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.

 Frazzled wrote:
Well I think we've established:

*Its a slow moving rock of a vehicle.
*Its able to be produced on a variety of worlds, from differing materials, and operated by crews with "limited" knowledge.
*It has excellent firepower for its size.
(so far you described most Soviet tanks)

*While effective, especially in numbers, it is not as advanced as certain other races, which have dedicated antitank weaponry that can effectively overcome its armor (of course it has less common variants that can do the same). In these circumstances, these deficiencies are made up for with numbers and tactics (mostly numbers).

In essence, its the metal equivalent of the IoM itself.

It's firepower depends on the model. A normal Leman Russ IIRC has something like a 120mm cannon off the modern Abrams tank, which while impressive by modern day standards, isn't anything like a lascannon or plasma cannon in terms of penetration.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Well I think we've established:

*Its a slow moving rock of a vehicle.
*Its able to be produced on a variety of worlds, from differing materials, and operated by crews with "limited" knowledge.
*It has excellent firepower for its size.
(so far you described most Soviet tanks)

*While effective, especially in numbers, it is not as advanced as certain other races, which have dedicated antitank weaponry that can effectively overcome its armor (of course it has less common variants that can do the same). In these circumstances, these deficiencies are made up for with numbers and tactics (mostly numbers).

In essence, its the metal equivalent of the IoM itself.

It's firepower depends on the model. A normal Leman Russ IIRC has something like a 120mm cannon off the modern Abrams tank, which while impressive by modern day standards, isn't anything like a lascannon or plasma cannon in terms of penetration.

The main Battle Cannon has more in common with a howitzer than a 120mm smoothbore gun. It fires massive high explosive shells to blow the gak out of enemy positions before sweeping the place with bolter fire. A Vanquisher is your 120mm equivalent, but on a much higher scale.

It depends on whether you go with the fluff or the artwork/model/schematics, because the fluff (including the technical details see here.

If you go with the fluff, then you have to pretty much ignore a nubmer of facts about the Russ design, whereas if you go with the model you more or less have to ignore the fluff. Or, I suppose you could split the difference and figure both are messed up, or that both are equally true.

And Vanquishers are literally in the same boat, except longer barrels and even more inconisstency when it comes to the ammo (supposedly firing fin stabilized ammo, although it snot easy using that out of rifled barrels which would be more suited to APDS, whilst the IA1 diagram shows an Armor-piercing composite rigid.) And if that doesn't make your head explode, there's how augur shells are either HESH (by fluff) or shaped charge (by visuals) as well.

But that's in line with the nature of certian 40K weapons (like the bolter, which is often claimed to be a gyrojet even though it has a rifled barrel. I won't even bother mentioning the casings and the fluff/visuals lunacy that causes.)

All this technical shizwiz about angles, range and smoothbore vs some other crap means nothing
in the 41st millennium, shermans are irrelevant, they did not fight against literal daemons(although the nazis were evil).
First of, AV 14, this is the cheaply tank of the IoM and it has armour as strong as a Land Raider on the front,
and nearly as good on the sides,
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
It fires AP 3 shells across most tables. To convert that to something like most poster's technical
shizwiz that means it can hurl huge amounts of explosive a long way.
And then there is the sheer weight of numbers.
Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise.

It is awesome. It is not the best tank (Eldar, Necron and Tau MBTs outstrip in fluff at least, and the IoM definitely has tanks more powerful), but it is strong, and extremely cost effective.

Even in real life 'best tank' isn't something that's easily dictated simply because it can differ based on lots of other factors. Like in the Cold War era, both the West and the Soviets had rather different ideas about what tanks were used for, and this shaped their design ideas differently.

Even when it comes to 'technical' or 'engineering' stuff, comparisons aren't easy (technology doesnt' follow some linear RTS-esque 'plateau' organization.. its quite a bit messier than that, and involves complex ideas like making tradeoffs/sacrifices for a given capability.)
And sometimes you learn surprising facts. Like for some tank designs, fuel tanks (filled fuel tanks, mind) and the engine are considered to contribute to its armour and survivability (because again, modern tanks are generally rated in RHAe because they are estimating what protection would be if the tank did have homogenous armour.)

