1 type warfare sometimes, so having some WW1 traits (that does not totally compromise its ability in other roles) will probably be desirable (even if itis less than optimal in those other, non-WW1 roles.) Likewise, the higher profile is a trade off because to make it shorter you often have to make ti longer/wider. That means that in at least one dimension it is going to be bigger/more visible. Given that warfare in 40K, even on the ground, has as much an aerial/orbital component as on the ground, you might argue that making ti 'shorter' sacrifices visibility from above (easier to hit by certain enemies from orbit or in the air) even though that is less optimal against a 'modern' tank. An considering how many anti-grav/skimmer enemies they face, low elevation is probably not much of an advantage anyhow.)

So tl;dr version: Depends on how you view things, there is no one clear 'truth' on such matters, and the meaning you attach to words like 'effective' is highly context dependent. So basically 'its open to interprtation, decide what you think is best.'

Sloping isn't totally unknown in the Imperium. The russes turret is actually quite small and from the front has quite a sharp slope (or so I remember one Marine tanker I know telling me as we discussed it) Turret variants could probably play around with that, but even more, you could have variations in hull design (we never see significant ones, except the forge world 'Mars pattern' which has the elongated rear, but there's no reason you couldn't envision something more to suiting a particular taste.)

But more, sloping can occur in more than one dimension (vertical or horizontal) so you probably could arrange some kind of slope that better suited the Russ (not guaranteeing it would be as good as modern, but some is better than none when we're talking design compromises.)

I'm also wondering if flat surfaces might be better for certain things like reactive/ablative/spaced and other extra armor (and we know those exist, from the old Inferno magazine diagrams, Forge world, etc. so that is an option.) at least in terms of coverage.

 Scipio Americanus wrote:
I can really get into the nitty-gritty of how high-power lasers interact with materials if you guys want me to (it's one of my specialties), but suffice to say that for the way I've chosen to model lascannons the primary damage mechanism is pulsed supersonic drilling/ablation. This is the most efficient way of going through hard stuff and it also produces a beam with all the characteristics typically attributed to lascannons in the fluff. Effectively, each shot is a train of pulses (far too short and closely space together in time to distinctly percieve) and they explosively drill their way through the armor, one after another, until it's fully penetrated. Putting more armor in front of it is advantageous both because it increases the amount of energy needed to drill through and because it adversely affects the aspect ratio of the hole - the deeper and skinnier the hole the more likely that energy will be wasted heating up the sides or splashing out of it entirely due to the relative motion of target and weapon.

It might just be easier to refrence atomic rockets and/or Luke Campbell's death ray site, since they describe something along the lines of what you mention. Although how plausible IRL that is has been disputed amongst hard-scifi circles (for whatever that is worth) but it does fit with tidbits bout how lasweapons work as presented in the fluff.

Although one consequence of that I've noticed is that laser weapons would have ridiculous penetration against conventional materials, and this may/may not fit with las weapon designs depending on how efficient (vs brute force) you figure they are.

 Frazzled wrote:
The Leman is unrealistic in several ways that can't be explained away, but could be converted modelwise.
1. Ground clearance. It effectively has almost none.

Is this based on the model? Because based on the fluff stats it has a greound clearance of 45 cm, which is roughly that of a modern tank. Forge world is the obvious example but the stats predate that (from the GW website IIRC and Chapter approved. This is from one of the earlier 3rd edition Chapter apporveds I know.

One might argue that 40K technology literally does rely on 'magic' to run, but there's nothing wrong with that neccesarily. Just because it may be 'magic' does not mean it is arbitrary. It's largely a perspective thing.

I mean when you think about it wraithbone probably involves magic forcefields just to become some magically created super-strong yet super light materials (different kinds of bonding than what real life materials do.) I imagine most 40K super-materials rely on similar (magic metals, in a literal sense!)

 Scipio Americanus wrote:
Two of my favorite sites on the web. Finding Atomic Rockets in high school was one of the contributing factors to my becoming a physicist (and spending a year professionally shooting things with giant lasers).

Interesting. How well do you find Schilling (the guy mentioned on Atomic Rockets who first proposed 'their' model for laser weapons) and Luke Campbell's ideas to hold up?

Laser weapons of sufficiently high energy and power can cut (blast really) their way very effectively through materials, but a beam train that is efficient at cutting through armor often won't go through other materials (flesh, concrete) very well. I figure lasrifles are calibrated for shooting people with a little armor in the way, while the opposite is true for lascannons (with other weapons, like multilasers, somewhere on that spectrum).

Laser effects being target dependent (and needing optimization) is certainly a factor as I recall, and I've heard Luke say the same re: his laser models because meat is harder to burn through than other materials (See here for refrence.) although this again gets into how you think lasweapons in 40K work (or how consistently they are designed.) For all we know they need the AdMech to 're-optimize' them for certain threats (Orks vs humans, for example, or Orks vs Tyranids.. esp given the properties ascribed to Tyranid carapace.) And with space marines it wouldn't even matter if you can penetrate, since their pain resistance and ability to coagulate make them harder to stop unless you place the shots in the right place (or happen to have a hotshot pack on hand.)

