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.

And perhaps not everything that Forgeworld writes should be taken for gospel @ plating thickness.

I'm never going to accept blue-robed Battle Sisters, either. Or that lasgun bolts "ricochet" off power armour

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

How do you know that the model cannot do what it says it can? Perhaps materials science has improved so that 110mm of armor is ~40000mm RHAe or something? Perhaps the engine develops 10,000,000 KW allowing the tank to power through any and all terrain, suspension be damned?

Because designs have limits man. There are reasons no one makes this one past the 1920's. Also its steel or plasti-steel..all in which book ya read.( I think they should go the Battletech route and simply make up a new armor substance in place of trying to use one people know)

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

How do you know that the model cannot do what it says it can? Perhaps materials science has improved so that 110mm of armor is ~40000mm RHAe or something? Perhaps the engine develops 10,000,000 KW allowing the tank to power through any and all terrain, suspension be damned?

Because designs have limits man. There are reasons no one makes this one past the 1920's. Also its steel or plasti-steel..all in which book ya read.( I think they should go the Battletech route and simply make up a new armor substance in place of trying to use one people know)

Oh, and you know the limits of a design of a fictional tank 40,000 38,000 years from now? And the reasons that designs like this didn't make it past the 1920s are many and varied, but not altogether unconquerable through improved technology, as I demonstrated above. When the design is unalterable and sacrosanct, then the Tech-Priests had to make do with changing the technology that went in it.

As for your second point, steel means, to us, iron with carbon trapped in its lattices. Plasti-steel means jack and gak to us. 40,000 years from now "steel" could be the "sacred word" for 'that tough stuff we found in the bin in the corner.' And plasteel can be feth-all as far as we know. Could be air!

EDIT:

In fact, epistemology would imply that "steel" coming to be a colloquialism for "tough-ass metal" is actually more likely than inventing a new word entirely, especially in the ass-backwards conservatism found in the Imperium.

That's the part you aren't understanding Hunterindarkness, they make it because they have always made it,. not because it is any good. Just like in the description of the Imperium in the new 6th edition rule book about how entire worlds in the Imperium are dedicated to making parts for things that don't exist anymore. Entire worlds spend generation after generation making parts for things like doors, toilets, bolt # 4546 that goes on a container for sugar...general stuff like that. And those things they are built for don't even exist in the Imperium anymore. So why would they ever stop making a tank like the leman russ design that they are using?

Personally you may not like the model GW has been producing for years and claiming it to be the Leman Russ but since it officially IS the leman russ, your options are to accept it as a Leman Russ, or don't buy it and get something else to represent your Russ. We know your choice is to get something else, but honestly, you have to accept like the Rhino, it isn't in scale very well. But that doesn't mean it isn't a Leman Russ.

STC constructs. Two explorers found an STC for a new form of combat knife and were each awarded a planet. There's only so many knife designs in the world, so I'm willing to bet that the importance had more to do with the material itself.

What is there saying that something similar wasn't applied to a Russ's building materials?

I never once said it was not a Russ. I know what the model is. What I said was the model we have does not match the performance in fluff or the game stats nor does it match the main guard armies aesthetics. And model scale is sadly not limited to the russ, no 40k model is in scale, look how small Sm's are for instance. Its simply worse with the tanks.

And that's what I'm saying to you. It DOES match. It matches perfectly. the IG is in no way a unified force of guys. Look back at the different editions of the IG codex and you will see that nothing is unified. Recently GW has done a push on Cadian troops (probably because of the Eye of Terror campaign when they started to really push Cadia models as the most common guard models they made) but fluff wise the Cadians are only one of many many many different types of troops. It seems to me as if you are saying that the Leman Russ model design doesn't fit with the Cadians. I believe different.

In my opinion (and the opinion of the model designers) the Leman Russ is bad on purpose and the model they made to represent that fits exactly with how I see the Leman Russ tank. It is made from an STC design. STC designs pre date the Imperium. They are not meant to fit with any modern army. They are meant to fit with archaic armies from the past. This is on purpose.

Yes, the IG would use that tank design no matter what you keep trying to tell us. Do you know why? Because it is an STC design made in mass by the forge worlds. They are supplied to the IG in mass from many worlds and are not meant to be aesthetically pleasing. They are meant to die in droves. They are meant to line up, fire, die or survive return fire, then fire again. And when they die, they are replaced by more. And because the people in power tell them to use it.

