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.

Your version is my favorite Si. bulky , tough looking , with big cannon ( trait mark of LR? dunno )

ShumaGorath wrote:

In a previous post I broke down the basic way a person could do a "modern" Leman Russ. The simple fact is that a modern battle tank would never have sponsons ever, all the complaints of a leman russes high profile ultimately stem from the fact that it needs arching sides to mount sponsons. Modern tanks get around that need by mounting the weapons that would other wise be in sponsons into a position coaxial to the main cannon, as well as as on the multiple weapons mounted atop the turret. There is a strong enough parallel; a Abrams tank will have a main cannon and a machine gun, with two optional machine guns, a Leman Russ has a battle cannon, a heavy bolter, and two optional heavy bolters.

Sponsons have no functional purpose in combat, are difficult to man, compromise the integrity of the vehicle, provide an easily damaged non redundant system, and reduce the tanks ability to run through things (like forests).

Sponsons have NEVER been a good idea.

Yes... thats true. The critical thing to walk away with is that tanks continue to need the type of suppression fire that sponsons were created originally to provide and that is why we continue to mount weapons comparable to what was mounted in sponsons back in WWI. We just mount them in a more tactically flexible location, on top of the turret or as an alternate weapon in alignment with the main weapon.

Sponsons have a functional purpose, they just don't succeed at it, it is an attempt to provide suppressing fire from a protected position. They were a good idea at a time when they had limited options and limited assets, they just could not be executed well. So in a science fiction setting, we should be able to come up with ways to improve them.

You point out a couple of weaknesses to the concept of sponsons.
1) difficult to man
2) compromise the vehicles integrity
3) easily damaged
4) non-redundant
5) reduces mobility

With "4" I don't think this is a real issue, no weapon system even on modern tanks are "redundant", redundancy comes from having multiple expendable systems. By its nature a sponson or even a cupola mounted machine gun provides the over all vehicle with redundancy. That even if a main weapon fails, the vehicle still has offensive and defensive firepower, even if limited.

With "3" given modern technology a sponson would be no more easily damaged than any other hard point on a tank, it would be only as vulnerable as where the main cannon mounts to a turret.

With "5" the reduction of mobility only applies to the style of sponsons that the Leman Russ is currently mounted with; there were other types of sponson type weapon mounts. If updated such a system could be used. Even amongst other 40k models we can see less various examples of sponsons, few as vulnerable as a Leman Russ'

In a universe with servitors, machine spirits, and other advance technology "1" becomes less of an immediate problem. And when it comes to "2" it once again becomes a matter of the technology of the setting. Predators have sponsons and their armor value goes up, so obviously in the 40k universe such a system only adds armor to the exterior of a vehicle and improving its survivability.

I think something like this:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/30304-.html

A retractable looking, fully armored ball turret of sorts. By being seemingly retractable it can to a degree limit the amount of impact on "5". By being retractable and fully armored, "3" is marginalized as an issue. By seemingly being a retrofit to the external superstructure, modular and separate from the chassis it doesn't contribute to "2" beyond wiring connections. The remote operated nature of the sponsons also makes "1" moot.

While these may seem a forced explanation the simple fact is given sufficiently advanced technology it would be possible. 40k is a bit of mix and match anachronism of high and low tech making it possible.

I just saw this... thought I'd point it out to anyone too lazy to look down at the rest of the Painting and Modeling section:
http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/238153.page#690017

With the exception of height and a suitable "sponson" solution... it seems to have incorporated solutions to some common complaints.

Hahah.. some of these guys take this way too far..

but others smack it right on the head.

aka_mythos wrote:I just saw this...

http://www.dakkadakka.com/dakkaforum/posts/list/238153.page#690017

With the exception of height and a suitable "sponson" solution... it seems to have incorporated solutions to some common complaints.

Wow, you really just love the Metal Slug cartoon tank look, eh?

Slapping a huge turret on top of the current undersized hull is all you need before you break out the polka-dot paint scheme.

I love metal slug tank , but by no means does it have anything to do with the turret size lol.

Itsthe tank design , most emphasized by the track shape. Makes the tank look almost like a feral beast.

