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.

Funny enough the Leman Russ turret might actually have some good sloping from here - scroll down to posts #6, 10, 12, 14.. The front sloping doesn't look horrible either. Sides are a problem, as are the tracks (Although track guards might help a bit there) but you could probably slope the sides if you did away with sponsons (working in two dimensions helps there.) Besides, don't forget that sloping will do squat when it comes to energy weapons, and a great many enemies the Imperium faces will be having energy weapons. I'm not sure whether or not sloping will help against a hypervelocity weapon (where the impact will basically crater/explode your armor from sheer velocity) like the tau and some others have (or shuriken weapons for that matter) but it's a consideration.

The rivetting isn't really an issue either due to the whole 'molecular bonding studs' thing (Cf Deliverance Lost) - considering Starships and (I think) Titans can have a 'rivetted' appearance you can bet the studs probably are utilised in many ways.

What is a problem with the tank is that huge azz gun (if you actually went by the artwork or model the thing has to be what 200-300mm in diameter?) with a short barrel. Maybe if you have some sort of rocket-assited, shaped charge munition that might make sense, but loading the rounds is going to be a joke (unless you get Bragg as your loader) and your ammo carrying capacity is going to be 'nil'.

Also the height is a problem, since the thing is what 4+ m tall? Its got a high profile which makes it easy to target at range (of course if its got the right weapons the enemy might also be in range as far as line of sight goes - eg Lasers) - of course considering the prevalance of skimmers, gunships, fighters, and orbiting starships having a lower profile generally means your tank is going to have a flatter/wider profiel from above which is also a problem, so there's no real good way to balance those out I think.

The sheer size of the tracks is a huge flaw too (and nothing fixes that.)

It makes a difference when you consider that most incoming fire will be energy based weapons. Not much of a difference though.

well its not really an easy thing to predict. You might be fighting Orks, or eldar. Or you migth be fighting an enemy who uses a combination of both (like the Tau) or you migth be fighting some other kind of enemy. Thats part of the problem - the Imperium can't predict every single little possibility they might have to deal with. Humans in RL have it easier designing military tech because we can generally predict what the enemy will be like, how they might fight, etc.

Now that isn't to say you can't point out flaws in the military stuff in the Imperium (because they can be legion) it's just not a simple thing and one has to always bear in mind that there are always going to be tradeoffs of some kind or another. At least in terms of the Russ you can say its an adaptable design.

Randomonioum wrote:Sure, a single leman russ on its own would likely get flanked. But when you have 10 of them, hurtling down a hill, side by side to cover each others side armor, good luck getting a hit off on it! Leman russ tanks are designed to be used together, rather than alone.

You ever played 40k with LR before? they ROLL down the hill.....
they'll blow themselves up before getting hit by anything.

You have to remember that the fluff is made by nerds. I would also wish that they would give a second thought of whether something is sensible or not. All the tactical flaws make the troops of the IoM weaker and their enemies even more pathetic.
So we have heavily armed slow units. Hmmm. I know lets make them melee based. Its not like the enemy would cowardly gun them down from an safe distance or use mines, bombs and grenades against them.

For the very least the fluff should have one small advanced human faction. But of course that can't be done.

Safor wrote:You have to remember that the fluff is made by nerds. I would also wish that they would give a second thought of whether something is sensible or not. All the tactical flaws make the troops of the IoM weaker and their enemies even more pathetic.
So we have heavily armed slow units. Hmmm. I know lets make them melee based. Its not like the enemy would cowardly gun them down from an safe distance or use mines, bombs and grenades against them.

For the very least the fluff should have one small advanced human faction. But of course that can't be done.

What well thought out argument


You have to remember that the fluff is made by nerds.
Oh, because that's a good reason!

So we have heavily armed slow units. Hmmm. I know lets make them melee based. Its not like the enemy would cowardly gun them down from an safe distance or use mines, bombs and grenades against them.

Lolwut? Do you even play the game? All of the IoMs melee specialists are all relatively fast. Assault Marines have jump packs, Terminators can deepstrike, etc.

