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.

 Lone Cat wrote:

 Engine of War wrote:
Never figured why.

honestly want to rename the tank to something else. but can't think of a good name.

1. Or maybe GW goons are dog fans and not a fans of cats .. mew!
Leman Russ the Primarch and Lion el Jonson are rivals. and they did a duel. referring to the rivalry of canis (Wolf) and felis (Lion) families in nature.
Back in the days of The Great Crusade. During the invasion of a warlord stronghold, Space wolves led by Russ favors the frontal assault head on using the brute force, Dark Angels, under the leadership of Lion el Jonson. prefer a sneak attack of a feline being (meow). bypassed the strongpoints and easily slip through the tough defense into the warlord's HQ and neutralized the enemy command.. yep i'm talkin' about bloodfeud.

2. Or maybe a pet name that is a pun to real life William T. Sherman

This has already been addressed...
Also you're incorrect about the start of the rivalry between Johnson and Russ...

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Well Ok it does fit the crap FW fluff which then does not fit the rest of the GW fluff.

Did you just call Badab War, Siege of Vraks and Anphelion project crap? LOL....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
The Flat sides that are a grant total of 11 MM of riveted steel you mean.

Actually it's plasteel, and in fluff it manages to defend not just from anti-tank attacks but also from plasma, brighlance and sometimes even railgun shots. Either Russ is reliable tank or xeno technology is c**p for not being able to blow that kind of material..

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
The Flat sides that are a grant total of 11 MM of riveted steel you mean. No even in groups of 30 or better will the tank we see match the fluff, the model image blows in any and every way you look at it.

Not sure where you're getting your 11 mm riveted steel from. Only measurements I can find are at the weakest 100mm (gun mantle) of reinforced plasteel. The hull has 150mm (of which the frontal armour is sloping which makes me think that it must be nearer 200mm in thickness), the superstructure 180mm and turret 200mm. So where has this 11mm come from? From the front, combining both the hull and superstructures armour, that is about 330mm-380mm thick of plasteel! With the sides it's nearer 330mm - a great difference from 11mm. The tank is described as slow moving, a ponderous machine that rolls forward, soaking up damage and just keeps on going - the weight has to come from somewhere and with the massive engines they have, with only 11mm of riveted steel armour they'd be flying along like the A13 Mk II did in the 30s-40s.

One of the FW books, Gives the armor as MM of steel( not plasi steel). And not 150 MM, but 11 or 12 MM of steel.

That's how thick the armour was on this tank;


I wouldn't trust those numbers myself.

I did say more then once the FW stuff was crap did I not? We talked about this one page 2 or 3, someone at FW who got the write the book had no clue how tanks work post WW I. Also that is a better designed tank then the Russ


I have also went though my IG Codex, I can not find any instances of Russs being deployed more then a single regiment, which is not 300 tanks in most. Seems another case of Fluff contradiction GW is so good at.

Aye I know, was just putting down my opinion of those numbers.

The thing about the Imperial Guard's regiments is that there is no fixed regimental size. We have instances of as few as a couple of thousand Guardsmen and up to 500,000 and beyond. Worlds which primarily field armoured regiments probably have thousands of Leman Russ tanks per regiment whilst a world which specialises in light infantry, say Tallarn, would field smaller armoured regiments or perhaps just have squadrons attached to infantry regiments to bolster their firepower.

It's 40k, interpret it as you will.

I know, but I also know the IG is limited by logistics. The IG Codex makes it seem to me at most a Russ regiment has a a hundred or so tanks. It does more or less say a supper heavy tank regiment has about 5 tanks.

The idea that common Russ regiments are 300 strong really is not not supported by the Ig codex.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I did say more then once the FW stuff was crap did I not? We talked about this one page 2 or 3, someone at FW who got the write the book had no clue how tanks work post WW I. Also that is a better designed tank then the Russ


I have also went though my IG Codex, I can not find any instances of Russs being deployed more then a single regiment, which is not 300 tanks in most. Seems another case of Fluff contradiction GW is so good at.

Well, I can't find the total deployed in a single instance, but on Vraks an afternoons local fighting (across a 3x2 kilometer area) left ~100 tanks destroyed, including 11 superheavies and 25 Basilisks/Medusas. The battle was a loss for the IG, but that was only a small portion of their over-all forces. Hundreds of tanks seems to be a pretty standard MO.