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.

I think that's all anyone needs to read to ignore the rest of what you wrote.

It's ugly.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Even in real life 'best tank' isn't something that's easily dictated simply because it can differ based on lots of other factors. Like in the Cold War era, both the West and the Soviets had rather different ideas about what tanks were used for, and this shaped their design ideas differently.

Even when it comes to 'technical' or 'engineering' stuff, comparisons aren't easy (technology doesnt' follow some linear RTS-esque 'plateau' organization.. its quite a bit messier than that, and involves complex ideas like making tradeoffs/sacrifices for a given capability.)
And sometimes you learn surprising facts. Like for some tank designs, fuel tanks (filled fuel tanks, mind) and the engine are considered to contribute to its armour and survivability (because again, modern tanks are generally rated in RHAe because they are estimating what protection would be if the tank did have homogenous armour.)

... except this isn't about (in theory) whether it is the best tank. It's about how survivable it is... and the answer is that it is too slow to dictate numbers in an engagement. Against anything faster than it, they'll die off like flies, because they can only roll forward slowly while Eldar or Tau tanks can sip in, fire a bunch, and flee when numbers turn against them.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
All this technical shizwiz about angles, range and smoothbore vs some other crap means nothing
in the 41st millennium, shermans are irrelevant, they did not fight against literal daemons(although the nazis were evil).
First of, AV 14, this is the cheaply tank of the IoM and it has armour as strong as a Land Raider on the front,
and nearly as good on the sides,
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
It fires AP 3 shells across most tables. To convert that to something like most poster's technical
shizwiz that means it can hurl huge amounts of explosive a long way.
And then there is the sheer weight of numbers.
Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise.

The Leman Russ is a garbage design that shouldn't even survive long at all in actual combat. No suspension, hilariously large profile, little to no angled armor, the belly is completely exposed, and its main cannon is so highly elevated that its ability to fire at targets close to it is severely limited.

As I see it, the LR is the 'lasgun tank'. Highly cost-effective, easy to make and maintain, but one-on-one it can't quite match the other tanks - except through numbers, which it does well due to previously mentioned advantages.

EmpNortonII wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.

I think that's all anyone needs to read to ignore the rest of what you wrote.

It's ugly.

Wyzilla wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
All this technical shizwiz about angles, range and smoothbore vs some other crap means nothing
in the 41st millennium, shermans are irrelevant, they did not fight against literal daemons(although the nazis were evil).
First of, AV 14, this is the cheaply tank of the IoM and it has armour as strong as a Land Raider on the front,
and nearly as good on the sides,
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
It fires AP 3 shells across most tables. To convert that to something like most poster's technical
shizwiz that means it can hurl huge amounts of explosive a long way.
And then there is the sheer weight of numbers.
Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise.

The Leman Russ is a garbage design that shouldn't even survive long at all in actual combat. No suspension, hilariously large profile, little to no angled armor, the belly is completely exposed, and its main cannon is so highly elevated that its ability to fire at targets close to it is severely limited.

Read what I said:
"Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise."
And yes, its not beautiful in the conventional sense, but its ugly bulk covered in guns speaks to me.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
All this technical shizwiz about angles, range and smoothbore vs some other crap means nothing
in the 41st millennium, shermans are irrelevant, they did not fight against literal daemons(although the nazis were evil).
First of, AV 14, this is the cheaply tank of the IoM and it has armour as strong as a Land Raider on the front,
and nearly as good on the sides,
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
It fires AP 3 shells across most tables. To convert that to something like most poster's technical
shizwiz that means it can hurl huge amounts of explosive a long way.
And then there is the sheer weight of numbers.
Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise.

Don't forget the lascannon and HK option.