The expense of producing them means nothing to an organization like the Imperium that uses slave labor as a work force and can mass produce on levels no one else in the galaxy can. With billions of worlds at the Imperiums disposal, losing a few generations of soldiers means nothing. Nor does losing a few million tanks. Thats why they can prolong wars for hundreds of years if need be.

If you are in the IG they don't care about your safety. They don't care about your ability to actually do or know anything other than shoot your weapon. They could care less about what you think about your survivability in a tank of that nature, climb in and do your job or be executed. That is how they work. That is why the IG use them.

STC items are from the height of humanities tech. You can dumb them down but it fails to match fluff that any STC design is this bad.I can get it was meant to be something else, but not that bad, that if an STC spit out that..well it was a wonder mankind would make flashlights or radios with that STC program. No way in hell anything that designed A.I, Lasers or a decent pocket knife made that.

I am never gonna agree it fits as outside of some FW armies most IG scream 60's- 80's in look and feel. It simply is an odd man out (ok all tanks, just the Russ is the worse of them)

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
STC items are from the height of humanities tech. You can dumb them down but it fails to match fluff that any STC design is this bad.I can get it was meant to be something else, but not that bad, that if an STC spit out that..well it was a wonder mankind would make flashlights or radios with that STC program. No way in hell anything that designed A.I, Lasers or a decent pocket knife made that.

I am never gonna agree it fits as outside of some FW armies most IG scream 60's- 80's in look and feel. It simply is an odd man out (ok all tanks, just the Russ is the worse of them)

Wait so is it the design that is bad, or the aesthetic?

If you say the design is bad, well, it clearly isn't. It absolutely wrecks every tank it comes up against barring superheavies. That is the measure of a design - not how it looks but how it performs on the battlefield.

If you disagree with the aesthetic, well, then more power to you- aesthetics are too subjective.

Roadkill Zombie wrote:
That's the part you aren't understanding Hunterindarkness, they make it because they have always made it,. not because it is any good.

Bingo. There is no improvement or innovation in the Imperium.

Maybe hunterindarkness thinks it doesn't fit with the Cadians. I disagree, I think it fits perfectly. I further think it fits even better with Mordians, Praetorians, Death Korp, Vostroyans, Valhallans, and so on.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:


Wait so is it the design that is bad, or the aesthetic?

.

Its one and the same. The design is WWI as is the Aesthetic. I dislike the look, some folks like the look, like or dislike does not change the design from being a very poor one.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
STC items are from the height of humanities tech. You can dumb them down but it fails to match fluff that any STC design is this bad.I can get it was meant to be something else, but not that bad, that if an STC spit out that..well it was a wonder mankind would make flashlights or radios with that STC program. No way in hell anything that designed A.I, Lasers or a decent pocket knife made that.

I am never gonna agree it fits as outside of some FW armies most IG scream 60's- 80's in look and feel. It simply is an odd man out (ok all tanks, just the Russ is the worse of them)

Wait so is it the design that is bad, or the aesthetic?

If you say the design is bad, well, it clearly isn't. It absolutely wrecks every tank it comes up against barring superheavies. That is the measure of a design - not how it looks but how it performs on the battlefield.

If you disagree with the aesthetic, well, then more power to you- aesthetics are too subjective.

Actualy it doesn't. Both Tau and Eldar tanks, which are craptastic designs by themselfs, have always been described as superior to the Leman Russ. Since the Leman Russ's stats ( size, speed, weaponry )are fairly well known we can also say that it is in many ways inferior to modern day ( or even older ) tanks. As others have said, the only reaosn why the LR is used is that it is an ancient STC design ( and not even a military one ) that is available to almost every world in the Imperium.

 KingDeath wrote:

Actualy it doesn't. Both Tau and Eldar tanks, which are craptastic designs by themselfs, have always been described as superior to the Leman Russ.

In the IA:Taros book, the Hammerhead is actually described as a "worthy opponent" to the Leman Russ mostly because of its railgun (later it is handwaved that the Hammerhead is more on the level of the Predator).

Actually. Looking at the cut-away right now, if the Leman Russ was scaled up just a little bit, I could reliably see a crew of four in there. Commander, driver, gunner, LOADER (you guys are forgetting this one). Presumably either the driver, or loader will fire the hull-mounted weapon. In fact, the innards of the Leman Russ looks surprisingly spacious for what amounts to a main battle tank. Seriously, have any of you actually sat inside an MBT before? I'm not talking about an APC or IFV, I'm talking about front-of-the-line MBTs along the lines of an M1A2 Abrams, a Leopard, etc.