John, you talk and talk, and yet you've yet to put up any sort of picture of what your ideal Leman Russ should look like. Do something beyond slamming people for proposing ideas for improvement. Please be more than a talking head.

I really don't get what you mean by over sized. Almost every major main battle tank currently used has similar turret to chassis proportions. I didn't make the thing I was just pointing out another instance of someone attempting to solve some of the issues with the Leman Russ model.

I liked his turret and I liked the way he tried to incorporate a more realistic suspension, but I still believe for the basic Russ the part of chassis where the tracks wrap around need to be reconceived. While the primary hull needs to be flattend, possibly lowered a bit.

Another approach could be to do something similar to the T-35; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-35 ; or Vickers Independent http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vickers_A1E1_Independent
They attempted to solve the need for secondary weapons by mounting weapons similar to sponson weapons in 3 smaller secondary turrets, with a high large high profile turret positioned above them. Their primary short coming that lead to this design concepts demise was their weight; something the 40k universe has no issue ignoring from a practical stand point.

@ mythos:

There is one small problem imo when it comes to design new russes. To IG players , the russ is basically a gun platform that moves with LOTS of guns right?

If GW design something worthy to fit the description it'll dwarf the land raider :"< ( i hope i got that right not the other way around lol )

I understand the concern, but modern tanks have just as many guns and are only slightly larger foot prints than a Leman Russ would have in real life.

A leman russ would have 2 to 5 guns... a modern battle tank has 2-4 guns. Is it too much a stretch to try and figure out where to stick that last gun? As well as how they'll be mounted?

k This is what i want the Russ's shape to look like ( never mind that barrel lol )
If the barrel is trimmed and longer it'll be suitable imo.




let me emphasize this, just the shape!!!

*put put put put put

I think the weapon proportions for that heavy bolter might be an issue. It would have that upsized light tank feel with that design. The turret seems a bit bulky, it would seem a soldier could stand upright with in the turret. It seems to move in the conceptual direction of a Ragnarok Siege Tank. http://www.mechmaster.co.uk/cg-lair/40k/images/20060404a.jpg or http://www.hsgalleries.com/gallery04/images/kv2lp_1.jpg

I want the sponson to be big in ratio with the turret and (er chasis = body? )

So basically heavy bolter would be smaller, but yes the sponson casing i want it that big xD

Also i like wide roundish tracks like this one

I think the scale of the weapons is what really makes the whole project difficult. On a real tank a weapon firing 12 guage shotgun slugs would not be a thick as a man's torso. Storm bolters look kind of silly silly mounted on a pintle because they are oddly large, and heavy bolters are ridiculously huge.

One thing that might work, and solves (sorta) two problems at once, would be mounting the sponsons to the side of the turret. Rules wise it would require some tweaking, but you would make the turret larger while pulling the sponsons inside the foot print. Cutting down the sponsons would also go a long way.

I don't really have the ability to sketch something out and post it at work, but I will see what I can do when I get home.

He has sponsons... sorta
http://www.uberreview.com/wp-content/uploads/terminator2tank1.jpg

I agree I think the miss-scale of 40k throw tanks into the position of requiring weapons to be extra large to look proportional.

aka_mythos wrote:John, you talk and talk, and yet you've yet to put up any sort of picture of what your ideal Leman Russ should look like.

Do something beyond slamming people for proposing ideas for improvement.

I really don't get what you mean by over sized.

Almost every major main battle tank currently used has similar turret to chassis proportions.

I didn't make the thing I was just pointing out another instance of someone attempting to solve some of the issues with the Leman Russ model.

I still believe for the basic Russ the part of chassis where the tracks wrap around need to be reconceived. While the primary hull needs to be flattend, possibly lowered a bit.

First off, I posted a link to the Baneblade-styled Russ conversion a couple weeks ago:



At the time, I noted that I would like smaller front idler wheels. And then, ITT, I reiterated that I liked that design, with minor changes:

"Baneblade-style" - I really like this, and could see GW building something like this. It's big and chunky, with wide tracks, and a strong family resemblence. The Hull HB & Sponsons match the Baneblade, without the turret, bringing the profile closer in line with other Russes. The Turret is nicely-sized, neither too big, nor too narrow. Single Fuel Tanks are a nice touch to carry the family linkage over, while reinforcing the this is smaller than the Baneblade. Really, it's a very impressive accomplishment.