The only reasons why the IoM bothers with melee is to either
a) Conserve ammo (because they are at war with everyone, who are generally more numerous or harder to kill)
b) To counter the enemy's fondness for melee (such as orks, who are the IoM MOST COMMON ENEMY)
c) to exploit their enemy's weakness in melee (see - Tau and Necrons)
d) All of the above.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:

Safor wrote:You have to remember that the fluff is made by nerds. I would also wish that they would give a second thought of whether something is sensible or not. All the tactical flaws make the troops of the IoM weaker and their enemies even more pathetic.
So we have heavily armed slow units. Hmmm. I know lets make them melee based. Its not like the enemy would cowardly gun them down from an safe distance or use mines, bombs and grenades against them.

For the very least the fluff should have one small advanced human faction. But of course that can't be done.

What well thought out argument


You have to remember that the fluff is made by nerds.
Oh, because that's a good reason!

So we have heavily armed slow units. Hmmm. I know lets make them melee based. Its not like the enemy would cowardly gun them down from an safe distance or use mines, bombs and grenades against them.

Lolwut? Do you even play the game? All of the IoMs melee specialists are all relatively fast. Assault Marines have jump packs, Terminators can deepstrike, etc.

The only reason why the IoM bothers with melee is to either
a) Conserve ammo (because they are at war with everyone, who are generally more numerous or harder to kill)
b) To counter the enemies fondness for melee (such as orks, who are the IoM MOST COMMON ENEMY)
c) to exploit their enemies weakness in melee (see - Tau and Necrons)
d) All of the above.

The people who make the fluff leave significant flaws in the units because:

a) They don't care whether the units are badass or not.
b) They simply don't know better.

Since all factions are made by the same people it balances itself out. Like assault terminators are an good example of an expensive unit that would usually get blown to pieces or gunned down before they can actually cause some damage. Expect that the enemy is too stupid to exploit their weakness.

If they had personal teleporters it would be another story but they don't.

a) Yeah its really intelligent to carry extra melee weapons instead of more ammo.
b) So whats more effective against dedicated melee units? Ranged or melee? Hmmm I wonder. Not to mention mines and other systems.
c) Only useful when you manage to surprise them.

I'd agree with a lot of what has been posted here but another pertinent PoV I feel, is who the Imperium is actually fighting.
The classic response is "well VS Tau tanks or Monoliths or Eldar Fire Prisms, the Leman Russ does suck" but remember, whils the imperium does fight these foes often, it also more often then not fights other humans, planetary rebellions, factions that wont join the Imperium, uprisings, inter system conflicts.
Vs these other humans who (probably) dont have tech anywhere near the main Imperiums level the LR is probably a serious beast, akin to the tanks of WW1 when they first showed up, sowing fear and terror amidst the enemy ranks whilst being all but impervious to their weaponry.

Its beautifull who cares of it works. In real life. Storm raven? Apart from they are fething ugly.

Actually, I'd say Orks vs IG is the most common fight in the galaxy involving humans alongside IG vs human heretics, probably more common than humans vs humans.

A valid point but not in dispute.
I just think we need to take a step back in terms of where the LR is most often deployed and the role in which it can excel.

Safor wrote:
The people who make the fluff leave significant flaws in the units because:

a) They don't care whether the units are badass or not.
b) They simply don't know better.

See, now you are creating a decent argument. "Because they are nerds" doesn't cut it. And I would dare say GW does care if a unit is badass or not. Otherwise we wouldn't have such OTT goodness such as Wazdakka crashing into a titan's cockpit on a motorbike (see: Ork Codex 5th ed (or is it 4th ed? The most recent one)

It is true they wouldn't know better...but then again, that is generally the case behind fantasy or sci-fi./

Safor wrote:
Like assault terminators are an good example of an expensive unit that would usually get blown to pieces or gunned down before they can actually cause some damage. Expect that the enemy is too stupid to exploit their weakness.

And that is why assault terminators wear the best armor the imperium can make. Have you played the game? If you had, you would then know that TH/SS termies are usually quite high on the target priority list. And that they are a real pain in the ass to kill. If you do manage to kill them, then you just wasted all your firepower on 1 squad, giving the rest of the army time to get into position.