More advanced lasers probably feature 'machine spirits' and scopes that could 'optimize' themselves.

Of course, a lascannon has so much power that it'll blast a human body in half, but it won't have the useful effects of things like HE, and the range is limited by atmospheric conditions for lower powered las-weapons while it's limited by the filamentization/self-focusing distance for higher powered ones.

Near as I can tell lasers can cause explosions (hell so can asteroid impacts - at least of sufficient yield) - the only thing is they're not as efficient at it as HE (because of the way the 'explosion' is created). Of course, neither are nukes, due to the mechanisms involved (at least with cratering.) The real problem is the atmospheric conditions, and that seems to be a place where slugthrowers still can outperform lasers, I think.

And lascannons, at least in the fluff, generally have the power to completely vaporized/blown apart (whether literal, or simply meaning 'blasting apart') a person, or at least the upper body, if not the entire person. And by 'person' that can include 'power armored space marines' and I believe Orks.

Suffice to say, they have a role but it's different from that of projectile or explosive weapons. The big advantage they have (for infantry-carried ones) is logistical simplicity. Powerpacks (in my interpretation at least) are low temp molten salt batteries and can be recharged by any vehicle or standard power system. Not having to ship kilotons of infantry ammo to the FEBA lets the Munitorum focus on food, heavy weapons ammo, and POL (Petroleum, Oil, Lubricants).

Well no, a laser isn't going to be useful in EVERY role. They'd never replace indirect fire artillery or missiles, for example.

There are lots of inconsistencies between lore and art, not to mention within those categories. I tend to resolve in favor of reasonability wherever possible.

I think most people go by what is 'reasonable' - the problem being not everyone will agree on a single definition of 'reasonable.' Most sci fi arguments/debates generally center around the interpretation of data and what is perceived to make 'sense' as opposed to the actual evidence. And in cases like 40K where there is no real canon structure you tend to get people who take different attitudes towards the different sources of material. There's no real simple, unified way to handle it.

When it comes to text vs visuals, there's advantages and disadvantages to both approaches.

The shields are one of the wildcard technologies I'm granting the Universe, on the basis of being developed by the AI superbrains of the Dark Age. They could conceive of the laws of physics on a level human minds, even augmented ones, can never match, and the bits of what they created that remain in STC fragments are the source of the holdovers into the Imperium. My shortlist is:

Grav Plating
Warp drives and Gellar Fields
Void Shields
Room temperature electrical superconductors
Thermal superconductors
Superstrong structural materials.

I apologize - perhaps I wasn't explaining myself clearly. What I was getting at with the 'magic' allusions is the same as 'handwave' - we don't quite know all the science behind it (or maybe not even any of it) but we have a general idea how it works (EG its not 'arbitrary' despite being 'magic'.) One of the things I've liked about 40K (at least since the early days) is that they do try to be internally consistent about these things - even the Warp (often thought of as 'REALITY HAX') has rules and internal consistency by how it works and how things happen, and the warp has a fundamental impact in the way things in realspace work. When it comes to 40K Materials science, for example, we know you can create solid matter out of the 'warp' (EG wraithbone or what Chaos does), and we know the warp can 'enhance' the properties of solid materials (Daemons making engines out of brass or iron, but being far more durable than those materials.)

The relevance of this, of course, can depend on how advanced/powerful you think the Imperium and other factions are, at least in quantitative terms, and that like most things is open to debate (or argument.)

Now some of those (the last three) might be things that humans can understand with sufficiently advanced science, but I think the Imperium's level of understanding of science and engineering is in most areas somewhat ahead of ours and in a few rather behind. How these are employed for various applications is influenced by the cartel/guild nature of the AdMech, their theological/procedural rather than scientific/systemic understanding of technologies, and the fact that they're perfectly willing to use lower tech wherever it's more reliable or more reasonable. Despite literally being techno-fetishists they are in some ways less technofetishistic than many moderns.

I think it's actually less a matter of who is more or less 'advanced' than it is of standardization. In sci fi to me it seems sometimes we treat technology as if it were some singular, monolithic entity, and that an 'advanced' race must be advanced in every single way... even though logically any 'race/culture/empire' is going to face the same 'finite resources/infinite needs' situation we ourselves face. It's quite likely to be advanced in some areas but not others for various reasons and to various degrees, even in real life. The Imperium, with its probelms with FTL travel and communications, its decentralized political and economic structure, is much less standardized than we are (the tau are probably closer to us in that regard.) Those tend to be huge factors that lead to the disparities in tech level and the various implications (EG having steam powered tanks with mind impulse links, to draw on an Imperial armour example.)