As this captures the essence of what I would like to see, and I've said so more than once, I don't feel a need to doodle up anything else when I can simply re-link to the tank, again.


Secondly, as far as "slamming", where am I slamming anybody. If I say that the turret is too big and "cartoony", that's not a slam. It's a statement that the overall shape is too bulbous and toy-like in comparison to where GW is taking 40k "large" Tank designs per the updated Land Raider and all-new Baneblade / Shadosword / Stormlord. These new designs are fundamentally angular and flatter-profile, with considerable increases in length. They are moving away from the kiddie-proportioned things that you seem to be proposing. Now maybe you aren't familiar with children's toys, but I've go a bunch of them for my kid, and they're all "ballooned" out as tall, wide, and blobby, with minimal sharp corners or hard angles. Based on your examples, that is what you are advocating.

We have a fundamental disagreement on what a Russ should look like. You seem to think that a Russ should be 1990s+ style, whereas I want the Russ to match the Baneblade, which is closer to 1940s style. Modern MBTs are simply not consistent with the 40k design ethos, nor the most recent tanks, so they can be discarded. 40k is now finally approaching the 1940s, but like the 19,they still have sponsons and hull-mounted main guns (i.e. Shadowsword family) - we don't do that anymore. So modern stuff simply doesn't match, and injecting it into 40k is not going to work.

I didn't accuse you of making it, only liking it. If that was an error, I'm sorry.

Finally, I agree that the hull needs to be proportionally flattened, with a new (Baneblade-styled) suspension. It would be far less implausible.

@Luna: I like Metal Slug, too.

Just not in 40k.

Though, if Leman Russ can jump, I might reconsider.

_Si_ wrote:This is my attempt from a few years ago. I went for the small baneblade look, widened the turret and reversed the hull. I still wanted it to be recognisable as a russ, but a little less, erm, WMC looking. And one of these days I'll finish it



More photos on my site if you're interested.

Absolutely superb, fits the design of 40k, fits in with the IG models that exist, has a decent footprint, solves the road wheels issue, has the correct weapons, is reasonably scaled and modeled...

I salute you, that is completely outstanding.

I fear the work to reproduce it would be considerable, but I am inspired to try. Well done sir, exquisite!

Oh, I missed commenting on Si's version - that is actually very good. It's not quite as good as the Baneblade-styled one, but it's still very, very good. It's my "runner up" design among all of the things proposed.

The bulk and footprint are good, and the overall proportions are sufficiently Russ-like. Just the BB-version is a little better-done overall.

I apologize John. I misspoke. Even you must acknowledge how easy it is for some of us to get frustrated with you. I think sometimes you come off more harshly then you intend.

I understand what you're saying about visual cues. 90's vs. 40's vs earlier. I think sometimes I leave out part of my thoughts. One of the themes of my early posts in this thread was that most people want a shift toward more modern looking tanks. I also talked about some of the ways modern tanks have solved some of the issues that people have with WWI influenced design choices.

I think a 40's into 50's aesthetic would be appropriate for a Leman Russ redesign. I don't believe "modern" looking Russes would look all that good. For example this is a concept I did for a Soviet looking version: http://www.dakkadakka.com/gallery/30533-.html?w=600

I'm in favor of something that's one part: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FileanzerVI_TigerII_Porsche1.jpg
maybe one part:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Char_T-34.jpg
with some appropriate way of mounting sponsons or analogs to sponsons. I generally favor the soviet aesthetic for a redesign. Partially cause IG are kinda space commies and partially because the Soviets held onto certain design aesthetics for longer which creates that juxtaposed look appropriate to the Imperium.

When I bring up modern tanks I'm mostly trying to point out aspects of modern design that would fit into the design of a leman russ, in an appropriate if not anachronistic way. My "modern" concepts were mostly attempting to narrow down what others where wanting of the Russ

With Si's tank I think a rework of the front chassis, where the driver sits and where the lascannon sit could really make things that much better. Overall pretty cool.