 Frazzled wrote:

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:
All this technical shizwiz about angles, range and smoothbore vs some other crap means nothing
in the 41st millennium, shermans are irrelevant, they did not fight against literal daemons(although the nazis were evil).
First of, AV 14, this is the cheaply tank of the IoM and it has armour as strong as a Land Raider on the front,
and nearly as good on the sides,
Then there is how the tank looks. It is so beautiful in its impersonation of a bunker on tracks.
It fires AP 3 shells across most tables. To convert that to something like most poster's technical
shizwiz that means it can hurl huge amounts of explosive a long way.
And then there is the sheer weight of numbers.
Basically what I'm trying to say is I don't give a damn about your facts and figures, the LR is
awesome and no one shall convince me otherwise.

Don't forget the lascannon and HK option.

Like I said, a bunker on tracks, so three heavy bolters, large explodey turret, and a big missile, true beauty as the enemies of the Emprah fall in droves.

What are you guyz talking about - it's an awesome-looking tank. So grimdark!

 koooaei wrote:
What are you guyz talking about - it's an awesome-looking tank. So grimdark!

Finally, someone who agrees.

 Wyzilla wrote:
No suspension, hilariously large profile, little to no angled armor, the belly is completely exposed, and its main cannon is so highly elevated that its ability to fire at targets close to it is severely limited.

A small note: angled armor actually has disadvantages compared to normal armor, especially against infantry anti-tank, which is often launched from elevated positions. The angled armor is, itself, not inherently better, it just changes the angle at which shots hit it. If a shot still hits it at a 90% angle, all benefits of the angled armor are removed.

Angled armor is thus great against other tanks, but not so great against artillery, infantry fire, airstrikes, etc.

But even WITH the lack of angled armor, the Leman Russ still has better armor value in-game than many of the tanks mentioned as being superior to it. Or, in other words, It has better front armor than them in SPITE of the lack of angled armor.

I'm not sure its belly is that exposed in the sense of lesser armor, either, unless that's not what you meant? And it has other armaments that can take out other nearby targets. I actually recall the LRBT having a suspension in one of the cut-away images of it, with springs involved somehow; this may be 2nd edition lore however, it might not be true any more, but I haven't seen evidence of a retcon.

And the high profile is mostly there for ease of manufacture, which is why it's a much more practical mass production tank than any of the other examples that you mentioned.

 Melissia wrote:

And the high profile is mostly there for ease of manufacture

Wait how?

i would figure its just extra material used to make it taller.

Logistics of it wont matter too much as they can be made on sight, but transpiration of existing ones and relics would suck i think.

 CREEEEEEEEED wrote:

 koooaei wrote:
What are you guyz talking about - it's an awesome-looking tank. So grimdark!

Finally, someone who agrees.

Actually model a Vanquisher turrent on a King Tiger Hull, and you have a very hot looking tank. A king Tiger turrent on a chimera hull has a similar much more evil look.
Just saying...


Mmm..now I'm wanting to take the old armored company out for a spin.

 Desubot wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

And the high profile is mostly there for ease of manufacture

Wait how?

Giving additional room and space inside allows for ease of manufacture, maintenance, and repair.

 Melissia wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

And the high profile is mostly there for ease of manufacture

Wait how?

Giving additional room and space inside allows for ease of manufacture, maintenance, and repair.

I suppose. I though i saw an interferer cut out and it was literally jam packed with stuff. though i aint a theoretical tank mechanic or anything

 Melissia wrote:

 Desubot wrote:

 Melissia wrote:

And the high profile is mostly there for ease of manufacture

Wait how?

Giving additional room and space inside allows for ease of manufacture, maintenance, and repair.

It is wasteful and allows for a very easy target. There is literaly no rational excuse for the leman russ except from "GW wanted it to look rugged and primitive".

I think you nailed it.

KingDeath wrote:
It is wasteful

Wasteful depends on your point of view. The Imperium has plenty of resources and labor, and it chose the purely economical route of a simpler, easy to maintain, easy to fix design over a more complicated design that would be more expensive and require more time in the garage (and, therefor, off the battlefield) in order to work properly.

Compare this to aircraft; the F-14 required an average of 24 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. The F-117 was said to require over 100 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.

You'll thus get a lot more utility out of an F-14 in wartime than an F-117, impacting its actual value to strategists and commanders on the field. Amusingly, and yet unsurprisingly, the most efficient combat aircraft in US service right now is the A-10 (and it is also the most useful, which is why the Air Farce wants to get rid of it).