To this we can also factor in general cultural and political factors, such as the 'puritan vs radical' dynamic. Radicals are more likely to push for progress and innovation/research (not without risks, of course - this is 40K.) whilst puritans will be more conservative and oppose such progress (sometimes with reason, sometimes not.) But the tensions between that dynamic will further exacerbate the variations in technological levels - regions more tolerant of a 'radical' bent - especially to technology, may experience greater progress and tech levels than a region that is more conservative. And you could have both occuring in 40K (within the same sector, for example) It could even change over time (radicals getting overthrown by puritans, and vice versa.)

I don't have any problem with the Ork gestalt psyker powers, as the presence of the Warp introduces a number of metaphysical changes to the Universe that shift the rules. There's an intimate connection between this semantic space and intentionality and the like.

I don't have a problem with it either pretty much for the same reason. If anything it shows an underlying pattern towards such things (stuff

 Scipio Americanus wrote:
Campbell's estimates tend to be over-optimistic. Where they disagree, I find Schilling to usually be more on point. Also, the general lack of discussion of semiconductor diode stack/fibre lasers, one of the most promising and near-term possible technologies for making these kind of weapons, is a little curious to me.

I haven't seen Schilling post anything that wasn't on the old usenet boards (where they seemed to evolve from 'heat ray' to 'single pulse' to 'pulse train' ideas over time) Nyrath drew his data from previously, and most of that I've seen ended up on atomic rockets. Best as I can tell the 'pulse train' stuff developed gradually over time, and was still focused mostly on microsecond rather than nanosecond duration pulses. If anything I'd have interpreted it as the opposite - Luke seems to think lasers will be more brute force in needing more energy/fewer pulses (at least by his more recent stuff) than Schilling did, unless there is more info I've missed (always possible. I don't always know the places to look and google searches are hit and miss at best.)

Of course prior to discovering those guys the best 'sources' I ever found was extrapolation from surgical lasers (not exactly the best, since they're more concerned with limiting collateral damage rather than inflicting it, but its the best on tissue-laser interactions I found prior to that.)

That may just be a figment of most of the discussions having taken place back in 2006/07 before the big increase in their power started being realized.

The most recent stuff I've seen from Luke was 2010 off SFConsim, which Nyrath posted on Atomic Rockets on the sidearms page.

Sure, if you're burning through by brute force. If you're doing it the smart (timed pulses) way then flesh becomes much easier to burn through than armor. I can believe the Admech going around before a campaign and adjusting the pulse timings and powers to suit the most common enemies that will be faced. I also think that adaptive optic stabilization is one of the reasons why the Imperium can have a levee-en-masse type army that still maintains relatively high effectiveness.

I could be wrong but I don't think he meant 'burn' literally. The post I mentioned was, IIRC about pulsed lasers, not CW - his idea for continous lasers is pretty consistently a 'flamethrower' type weapon rather than literally burning a hole through (its debatable whether people stand still long enough to allow that.) Given the context of the post I mentioned, it seems to be contingent on the 'type/variety' (to use his words) of laser. Whether he means wavelength or any other paramters, I dunno, but it does seem conditional. Also, looking it over again it wasn't nearly as absolute as I thought (and presented this above.) My bad.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
By my calculations at least, Lascannons are sufficiently powerful that the beam self-focuses quite tightly until a kilometer or so out, then diverges outward into uselessness over the course of only a few hundred meters. That means that if it hits something like a person, it will blow them apart but the chunks will be relatively big (halves, etc.). In order to vaporize a significant part of their body the energy would have to be distributed over it evenly, not all dumped into a few cubic centimeters instantaneously.

They do have wide-beam settings (at least they did in the HH series, as per certain novels like Legion) so it may be. Then again they may just not be real lasers, there's always that issue depending on your sources (one of the earliest 1st edition sources I recall had a lasgun blast punching a fist-wide hole completely through the target AND cauterizing it. I still havne't figured that one out.)

Admittedly, I think that's a reasonable explanation for what they're talking about when they say "blasting apart" or the like. There's a danger in taking descriptions too literally that crops up from time to time. The worst example of that I've ever seen was someone in a forum thread with a long and mathematically laborious analysis of the energies for various 40K weapons. It came up with ridiculous numbers because he took a statement like "the bolt-round vaporized so-and-so's head" to mean it literally added the full vaporization energy to every cubic mm of material in the target's head.

That's going to be true pretty much of any fluff in my experience, though, and it can cut both ways. We generally aren't graced with any insight into the actual meaning attached to the words we read, so we're left to figure it out on our own (interpretation and inference) and we may be right or wrong in how we do it. Sometimes its easy, sometimes its not. Sometimes people will agree, and sometimes they'll attach different meanings to different words. And in 40K sometimes vaporization is literal (based on the context I've read, at least) and sometimes its not. (Same way with incinerate, cremate, melt, burn, slag, evaporate, boil, shred, lacerate, or anything really descriptive.) 40K doesn't seem to be made for absolute generalizations, but more case by case basis (which is hard, tedious and generally time consuming.. but there you go.)

I suppose if it were easy and straightforward, there wouldn't be so much argument over what is 'sensible' in 40K to begin with