All in what ya call standard, I guess. The IG really do not have such a concept as "Standard" regiment. From what I can pull from the IG codex Most pure Tank regiments are not all that large. They could have one with a 150 tanks and one with 12 as they simply do not have a standard size. Now in a full on crusade you may see three of 4 tank regiments all put into play at once, but I do not think that is the norm at all.

Those large sized tank engagements get recalled and even brought up, not because they are the norm, but because they stand out for the large size and loss of so many units.

I dunno if the 41st Millenium warfare validify the needs of Landship designs. Leman Russ has been developed on that concept. towards the needs of mobile fortress yet capable of travelling in the normal streets.

 Sparks_Havelock wrote:
That's how thick the armour was on this tank;


I wouldn't trust those numbers myself.

A tank you've shown here is Cruiser tank, thin armor but fast!

Yes, an A13 Mk. II (Cruiser IV) - if the Leman Russ had 11mm thick steel armour it would be the equivilant of much of the armour on that little bugger (one of my favourite British tanks). Poor cavalry tanks, fast but as much armour as an ice cream van.

The cruiser/cavalry tanks are designed around the concepts of Baroque-era warfare. Cavalry (except the old Cuirassiers) was universally accepted as fast mounted troops armed just barely enough to hit the weak spots or fight the enemy cavs or quick raids on the enemy infantry lines, (Without considering any possiblilty that an enemy formations may hold up in the terrain that flanking is impossible.)
After the WW1 only Russians were actually considered the concepts of Main battle tank--a moderately fast, reasonably big, and thick armor that armed with main guns that capable to deal with different land targets. While Germany put so much efforts designing their vehicles around Blitzkrieg concepts (includes the introduction of mechanized infantry.. which it is actually following the concepts of 'mounted infantry' Dragoons of the late Renaissance, and introduction of armored hafltracks capable of carrying a whole squad of regular infantry in one vehicle!), their main tanks of the 1939. Pz3 (also the looted Czechoslovakian '38' series) and Pz4 was clearly a carbon copy of British Cavalry tank and Infantry tank concept respectively. Pz3 and Pz38t wears similar armor as allied counterparts (and thinner than french S35 medium tank!), Pz4 (in the 1940 French campaign) were no thicker than British Mathilda and thinner than french B1 Bis. and originally designed as bunker buster/anti-fortress weapon but not to fight tanks. but Pz4 large hulls itself made the tank adaptable to the countless variants and upgrades towards the end of the war.

^ Panzer3 in 1940, the size is around the same as american M3 stuart but a bit smaller than british cruiser tanks. both are armed with 37mm AT gun designed by each nation. the 37mm gun that obsolette even at the beginning of the war.

^ Panzer4 d. also in 1940, armed with 75mm gun . too bad it has short barrel and therefore a pure helepolis and no go against other tanks.
Russians did learn from WW1 that tanks are the future of warfare and had purchased many British tanks to design their very own. although they did have cav tanks. (BT series) they use medium ones in head on combat or tank fights... sh. I can't remember the Russian multiturret medium tanks but it is designed to fight in a head on combat. and eventually replaced by T34

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I did say more then once the FW stuff was crap did I not? We talked about this one page 2 or 3, someone at FW who got the write the book had no clue how tanks work post WW I. Also that is a better designed tank then the Russ

Which book? Imperial Armour Volume One: Imperial Guard & Imperial Navy separately states the bare bones Leman Russ as well as the Executioner, Extermnator, Demolisher, Conqueror and Vanquisher to be 100-200mm. Siege of Vraks part 1 says the same about the Annihilator. I'm not saying there isn't a mention of 11mm somewhere, but if so it was likely a typo.

SerQuintus is right, FW Imperial Armory I said that Leman Russ hulls are as follow:
Turret: 200 MM
Superstructure: 180 MM
Hull: 150 MM
Gun Mantlet: 100 MM

Witch is very weak considering that our modern tanks have 350 - 800 MM armor, but a gun of 'only' 125 MM while Russ have 200 MM cannon ( standard version ).

According to my old copy of Epic Space Marine Armies of the Imperium, A single regiment of the Imperial Guard typically consists of 10 to 40 Companies.

Each Company can also include up to 5 support units.

A Leman Russ Company consists of 10 Leman Russ tanks.

A Leman Russ support unit consists of 3 Leman Russ tanks.

So a single Leman Russ Company will have a minimum of 10 Leman Russ Tanks.

And a Maximum of 25 Leman Russ tanks.