 Melissia wrote:

KingDeath wrote:
It is wasteful

Wasteful depends on your point of view. The Imperium has plenty of resources and labor, and it chose the purely economical route of a simpler, easy to maintain, easy to fix design over a more complicated design that would be more expensive and require more time in the garage (and, therefor, off the battlefield) in order to work properly.

Compare this to aircraft; the F-14 required an average of 24 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. The F-117 was said to require over 100 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.

You'll thus get a lot more utility out of an F-14 in wartime than an F-117, impacting its actual value to strategists and commanders on the field. Amusingly, and yet unsurprisingly, the most efficient combat aircraft in US service right now is the A-10 (and it is also the most useful, which is why the Air Farce wants to get rid of it).

The feth? That A-10 is the most useless plane in the entire arsenal of the Air Force as it has zero defense against enemy aircraft, SAMs, or anti aircraft fire. They want to retire it for good reason, it's a worthless plane only good for shooting at insurgents instead of an actual war. Even its original job as a tank killer is outdated, its 30mm gatling cannon would now be fairly useless against modern armor like the T-90. Hence why it's being replaced with drones or the F-35 carrying a bunch of guided missiles, which are far superior to the A-10's cannon. Also part of the reason why the old AC-130 gunships are being gutted and having everything but the 30mm cannon torn out and replaced with missiles.

 Melissia wrote:

KingDeath wrote:
It is wasteful

Wasteful depends on your point of view. The Imperium has plenty of resources and labor, and it chose the purely economical route of a simpler, easy to maintain, easy to fix design over a more complicated design that would be more expensive and require more time in the garage (and, therefor, off the battlefield) in order to work properly.

Compare this to aircraft; the F-14 required an average of 24 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight. The F-117 was said to require over 100 hours of maintenance for every hour of flight.

You'll thus get a lot more utility out of an F-14 in wartime than an F-117, impacting its actual value to strategists and commanders on the field. Amusingly, and yet unsurprisingly, the most efficient combat aircraft in US service right now is the A-10 (and it is also the most useful, which is why the Air Farce wants to get rid of it).

It doesn't quite work that way. Ease of production would be an argument if there was a positive correlation between huge size and production yet there isn't. There is a difference between being suitably spacey (if you want spacey, the M60 is spacey) for maintanence work and a tank which is almost as large as a house. I also argue that the Imperium's ressources aren't as unlimited as you claim. As the imperial standard tank the Leman Russ has to be produced on every single industrialised world and not all of them have the luxury of nigh endless ressources which could anyways be better used producing two smaller, equaly powerful, tanks than a single heavy one. This doesn't even touch the tactical disadvanges that come from the tank's "unique" form and which will only lead to more repairs (in the best case) or more replacement orders as compared to a sensible tank. Being a huge block of metal does not make the Leman Russ design simple or efficient. It just makes it easy to hit and a drain on ressources which could be better used to produce more tanks. There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.

And then i just realized that lot of that IS made off world and shipped around (specific patterns and stuff)

The fact that its bigger also hurts in the world of logistics. which easily can out strip any benefit from ease of access and repair.

Which defiantly kills resources.

As the imperial standard tank the Leman Russ has to be produced on every single industrialised world and not all of them have the luxury of nigh endless ressources which could anyways be better used producing two smaller, equaly powerful, tanks than a single heavy one.

The Patterns for which don't exist, and developing them is Tech-Heresy.

There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.

And every nation that ever fielded them died and has been utterly forgotten, their bones picked clean by tribes of techno-barbarians.

 Psienesis wrote:

As the imperial standard tank the Leman Russ has to be produced on every single industrialised world and not all of them have the luxury of nigh endless ressources which could anyways be better used producing two smaller, equaly powerful, tanks than a single heavy one.

The Patterns for which don't exist, and developing them is Tech-Heresy.

There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.

And every nation that ever fielded them died and has been utterly forgotten, their bones picked clean by tribes of techno-barbarians.