Safor wrote:

If they had personal teleporters it would be another story but they don't.

a) Yeah its really intelligent to carry extra melee weapons instead of more ammo.
b) So whats more effective against dedicated melee units? Ranged or melee? Hmmm I wonder. Not to mention mines and other systems.
c) Only useful when you manage to surprise them.

Do you have any idea how rare personal teleportation tech is? Or how difficult it is to make? Hell, the teleporters on space ships barely work!

a) I fail to see your point. Assault troops are geared for assault. Why would they carry more ammo?
b) Good point, and that is why dedicated assault units are fast. And there are mines and gun turrets. Again, I have to ask, do you even play this game?
c) Yes, which is the point of THE BLOODY JUMP PACKS AND DEEPSTRIKE AND INFILTRATORS

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Do you have any idea how rare personal teleportation tech is? Or how difficult it is to make? Hell, the teleporters on space ships barely work!

a) I fail to see your point. Assault troops are geared for assault. Why would they carry more ammo?
b) Good point, and that is why dedicated assault units are fast. And there are mines and gun turrets. Again, I have to ask, do you even play this game?
c) Yes, which is the point of THE BLOODY JUMP PACKS AND DEEPSTRIKE AND INFILTRATORS

The terminator armour is vulnerable to AT-weapons and in urban terrain also to explosives.

a) The solution for too few ammo is not taking melee weapons and even less ammo.
b) So whats the point of making slow not agile units so melee orientated? Especially when they could have ranged weapons without compromising their melee abilities.
c) Deepstrike is an one shot manouver. After that an melee unit that can't seek safety from speed is vulnerable.

Safor wrote:

a) The solution for too few ammo is not taking melee weapons and even less ammo.
b) So whats the point of making slow not agile units so melee orientated? Especially when they could have ranged weapons without compromising their melee abilities.
c) Deepstrike is an one shot manouver. After that an melee unit that can't seek safety from speed is vulnerable.

a) Still doesn't fix the logistical problem of giving everyone enough ammo to fight every enemy on multiple fronts. And besides, its generally only the assault specialists that have little ammo and melee weapons. Your basic trooper has his rifle, maybe a knife (like today's soldiers), and a clip or 2.

b) Because the slow units are generally very hard to kill, making them great for standing up to demons, walkers and so on. And the slow mobility is often negated by heavy transports and deepstriking.

c) It may be a one shot maneuver, but it pays off. And there can't be retaliation if there is no one left to shoot back.

Safor wrote:Like assault terminators are an good example of an expensive unit that would usually get blown to pieces or gunned down before they can actually cause some damage. Expect that the enemy is too stupid to exploit their weakness.

If they had personal teleporters it would be another story but they don't.

a) Yeah its really intelligent to carry extra melee weapons instead of more ammo.
b) So whats more effective against dedicated melee units? Ranged or melee? Hmmm I wonder. Not to mention mines and other systems.
c) Only useful when you manage to surprise them.

Assault Terminators are a good example of a SPECIALIZED unit, not a stupid one. If you're under the impression that every military unit ought to be able to do everything, then I'm afraid you've got a very odd conception of combat. Terminators, and especially Assault Terminators, have a limited role which they are VERY good at; namely, shock assault and close-combat.

Point one; personal teleporters would be irrelevant. If there is a ship in orbit, the Terminators can pop into existence nose-to-nose with their enemies and crush them before anyone realizes what is happening; if there isn't one, then Terminators are not fighting.

Point two; Please remember that gameplay != fluff. Terminators are very rarely deployed in open-field combat of the kind you see in a typical 40k game; they are specialized heavy assault troops, who carry the fighting in Space Hulks, hive cities, and dense urban combat. In short, places where few enemies can fire on them at once and where their powerful weaponry can easily be brought to bear. In that context, they are death incarnate. You turn the corner, suddenly power fist. Wham. One less enemy of the Imperium.