So, since a Regiment typically has 10 to 40 Companies, you are talking 100 Leman Russ tanks minimum and 1000 Leman Russ tanks maximum.


Now look at the information for The Armageddon Wars on page 193 of your main rule book and see how many Regiments there were.

That's a LOT of tanks, even considering not every single Regiment was a tank Regiment.


Super Heavy Tank Companies consist of 3 Super Heavy Tanks.

And a Super Heavy support unit can consist of 1 Super Heavy Tank.

So that means a typical Super Heavy Tank Regiment would consist of 30 Super Heavy Tanks minimum and 320 Super Heavy Tanks maximum.

320 Baneblades, now that'd be a pretty sight.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:Each Company can also include up to 5 support units.
A Leman Russ Company consists of 10 Leman Russ tanks.
A Leman Russ support unit consists of 3 Leman Russ tanks.
So a single Leman Russ Company will have a minimum of 10 Leman Russ Tanks.
And a Maximum of 25 Leman Russ tanks.

I don't think you're supposed to add tanks as support to tanks. Leman Russ support squadrons are detached infantry backup, to reinforce the footslogger regiments.

"Support units, such as heavy weapons platoons and much valued specialist units such as battle tanks, artillery, and abhuman squads, may be attached to a company for a single battle or entire duration of a campaign. These are rarely permanent additions and are attached as needed by the regimental commanders. It is a common practice, especially amongst armoured and artillery regiments, to break down several companies and second them to infantry forces, in exchange for platoons to provide close support from the attentions of enemy troops."
- 5E C:IG, p9

Also keep in mind that "Armies of the Imperium" was released even before 2nd edition of 40k, and whilst there are quite a lot of things from the RT era that still remain unchanged (at least in GW's version of the setting), we all know that there have been a few retcons.

This is the regimental organisation as per the 2E Codex:

The 5E 'dex also gives the Vostroyan Heavy Armoured 24th as an example for the upper range of numbers, and it consists of 1.500 tankmen. I'm not sure whether a Russ has two or three operators, but depending on the answer we'd be looking at something between 300 (if crewed by 3) and 750 (if crewed by 2) vehicles.
Likewise, regiments comprised of rolling behemoths such as Baneblades and Shadowswords are said to "rarely consist of more than a dozen super-heavy tanks".

Mind you, I'm only discussing GW's vision here - there are surely lots of other interpretations of the setting around, and lack of canon means that all of them are equally valid, but for the sake of common ground I'm focusing on just this one.

Hunterindarkness wrote:Seems another case of Fluff contradiction GW is so good at.

Well, the FW people are a different team of writers and designers. It's not that surprising that they may sometimes come up with conflicting stuff (like those blue-robed Sororitas ).

Remember though that when talking about the IG codex, they are not focusing on Tank Companies at all. This is due to the game not focusing on huge sweeping battles. Instead, it is mainly talking about IG companies. Where it does mention things at the Regiment level, it is again talking about a typical regiment.

IG Tank companies are not typical in the 41st millenium. Infantry companies are.

Super Heavy Regiments are rare in the extreme and most of the time you just get companies of super heavy vehicles. Or detachments. But it does show you what is possible with the IG. If they need to they can and do field super heavies in those numbers. It's just incredibly rare.

And you are right. A sensible commander would be backing up his tanks with troops...but we all know not all IG commanders are sensible. So they have maxed out the tank companies before. Usually when facing things like Gazzy's WAAAG. Or The Horus Heresy. Or the 13th Black Crusade. Those would be the times they would call in that level of firepower.

With this in mind, the organization given in the Epic Space Marine game fits very well with the way the IG would deal with that situation. Note that in the Armageddon Wars they have an IG force called the "Minervan Tank Legions" and list them as being 3 legions strong. While I can't say for certain, I am pretty sure those legions would include the regiments as they are laid out in the Epic game system, rather than the IG codex.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:Remember though that when talking about the IG codex, they are not focusing on Tank Companies at all.

But it does. The scan clearly describes "tank companies" on the right page.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:Super Heavy Regiments are rare in the extreme and most of the time you just get companies of super heavy vehicles. Or detachments. But it does show you what is possible with the IG. If they need to they can and do field super heavies in those numbers. It's just incredibly rare.