This is imo the only context in which the Leman Russ makes sense, as the product of ancient close minded dogma and simple lack of knowledge/ interest on how to do better.
As such the Russ is an outgrowth of the Imperium's overall state and not the product of any rational tankmaking process.

KingDeath wrote:

 Psienesis wrote:

As the imperial standard tank the Leman Russ has to be produced on every single industrialised world and not all of them have the luxury of nigh endless ressources which could anyways be better used producing two smaller, equaly powerful, tanks than a single heavy one.

The Patterns for which don't exist, and developing them is Tech-Heresy.

There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.

And every nation that ever fielded them died and has been utterly forgotten, their bones picked clean by tribes of techno-barbarians.

This is imo the only context in which the Leman Russ makes sense, as the product of ancient close minded dogma and simple lack of knowledge/ interest on how to do better.
As such the Russ is an outgrowth of the Imperium's overall state and not the product of any rational tankmaking process.

Not really. While still ungodly huge, the Forge World Baneblade variants have sloped armor, covered tracks, and appear to have suspension.

 Wyzilla wrote:
That A-10 is the most useless plane in the entire arsenal of the Air Force

The A-10 can carry far more missiles than the overly expensive mess of mediocrity that is the F-35, and can loiter longer to use them, both in terms of survivability, turn rate, and fuel usage. The A-10 is superior to that waste of money when it comes to Close Air Support-- the primary mission of any aircraft in modern wars.

There's very little actual combat experience any more in air superiority, because the wars between superpowers that you reference haven't actually happened. What HAS actually happened is what you call "shooting insurgents". That's what we've been doing for the past twenty plus years, in case you haven't noticed.

It's better to have a CAS specialist and an Air Superiority specialist than one massively more expensive generalist that doesn't do as good as either of the above.

KingDeath wrote:
There is a difference between being suitably spacey (if you want spacey, the M60 is spacey) for maintanence work and a tank which is almost as large as a house.

The actual size of the Leman Russ varies between artistic renditions, so I'm not so sure you should take the model seriously in that regard.

KingDeath wrote:
There are a good number of relatively simple and efficient designs in tank history, not one looked like the Leman Russ, for good reason i might add.

ANd they also don't look like the Abrams, either, for that matter. That thing is anything but efficient. Perhaps the most efficient tank designs were the T-34 and Sherman, when it comes to mass production and effectiveness on the battlefield. But in 40k, the Leman Russ is an equivalent to those two tanks, except a little heavier.

 Wyzilla wrote:


The feth? That A-10 is the most useless plane in the entire arsenal of the Air Force as it has zero defense against enemy aircraft, SAMs, or anti aircraft fire. They want to retire it for good reason, it's a worthless plane only good for shooting at insurgents instead of an actual war. Even its original job as a tank killer is outdated, its 30mm gatling cannon would now be fairly useless against modern armor like the T-90. Hence why it's being replaced with drones or the F-35 carrying a bunch of guided missiles, which are far superior to the A-10's cannon. Also part of the reason why the old AC-130 gunships are being gutted and having everything but the 30mm cannon torn out and replaced with missiles.

The F-35 moves to fast too identify targets on the ground and it burns fuel too fast to have an acceptable loiter time over the battlefield.

The A-10 is vastly superior in terms of survivability to its closest counterpart, the AH-64 Apache. The A-10 is tougher and faster, making it harder to hit with small arms.

The F-35 currently carries too few missiles to be useful as a weapons platform. It's too slow- in terms of raw speed, turning speed, or its ability to climb- to be worthwhile as a dog fighter. The vertical-landing version currently has problems because it melts landing ship decks with its engines.

The F-35 is going to go down in history as the next F-105 Thunderchief.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Melissia wrote:
ANd they also don't look like the Abrams, either, for that matter. That thing is anything but efficient. Perhaps the most efficient tank designs were the T-34 and Sherman, when it comes to mass production and effectiveness on the battlefield. But in 40k, the Leman Russ is an equivalent to those two tanks, except a little heavier.

So, here's the real question that re-focuses the OP's original statement.

If you're a tanker in the 40k universe, what do you want to be behind the wheel of- a Lemar Russ? A Predator? A Hammerhead? A Falcon?