Point three; Even in those rare occasions when Terminators ARE used in set-piece or meeting engagements, the Space Marines have plenty of ways to get them right into the enemy's face, and then use them to crush said face into goo. Sometimes they serve as mechanized spearhead troops; the Land Raiders (the most heavily armored IFV in the Imperium) barrel forward, disgorge Terminators within ten feet or so of the enemy, the enemy gets maybe a second or two of fire off before suffering a serious case of hammer-induced cranial trauma. Or perhaps they're deployed via drop-pod; exactly the same thing happens. Pod lands, doors blow, Deathwind launchers suppress the enemy nearby, Terminators hit like a ton of bricks. An actual engagement would not be like the tabletop game; the Terminators do not have to politely wait after they land for the enemy to realize what's happening, shift their aim, and unload a full volley into them. They hit the deck, they charge and never, ever stop moving. Wham, bam, thank you ma'am.

Point four; Ok, let's ignore all that. There isn't any battle-barge in orbit (how'd they get there?), so they can't teleport or use any Drop Pods. All the Land Raiders are in the shop, so they can't be driven into battle. The only thing they've got is themselves, and weapons.

So they haul out the storm bolters and CMLS. It isn't like those hammers and claws are surgically grafted to their fists. Now, all of the sudden, they are a viciously deadly long-range unit, perfectly capable of tearing up armored units and infantry alike. . . as well as being armored like a tank, but still having the mobility and flexibility of an infantryman. And, of course, they still have their Power Fists, so they can perform their shock-assault and close-combat functions perfectly well.

Point five; To speak specifically about Assault Terminators, this is an even MORE specialized loadout than regular Terminators, and deployed in even fewer situations; namely, if you have a rock-hard target that absolutely, positively must be taken by storm, or if you have to fight in EXTREMELY close quarters, like a naval boarding action. In literally any other circumstance, regular storm bolter and power fist Terminators, with a couple of support weapons, will do the job excellently.But when you need to smash into that fortress, oh look, suddenly Assault Terminators in the command bunker. Whack, crunch, bam. When you need to cripple that Chaos cruiser now, suddenly Terminators breaking open the hatch to the command bridge. Or Terminators in the engineering section, smashing the controls for the reactor and killing the tech-magi. Or Terminators in the life support section, venting all the stored oxygen into space and wrecking the recycling systems. Good luck shooting them down, with all those powerful long-range weapons you don't have and couldn't use anyway in such cramped conditions.

Terminators are only ineffective if you assume that the Space Marine commander turns off his brain before committing them to battle. If the commander turns off his brain, EVERYTHING is ineffective.


But we're not discussing Terminators in this thread, we're discussing Leman Russes. There are basically two possibilities; either the Leman Russ is a seriously flawed design, and it isn't made more efficient because the entire Adeptus Mechanicus is comprised of nothing but drooling morons (which I find unlikely, frankly); or it is simply designed to do a different job than modern MBTs are. Myself, I favor the second interpretation, for two reasons.

First off, from the front the design actually functions reasonably well. The turret is relatively short and wide; the frontal armor is quite angled, as is the rear. The sides are the problem, being both tall and perfectly flat; but for a tank designed to be used en masse to a degree that modern armored units simply are not, that's not so much of a problem as it might be. If you have fifty Leman Russes across a kilometer of frontage, anyone maneuvering to get side shots is likely to be exposing themselves to fire from nearly every direction.

Secondly, the Leman Russ is a universal vehicle, not a specialized one. Those massive treads? They may actually have an important function, increasing maneuverability (though at the cost of speed). A Leman Russ is fully amphibious as well; for comparison, here's a picture of a Marine Corps Amphibious Assault Vehicle. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:AAV-australia.jpg. Notice those same great big flat sides? And here's a picture of the Expeditionary Fighting Vehicle that was supposed to replace it, before the project was canceled for being too expensive; http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Expeditionary_Fighting_Vehicle.jpg. Exactly the same; highly sloped front armor, big flat sides. In order to have a fully amphibious vehicle, that design is important; the tank has to be 'boat-like', essentially.

The Leman Russ cannot be a specialized vehicle, because the Imperial Guard, unlike the Space Marines, are by and large not a specialized force. They need to be able to go anywhere and do anything, which means they need a main battle tank that can go anywhere and do anything. Which is what the Leman Russ is.

And once again, BeRzErKeR wins the thread.

I agree with the above - BeRzErKeR wins this thread....