The 5E Codex describes a super-heavy regiment and its standard complement. It doesn't matter how many regiments there are or how many companies or detachments. We've been given a number for how many super-heavies are in the regiment.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:And you are right. A sensible commander would be backing up his tanks with troops...but we all know not all IG commanders are sensible. So they have maxed out the tank companies before. Usually when facing things like Gazzy's WAAAG. Or The Horus Heresy. Or the 13th Black Crusade. Those would be the times they would call in that level of firepower.

He still needs to get the tanks from somewhere. Support elements are not permanently attached to the regiment, they come from another regiment.
Sure, you could - in theory - split up a tank regiment to support another tank regiment. But that still doesn't increase the latter regiment's nominal strength, and I really don't think it would be done all that often. Chiefly because it makes little difference whether you attack with 4 tank regiments of 300 vehicles each, or 3 reinforced tank regiments of 400 vehicles each. You'll only create unnecessary confusion as the elements are (logically) more used to work inside their own regiment rather than alongside another. The only sensible way it would be done would be to distribute "leftover" tanks left over from a regiment that already has been split up to support infantry regiments.

I honestly Have no clue which FW book that came from. Maybe it was a type O or maybe it was someone had no clue how much armor a tank should carry, I am going with the second. And while I know FW and GW are not the same folks, the blame still lays at GW's feet as you need to control your freaking setting. Its simply lazy setting management and not much else.


On the regiment size, yeah the old stuff does not match the 5e codex, which is what I own. I am going with the Idea of the 5e codex overrules the older codex. In that case a 300 Russ regiment may well not be normal at all, and keep in mind they are unlikely to get replacement tanks. And yes it says a regiment of super heavies are 12 units or less.

On the size of the Russ crew. As it is roughly thew size of a M1( models scale be damned) And we know it has a tank commander( so many models of them). It has to at lest have a 4 man crew, Driver, Gunner, loader and commander. It prob has closer to a 5 or 6 man crew with the side guns and an extra man if it has a Vox.. There is no way it has under 4.

Huh, I totally forgot about the sponson guns. Good call, even though they're optional.

As for GW's control over the setting ... well, as ADB once explained, they regard it as "not a bug, but a feature". I'd like a more uniform background as well, but at least this way I can simply discard certain elements from outsourced fluff that don't fit in with my interpretation of studio material.

Ok I found this page http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Leman_Russ_Battle_Tank#.UNtNvuRJP84

Which gives the crew as Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader, 2 Sponson Gunners so 4 min

I am gonna call BS on that explanation as I do with the "We are not a gaming company" BS.

My apologies Lynata, when I said the IG codex isn't focusing on Tank Companies, I meant the current one. not the 2nd edition one. Also note, that the 2nd edition IG codex has exactly the same number of tanks per company that I mentioned the Epic Space Marine game has. 10 tanks per company.

The additional support detachments could also be tanks and do not have to be troops though normally they are.

Also note in the 5th edition codex on Super Heavy Tank Regiments, it says they they "rarely consist of more than a dozen super-heavy tanks."

Note that is says rarely. What does rarely mean in a galaxy of constant war with millions of battlefields? Rarely does also mean that there could very well be a few full strength regiments of 320 strong super heavy vehicles out there. But they are most certainly incredibly rare.

It says in the 5th ed IG codex that a Leman Russ requires 4 people to operate it, 6 if side sponsons are added.

It also says that regiments are typically raised with a strength of several thousand soldiers but the precise numbers can vary enormously.

So because the numbers vary enormously, you can see that we both have good points. There very well could be super large regiments of both super heavy vehicles, and Leman Russ tanks, and they can also be much lower in number. Both are very valid and do not contradict the fluff at all.

 Lynata wrote:

The 5E 'dex also gives the Vostroyan Heavy Armoured 24th as an example for the upper range of numbers, and it consists of 1.500 tankmen. I'm not sure whether a Russ has two or three operators, but depending on the answer we'd be looking at something between 300 (if crewed by 3) and 750 (if crewed by 2) vehicles.

Each Leman Russ has the following: Commander, Gunner, Driver, Loader and 2 Sponsor Gunners. That's 6 men per tank, 1500:6 = 250 Leman Russ tanks in that Vostroyan regiment.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I honestly Have no clue which FW book that came from.

Maybe it was a type O or maybe it was someone had no clue how much armor a tank should carry, I am going with the second.

While that may be true please bear in mind the following:
M1 Abrams, US Army MBT have 350 - 800 MM thick armor.
T-90, Russia MBT have 700 - 1,650 MM thick armor.

In comparison to two most famous ( Challenger 2 armor is still classified ) MBT's Russ armor is actually quite small. In comparison to him Tiger II "King Tiger" had 180 MM thick armor.