It exist because it needs to. Because its not the tank the imperium deserve but the one it needs right now . So it wont complain because it can take it. Because they're not our normal tank. It is a silent guardian, a watchful protector . A leman russ !

 Ilove40k wrote:
It exist because it needs to. Because its not the tank the imperium deserve but the one it needs right now . So it wont complain because it can take it. Because they're not our normal tank. It is a silent guardian, a watchful protector . A leman russ !

As much as I'd like to hit you in the face with a baseball bat for that, have an exalt.

You made me spew italian soda all over my desk.

 Ninjacommando wrote:
Trying to look for it in the new books, on what pages does it say it uses rivets? or are we just assuming it does?

I need to buy IA books, the 'rivetting' discussions actually bourne from the actual model itself.
maybe the fact that standard russ uses layers of various (and fictional) materials -- ceramite and plascretes, means that it needs something to secure these layers of different materials in place. but i'm sure that the innermost layer of the tank, the hull itself, is secured by welding and has spalling-proofs (and does so NBC and other life support units to allow crews to fight in any kind of extreme environments... even Demonworld if any Imperial commander dares to invade one.

tall profiles are a very stupid concepts of tank designs but according to FW IA1 .both Russ and Chimera, along with their respective variants, DO have spring-mounted suspension system. it should be noted that the suspensions used in both tanks are ACTIVE ones (which needs hydraulic systems and/or some form of motors to raise or lower roadwheels) while a cutaway picture of Chimera reveals that it uses what appears to be Sherman VVSS suspension covered in a big bogie skirt pieces, hydraulic systems may be mounted inside bogie rectangular housings next to a pair of roadwheels. those tanks NEED them in order to cruise through battlefield (smoothride is a by-product, but useful because it allows gunners a steady aim and thus, better accuracy)

Before russ there was Malcador (and some variants), built without any references to an STC (and some Malcadors were built at Terra!) but built after the experiences of the Emperor terra campaign, Malcador is big, taller than Russ. but has the same width, enough to engage any streetfights. However, Malcador has a bad reputation of unrealiable and underpowered prime mover. it has exposed roadwheels though.. (but i'm not sure which type of suspension system does Malcador uses)

in the same token, GW said that Russ (which comes later) is VERY reliable, it means that IoM does have some tech advances.

MORE TO COME

The Leman Russ is too high, that's for sure. But modern tanks have flat sides too, to be sure. They're just not as large targets as the Russ because someone's actually taken the trouble to make them as low as possible. And modern tanks too require infantry support in order to keep enemy troops from running at them with shaped charges and stuff.

Finns used something quite primitive called Molotov Cocktails vs Soviet tanks in the so-called Winter War, the ill-planned Soviet invasion that was supposed to reach the west coast in a few weeks. Getting a burning mixture of gasoline, kerosone, tar and potassium chlorate into your air intakes is a really nasty thing for a tank and the crew in it...

"The Finns' policy was to allow the Russian tanks to penetrate their defences, even inducing them to do so by 'canalising' them through gaps and concentrating their small arms fire on the infantry following them. The tanks that penetrated were taken on by gun fire in the open and by small parties of men armed with explosive charges and petrol bombs in the forests and villages... The essence of the policy was the separation of the AFVs from the infantry, as once on their own the tank has many blind spots and once brought to a stop can be disposed of at leisure"

 Hunterindarkness wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:

How do you know that the model cannot do what it says it can? Perhaps materials science has improved so that 110mm of armor is ~40000mm RHAe or something? Perhaps the engine develops 10,000,000 KW allowing the tank to power through any and all terrain, suspension be damned?

Because designs have limits man.

Your limits don't apply to science that decided traveling through hell was acceptable, then engineered the equipment to do so.

 Lone Cat wrote:

tall profiles are a very stupid concepts of tank design

Wrong. Different profiles fit different fighting environments. It's a generalization to state that all tanks need to hug the earth and be flat, "tall" tanks are more common in environment where LOS is fairly important, such as heavy scrublands or forests. Especially for the latter, building upwards rather than sideways allows tanks to squeeze in between large trees in a forest rather than having to try to ram every single one of them.

 MajorStoffer wrote:

 Ilove40k wrote:
It exist because it needs to. Because its not the tank the imperium deserve but the one it needs right now . So it wont complain because it can take it. Because they're not our normal tank. It is a silent guardian, a watchful protector . A leman russ !