Only thing I noticed - I don't think the Leman Russ is an amphibious vehicle - I know the Chimera is but the Russ IIRC isn't... I could be wrong though....

TO LEXICANUM!

EDIT: Nothing on Lexicanum about the Russ being amphibious - do you have a source at all?

I tip my hat to you BeRzErKeR. Well said.

Melissia wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Oh jeez, I'm agreeing with Melissia, on evry point. I need to sit down.

Tibbsy wrote:

EDIT: Nothing on Lexicanum about the Russ being amphibious - do you have a source at all?

Apologies, I don't have my books with at the moment so I can't provide a quote; but in one of the first Gaunt's Ghosts novels (part of the first omnibus), the Ghosts are part of an amphibious assault on an island. They come under fire and the transports drop them (and their armored support) off too early. While many of the infantry drown and some tanks are lost, most of the armor swims to shore and supports the attack.

That was Ghostmaker. Although if its the bit you're talking about (Caffran's story where the gets inside the walls and defeats the enemy) I think they were Basilisks meant to blast down the wall - and they didnt do well in the water. Of course they're artillery.

Chimeras are amphibious (Cf 5th Edition IG codex) so its possible and even probable that Russes can be modified to be so.

Berzerker: I was curious if you would elaborate on this point:

Secondly, the Leman Russ is a universal vehicle, not a specialized one. Those massive treads? They may actually have an important function, increasing maneuverability (though at the cost of speed).

I'm a bit curious to see an explanation as to how the treads could be an advantage - I admit I couldn't think of one (they interefere with the the sloping of the armor, at least, so there is going to be at least a tradeoff in any event.)

I also recall mention of reactive armor and ablative armor being used for tanks. They may be an alternative (or supplement) to sloped (although reactive is only good against shpaed charges and other CE rounds, not KE ones)

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Assault Terminators are a good example of a SPECIALIZED unit, not a stupid one. If you're under the impression that every military unit ought to be able to do everything, then I'm afraid you've got a very odd conception of combat. Terminators, and especially Assault Terminators, have a limited role which they are VERY good at; namely, shock assault and close-combat.

Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility.
Whats the point of making your troops more vulnerable on purpose? Even Imperial Guard has all sort of weapons termies could have in addition to their melee weapons don't me tell that its too expensive.
Not to mention that they should have smoke/grenade launchers.

As for the LR it sort of makes sense as an cheap makeshift tank. But using makeshift tanks as MBT:s because their engineers were unable to build anything better pretty muchly tells the current state of the IoM.

BeRzErKeR wrote:

Tibbsy wrote:

EDIT: Nothing on Lexicanum about the Russ being amphibious - do you have a source at all?

Apologies, I don't have my books with at the moment so I can't provide a quote; but in one of the first Gaunt's Ghosts novels (part of the first omnibus), the Ghosts are part of an amphibious assault on an island. They come under fire and the transports drop them (and their armored support) off too early. While many of the infantry drown and some tanks are lost, most of the armor swims to shore and supports the attack.

I was going to say what Connor said above - I remember that story and it was indeed in Ghostmaker. (Possibly my favourite story in the book ) And he is correct - The armour that got dropped in consisted of Basilisks; which aren't amphibious - being open-topped and all

They were meant to beach first and blast the wall down, to allow the infantry in; instead they got stuck, and a passing dropship did it for them...

EDIT: Typo

Safor wrote:
Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility.
Whats the point of making your troops more vulnerable on purpose? Even Imperial Guard has all sort of weapons termies could have in addition to their melee weapons don't me tell that its too expensive.
Not to mention that they should have smoke/grenade launchers.

I believe Berzerker's entire point is that you build to the requirements you desire or need. That won't include overspecialization.

For example if you need a rifle that can kill regular humans then you build a rifle that gives you the ability to do tat. You don't build in the ability to demolish mutant flamethrower wielding killer apes into it just because you MIGHT face such a thing.

It's all about tradeoffs. The ability to do one thing means that you sacrifice in some other area that may or may not be important. hell even technology is not neccesarily immune to this. You can build a high tech rifle, but that can carry a tradeoff in cost/time to build/materials usage. There's alot of variables to consider.