I was talking about the Book I saw it in man. I was not saying it did not say otherwise in another book. 40k contradicts itself in almost every book written, I know it seems to in the few I own.

But yeah even at 100 or 180 MM, steel armor unslopped, riveted armor with such high sides are junk however ya look at it,Also the King tiger would murder a russ it seems to me.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
My apologies Lynata, when I said the IG codex isn't focusing on Tank Companies, I meant the current one. not the 2nd edition one. Also note, that the 2nd edition IG codex has exactly the same number of tanks per company that I mentioned the Epic Space Marine game has. 10 tanks per company.

The Current one however is the one that counts. It really does not matter what the old one may or may not have said on the matter.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:


Also note in the 5th edition codex on Super Heavy Tank Regiments, it says they they "rarely consist of more than a dozen super-heavy tanks."

Note that is says rarely. What does rarely mean in a galaxy of constant war with millions of battlefields? Rarely does also mean that there could very well be a few full strength regiments of 320 strong super heavy vehicles out there. But they are most certainly incredibly rare.

I disagree. It says rarely, meaning the standard is 12 or less. while you might get a rare regiment( made up of leftover ones I would guess) that might double that, you will not see a single regiment with 5 or 6 times that number, much less 320. 12 super heavy tanks are
a massive investment for a world.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
Also the King tiger would murder a russ it seems to me.

Glad to be of assistance

And I don't think so, even if both their armor is the same ( about 180 - 200 MM ) King Tiger has 88 MM Main Cannon while Leman Russ has 200 MM. Rus would hit it fro much grater range with much grater round.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
I was talking about the Book I saw it in man. I was not saying it did not say otherwise in another book. 40k contradicts itself in almost every book written, I know it seems to in the few I own.

But yeah even at 100 or 180 MM, steel armor unslopped, riveted armor with such high sides are junk however ya look at it,Also the King tiger would murder a russ it seems to me.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
My apologies Lynata, when I said the IG codex isn't focusing on Tank Companies, I meant the current one. not the 2nd edition one. Also note, that the 2nd edition IG codex has exactly the same number of tanks per company that I mentioned the Epic Space Marine game has. 10 tanks per company.

The Current one however is the one that counts. It really does not matter what the old one may or may not have said on the matter.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:


Also note in the 5th edition codex on Super Heavy Tank Regiments, it says they they "rarely consist of more than a dozen super-heavy tanks."

Note that is says rarely. What does rarely mean in a galaxy of constant war with millions of battlefields? Rarely does also mean that there could very well be a few full strength regiments of 320 strong super heavy vehicles out there. But they are most certainly incredibly rare.

I disagree. It says rarely, meaning the standard is 12 or less. while you might get a rare regiment( made up of leftover ones I would guess) that might double that, you will not see a single regiment with 5 or 6 times that number, much less 320. 12 super heavy tanks are
a massive investment for a world.

And yet, in the current IG codex it states in the year 883.M41 that the Cadian 423rd spearhead the largest armoured assult since the battle for tallarn. Over eight thousand tank companies and thirty five super heavy detachments are annihilated during the near total destruction of a renegade Titan Legio at the planus steppes.

Sounds to me like there are more than just 12

Roadkill Zombie wrote:

And yet, in the current IG codex it states in the year 883.M41 that the Cadian 423rd spearhead the largest armoured assult since the battle for tallarn. Over eight thousand tank companies and thirty five super heavy detachments are annihilated during the near total destruction of a renegade Titan Legio at the planus steppes.

Sounds to me like there are more than just 12

Erm, spearhead means the unit at the front of the army.. all that statement tells you is that there were at least 35 superheavies in the assault, its utterly irrelevant to the discussion of how many there are in a regiment.

I will concede on how many super heavies are in a regiment now because with Apocalypse they have changed the numbers. They can be anywhere from 9 to 12 strong now, but that also includes all of the supply and service vehicles. I was un aware of this because I really haven't read through the IG section of the Apocalypse book until about five minutes ago (I play Eldar in 40k so never had a need to) However, my numbers on Leman Russ tanks remain the same. There are 10 to a company. and a regiment can consist of anywhere from 3 to 20 companies. And when they form these companies they do not form them with troops. This way if the tanks rebel, they can't have the troop support they would need.

So IG Leman Russ Tank Regiments can consist of between 10 and 200 tanks before detachments are added.