As much as I'd like to hit you in the face with a baseball bat for that, have an exalt.

You made me spew italian soda all over my desk.

Sorry about that !

The only thing I've been able to find on the Leman Russ power source comes from the old 3rd edition core rule book.

It says:

"Phaethon-pattern (type XV)
Leman Russ Battle-Tank

Contrary to previous designs, the Type XV Leman Russ uses only a single crystal battery generation unit. This has been designed with reference to newly re-discovered Standard Template Constructs on Gravis 5. This has enabled us to reconstruct the power generation units of our battle tanks in accordance with the more combat-effective designs that were in use during the Storming of Vrech. Improvements in the thaumic-resonance of the crystal orientation, and development in the growth patterns of Diaquartzoid matter, allows much more efficient energy storage and expulsion. In addition, the standard photolatic collectors have been replaced by much more sensitive panels able to accumulate and store energy down to fifty picocandela / second at standard Solar luminosity. The crystal battery unit provides only ancillary energy requirements, the bulk of the unit's operational powerload is still supplied by a fifty square kilo-cubits Adaptable Thermic Combustor engine (stricter measures concerning the use of non-dried vegetative-substances and foodstuffs as fuel are recommended).

Armour and armament are as Type XII-XIII with standard retro-fitted sponson mounts, energy re-chargers and ammunition supply feeds.

[Please note that the Damacles- pattern (Type XIV) Leman Russ has been withdrawn from active service due to dysfunctional filtration units]"


Since that is all I've been able to find on the subject, unless someone has something else about how a Leman Russ is powered and what it all means I don't think we can just blatantly assume that we really know ANYTHING about the Leman Russ and wether or not it is a workable tank in it's current form.

Anyoen else notice in that cut-away model (which is awesome by the way) that the commander is standing in the turret hatch with his crotch behind the breach which can recoil rather far? (the abrams breach recoils something like 3 feet, i'd imagine the Leman russ does something similar)

No wonder Leman Russ Commanders don't have any kids!


Either way. the model doesn't really have any room for anyone but a poor commander sitting on the gun breach having his crotch smashed every time the gun recoils and a driver. plus I really don't think the ammunition would be stowed that far away from the gun.

and wheres the fuel tank? I can see the engine, the gear box, the transmission etc. but no Fuel tank. I see some lascannon batterys but im assuming that provides power for the engine and the rest of the machine but thats not going to store any sort of gas or fuel.

If its on the opposite side of the tank then that would be one piddly fuel tank..... limiting the tanks range to such a degree it would be pointless.

Also. I've never read of a Lascannon gunner (Hull gunner). Its always 4 people. Driver, Gunner, Loader, and Commander (with possible 2 sponson gunners squished into the sponsons which are seperate compartments alltogether.)

The Driver fires the lascannon otherwise.



Either which way the design of the Leman Russ only has one advantage over a modern tank design. it can climb.

The reason for the romboid tracks on WW1 tanks was to clamber through trenches or over them. a Leman Russ probly would not have the same cabailitys in terms of how wide a ditch/trench would be. but it could scale an embankment or wall much better then a tank with a suspension similar to todays MBTs.

Otherwise the LRBT would be a terrible design outright and probly would at most be a curiosity in some museum if a vehicale like it ever was tested by a country with disposable income between WW1 and 2, but history tells of tanks ditching that shape as soon as they could like dropping a hot iron in your hands. The only tank during WW2 or before WW2 that had WW1 trenchs in mind was the gigantic TOG 2 which had a super long hull to allow for trench crossing.


All in All The Leman Russ fictitous or not is still a bad design for a Armored Fighting Vehicale. The only reason it is kept by the imperium is the fact that society is on its ass end in terms of thinking.

Heck. My recent construction of a alternative design to the Leman Russ (I've named the Vanguard, to drop the spehess puppies name) has show me the majority if not all of the defects in the Leman Russ design.

my Vangaurd Tank maybe be merely a model and as ficitonal as the Russ itself but atleast it has some real thought behind the inner workings of armored war machines! I think the LR is built as it is "because it looks cool" and doens't really have any true mechanical or technical knowledge behind it besides the fact that WW1 tanks have giant romboid suspensions.

Completely ignoring the fluff and the rules, the russ is extremely poorly designed. Even without the space problems and the thin armor, the russ would not be able to get around a battlefield that is not completely flat. The piss-poor ground clearance and the lack of suspension means that any small bit of debris would have a good chance of stopping the russ. As something that supposedly used to be farming equipment, I would expect it to have the ability to cope with more varied terrain.