Veteran Sergeant wrote:

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

Pretty much.

Thunderhawks wouldn't fly.

Silly question but why do you think this. You realise that most modern jets have the aerodynamics of a brick without the use of computers.

And the done have a ton of vector engines.

Any way back on topic the leman Russ looks cool and that's good enough for me.

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Safor wrote:
Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility.
Whats the point of making your troops more vulnerable on purpose? Even Imperial Guard has all sort of weapons termies could have in addition to their melee weapons don't me tell that its too expensive.
Not to mention that they should have smoke/grenade launchers.

I believe Berzerker's entire point is that you build to the requirements you desire or need. That won't include overspecialization.

For example if you need a rifle that can kill regular humans then you build a rifle that gives you the ability to do tat. You don't build in the ability to demolish mutant flamethrower wielding killer apes into it just because you MIGHT face such a thing.

It's all about tradeoffs. The ability to do one thing means that you sacrifice in some other area that may or may not be important. hell even technology is not neccesarily immune to this. You can build a high tech rifle, but that can carry a tradeoff in cost/time to build/materials usage. There's alot of variables to consider.

You know what all military units and personell of any proper army have in common? They are supposed to survive. Like all support units have anti tank abilities, anti aircraft abilities are trained to dig in, know how to deal with CBRN-weapons ect ect so that are less likely to die and can actually perform their mission.

Assault terminators have no ranged ability for no sensible reason.

Safor wrote:

Connor MacLeod wrote:

Safor wrote:
Over specializing is lethal.
They could have stormbolters or some other ranged weapons in addition to their melee weapons however currently they are unable engage against an target at an longer distance .
And their success depends on the teleporter if they miss their target by 50 meters theyre already in serious trouble. They are easy to locate, their movement can be prevented with mines, and several bombs and heavy weapons can be used in close quarters. Especially close combat bazookas ( Yes I know they don't currently exist in the fluff but any weapon type that exists in 2K can also exist in 40K. ) would be ideal against assault terminators.
Plus the enemy has greater mobility.
Whats the point of making your troops more vulnerable on purpose? Even Imperial Guard has all sort of weapons termies could have in addition to their melee weapons don't me tell that its too expensive.
Not to mention that they should have smoke/grenade launchers.

I believe Berzerker's entire point is that you build to the requirements you desire or need. That won't include overspecialization.

For example if you need a rifle that can kill regular humans then you build a rifle that gives you the ability to do tat. You don't build in the ability to demolish mutant flamethrower wielding killer apes into it just because you MIGHT face such a thing.

It's all about tradeoffs. The ability to do one thing means that you sacrifice in some other area that may or may not be important. hell even technology is not neccesarily immune to this. You can build a high tech rifle, but that can carry a tradeoff in cost/time to build/materials usage. There's alot of variables to consider.

You know what all military units and personell of any proper army have in common? They are supposed to survive. Like all support units have anti tank abilities, anti aircraft abilities are trained to dig in, know how to deal with CBRN-weapons ect ect so that are less likely to die and can actually perform their mission.

Assault terminators have no ranged ability for no sensible reason.

Aaannd your point is? You bring up an argument about survival, and you somehow connect that to range weaponry. That doesn't make much sense.

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Aaannd your point is? You bring up an argument about survival, and you somehow connect that to range weaponry. That doesn't make much sense.

An significant unnecessary weakness that can be exploitet by the enemy.

Safor wrote:

CthuluIsSpy wrote:
Aaannd your point is? You bring up an argument about survival, and you somehow connect that to range weaponry. That doesn't make much sense.

An significant unnecessary weakness that can be exploitet by the enemy.

But not having any ranged capability is not a weakness for the assault termies. As Berzerker said, they are used in areas which will place them in close quarters, making ranged combat pointless, and even then they could shrug off most gunfire.

In what context are assault marines being used? against what sort of enemy and in what sort of enviroment? I have this mental image that troops that are equpped and dedicated for counterinsurgency or building to building clearing would need to haul around pocket nukes just in case the terrorists happen to have a doomsday mechabot in their inventory, so it would be nice to clarify here.