@Luna: that tank kinda reminds me of the "Centaur" from "Gears of War", not sure why. In the US there was a small remote controlled toy of it sold at Best Buys. It was pretty close to the right size to stand in for a Russ. You could simply get a couple and switch out the wheels for tracks and rework that lower part of its chassis which housed the batteries. It was something sold when Gears of War 2 came out; a couple months back one Best Buy had them going for $10, they were just trying to get rid of them.
http://www.bigsquidrc.com/pictures/gears/full/gears5.jpg

Thanks for all the kind words guys. As I say I did it a while back, but I keep meaning to finish it. If I did another it'd have land raider tracks just for simplicity's sake.

And in my defence, the mini-baneblade one was built by mousemuffins, so surely that's an unfair advantage?

Before I built it I made sure I photographed the two parts of the tracks next to a ruler, can make them available if anyone wants to have a dig. Build was really easy from what I remember, aside from messing around with tracks...

Si feel free to post your pictures hear. We are just discussing the different directions leman russ' can be taken and yours is a good example of one of the strongly supported concepts.

Seconded! Please do!

aka_mythos wrote:I apologize John. I misspoke. Even you must acknowledge how easy it is for some of us to get frustrated with you. I think sometimes you come off more harshly then you intend.

I understand what you're saying about visual cues. 90's vs. 40's vs earlier.

I think a 40's into 50's aesthetic would be appropriate for a Leman Russ redesign.

I'm in favor of something that's one part [King Tiger (Porsche turret)] & one part [Soviet T-34].

I generally favor the soviet aesthetic for a redesign. Partially cause IG are kinda space commies and partially because the Soviets held onto certain design aesthetics for longer which creates that juxtaposed look appropriate to the Imperium.

When I bring up modern tanks I'm mostly trying to point out aspects of modern design that would fit into the design of a leman russ, in an appropriate if not anachronistic way.

With Si's tank I think a rework of the front chassis, where the driver sits and where the lascannon sit could really make things that much better. Overall pretty cool.

@Aka: Any fault is almost certainly *far* more on me than you, so please, no apology. If could find a way to be less harsh, life would be better for everybody.

I very much appreciate your additional clarification. That was very helpful to me, and I assume others as well. Thank you!

With your preferences, I'm assuming that you like old bubble-top Predator, yes?

I see the Imperials as more Fascist than Communist, so the Soviet T-series bubble turrets don't work for me. For me, I'd actually rather field a skeletonized Razorback turret for my Preds, but I prefer the Vindicator over the Whirlwind over any turreted Pred. In general, I don't like large turrets on Imperial 40k vehicles - it's too modern, IMO. I'm basically only OK with the Chimera turret, because it's just a little nubbin.

I completely agree that Si's tank, the front end would need to be redone to match better, but it's still nothing to hold against him - it's just a side effect of trying to use existing Russ parts.

I think the best solution, so as not to change the "iconic" look of the russ while still taking away the cartoony factor would be to simply lengthen it by 1-1.5 inches and rework the turret. If the turret was moved back by .75 inches and made a little more low profile I think it would look a lot less ridiculous.

LunaHound wrote:I want the sponson to be big in ratio with the turret and (er chasis = body? )

So basically heavy bolter would be smaller, but yes the sponson casing i want it that big xD

Also i like wide roundish tracks like this one

I believe thats the mammoth from Command and Conquer: Tiberium Wars right?

I do like the roundish treads on it, and the turret style could in theory be worked onto the LR, as it would go more towards the back of the chasis and thus give the back some much needed detail.
The only problem is that at that point we start having it look almost exactly like a mini baneblade. Not that I dont approve, I think it would be kind of funny to have a baneblade in Apoc surrounded by mini baneblades

I like the look of the bladeruss but I am not shelling out 95 bucks for a russ when I can buy one for $40+-.
Then customize it how I want for a total of maybe $50.

The current Russ design is based off of a French WWII design. It had a smaller main gun and turret and a larger central turret. GW added the sponsons and altered the turret, and called it a day.

I would like to see something beefier in line with the mini-baneblades posted earlier in the thread, or a Halo-Scorpion style tank with side mounted guns as smaller turrets on the top center section.

Presumably, any new Russ would be $50 to match the Land Raider, but with extra guns like the Shadowsword.

Are ya'll saying a Russ should be as big as a Land Raider?