Then fluff wise, the russ is never mentioned as being better than any other races vehicles, except maybe the orks, but that is not surprising. The Russ is outclassed by the more manoeuvrable and more effecient tanks of the eldar and tau, and the humble predator is more than a match for the russ.

Just as a thought to throw it out there, perhaps the crew arrangement follows that of French tanks from the mid-late 30s, in that the turret is a 'one man turret' where the Commander performs the duties of both Commander & Gunner, whilst the Gunner position refers to the hull mounted weapon. That would make far more sense for the layout of the vehicle, especially as if it were the driver who fired the hull mounted weapon he'd have to keep swapping positions whereas having a dedicated gunner and driver would be much more efficient - the gunner can keep firing the weapon at targets whilst the vehicle is moving, because if it's the drives responsibility then every target of opportunity is almost guaranteed to be lost because he'd have to stop the tank, clamber over to the weapon, aim and fire it and then hop back into his seat again, by which time there might be another target of opportunity so he clambers back to the gun, but the target has gone and the LRBT is now a sitting duck because it's been immobile for too long.

The only fly in the ointment is the small area which the breech can recoil into. Yes you need balls of steel to climb into a Leman-Russ but even they aren't going to take the impact of a battle cannon's recoil. I would assume that the commander sights the weapon, drops down below the turret ring, fires the weapon, climbs back up and the loader passes up the next shell and they reload the cannon.

In various pieces of fluff and BL novels, it's been stated before that the crew of a Leman Russ consists of Commander, Gunner, Loader, Driver, 2x Sponson Gunners.

I highly think it's possibly for the driver to fire the Lascannon, it could very well be an additional control attached to his controls (depending on whether it's using a levers system or pedals/wheel to control the tracks) or one akin to current-day gunships where the weapon tracks where the pilot looks. Hell, various tanks in the real world have forward-hatch mounted 7.62mm MGs for the driver to operate too. Additionally, given the location of the ammunition storage and the breech, it's realistic to assume that there is a dedicated loader.

Regarding the terrain-clearance part, that's why there's Dozer Blades.

 Sparks_Havelock wrote:
.

The only fly in the ointment is the small area which the breech can recoil into. Yes you need balls of steel to climb into a Leman-Russ but even they aren't going to take the impact of a battle cannon's recoil. I would assume that the commander sights the weapon, drops down below the turret ring, fires the weapon, climbs back up and the loader passes up the next shell and they reload the cannon.

Maybe the Leman Russ has super advanced recoil dampeners built into the barrel itself? Or there are some absorbers behind the barrel where it's inside the tank? Judging by the way the cannon moves up and down it looks like it doesn't go very far into turret so there may be some gizmos that stop the commander from being hurt.

 Hunterindarkness wrote:
No they suck as well, the game states do not reflect the design at all, the design is crap.

well I guess it's a good thing this isn't science-reality then


funny thing is you can make anything work in fiction

TheCustomLime wrote:

 Sparks_Havelock wrote:
.

The only fly in the ointment is the small area which the breech can recoil into. Yes you need balls of steel to climb into a Leman-Russ but even they aren't going to take the impact of a battle cannon's recoil. I would assume that the commander sights the weapon, drops down below the turret ring, fires the weapon, climbs back up and the loader passes up the next shell and they reload the cannon.

Maybe the Leman Russ has super advanced recoil dampeners built into the barrel itself? Or there are some absorbers behind the barrel where it's inside the tank? Judging by the way the cannon moves up and down it looks like it doesn't go very far into turret so there may be some gizmos that stop the commander from being hurt.

IIRC from IA1, at least the Conqueror tank has force-field recoil dampers and tractor beams that hold the barrel in place.

Then that could solve the issue entirely. Then the commander really could act as both Commander & Gunner, he can sit in his turret, helping to feed shells up into the breech with the loader, train and fire the weapon whilst commanding the vehicle - at least he'll have one advantage over the French tanks, he might actually have voxsets of some kind to communicate with the crew!

One more thing to clear up; the Heavy Stubber/Stormbolter mounted on the turret (if the tank has one) - when the Commander opens the hatch and starts using it, does the loader take over the firing of the main gun (albeit with a reduced reload speed of course)? Or would the commander alternate? Firing off the pintle-weapon whilst the loader loads the cannon, then he drops down, trains and fires the cannon, then heads back up to his pintle-weapon?