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.

 EmilCrane wrote:
Forge world makes tanks that are actually decent, the baneblde is far and away a better design that the russ.

Yeah, they do design a lot of the better tanks in W40K. Although, while the fellblade shares the same chassis, IIRC, its profile is slightly lower and less cluttered then the Baneblade and its variants. Although my favorite thing that Forge World has done is expand on the Rhino chassis, which isn't actually that horrible of a design, if not logistically intelligent. Got a rhino? Great. Slap this turret on, put these sponson mounted guns on, change the guts around, and boom, you've got a fully functional MBT.

 Wyzilla wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
Forge world makes tanks that are actually decent, the baneblde is far and away a better design that the russ.

Yeah, they do design a lot of the better tanks in W40K. Although, while the fellblade shares the same chassis, IIRC, its profile is slightly lower and less cluttered then the Baneblade and its variants. Although my favorite thing that Forge World has done is expand on the Rhino chassis, which isn't actually that horrible of a design, if not logistically intelligent. Got a rhino? Great. Slap this turret on, put these sponson mounted guns on, change the guts around, and boom, you've got a fully functional MBT.

The Rhino is Micheal "Gavin" Spark's wet dream come true.

The M113 in space with ceramite and plasteel armoring being used for just about everything.

It's hard to screw up what amounts to in Carron's words "METAL BAWKSES."

It does have the downside of only being used by KOWARDS and FEWLZ.

 Kain wrote:

The Rhino is Micheal "Gavin" Spark's wet dream come true.

The M113 in space with ceramite and plasteel armoring being used for just about everything.

Alas, can no thread on AFV design go unsullied by mention of "Nutcase" Sparks and his magic box?

The Leman Russ is a horrible design, but it looks adorable.
The only way it could be better is if they'd replace it with a KV-1 like design.

 Kain wrote:

 Wyzilla wrote:

 EmilCrane wrote:
Forge world makes tanks that are actually decent, the baneblde is far and away a better design that the russ.

Yeah, they do design a lot of the better tanks in W40K. Although, while the fellblade shares the same chassis, IIRC, its profile is slightly lower and less cluttered then the Baneblade and its variants. Although my favorite thing that Forge World has done is expand on the Rhino chassis, which isn't actually that horrible of a design, if not logistically intelligent. Got a rhino? Great. Slap this turret on, put these sponson mounted guns on, change the guts around, and boom, you've got a fully functional MBT.

The Rhino is Micheal "Gavin" Spark's wet dream come true.

The M113 in space with ceramite and plasteel armoring being used for just about everything.

It's hard to screw up what amounts to in Carron's words "METAL BAWKSES."

It does have the downside of only being used by KOWARDS and FEWLZ.

I love tanks, even though I don't know actually that much about tank design, but isn't a box shape a pretty bad design choice? It seems to me that those large, flat sides are a very inviting target and would be extremely easy to penetrate.
Also, for serving in the army, it is good to have knowledgeable people around. You did a good job there and driving tanks is just awesome!

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I love tanks, even though I don't know actually that much about tank design, but isn't a box shape a pretty bad design choice? It seems to me that those large, flat sides are a very inviting target and would be extremely easy to penetrate.

As I've been pointing out above, it depends on your purposes. For an APC or IFV, having a high profile and flat sides is largely just unavoidable. The Soviets (as always) tried their best to minimize profile with the BMP series, but (as usual) at the cost of giving the crew/passengers a horrendously uncomfortable and cramped ride. In the West we went for taller IFVs and APCs to make sure the infantry would be capable of more than just stumbling around and vomiting when they finished their ride to the battle zone.

 Scipio Americanus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I love tanks, even though I don't know actually that much about tank design, but isn't a box shape a pretty bad design choice? It seems to me that those large, flat sides are a very inviting target and would be extremely easy to penetrate.

As I've been pointing out above, it depends on your purposes. For an APC or IFV, having a high profile and flat sides is largely just unavoidable. The Soviets (as always) tried their best to minimize profile with the BMP series, but (as usual) at the cost of giving the crew/passengers a horrendously uncomfortable and cramped ride. In the West we went for taller IFVs and APCs to make sure the infantry would be capable of more than just stumbling around and vomiting when they finished their ride to the battle zone.

Ah, the BMP metal coffin. In case you didn't know that's the one you see, usually with the soldiers riding on top instead of inside, because, well.....it sucks.

 Andrew1975 wrote:
Ah, the BMP metal coffin. In case you didn't know that's the one you see, usually with the soldiers riding on top instead of inside, because, well.....it sucks.

I wouldn't be so hard the BMPs. They have their weaknesses, but on the whole no more (to the best of my knowledge) than contemporary Western APCs and IFVs. You'll find plenty of pictures of crews riding around on top of M113s too; there are several situations in which that's preferable to being cooped up inside. The Bradley is certainly much more deadly, but at the cost of a much smaller carry capacity (among some other things). To be honest, I'm still not sure we've figured out just what the right way to use an IFV is (as opposed to the pure battle-taxi approach of the M113 and BTRs). I don't fully agree, but Pierre Sprey's actually of the opinion that they're a bad idea entirely and we should go back to APCs.

Don't forget that part of the reason the BMP isn't as good as its Western counterparts is that it is also older.

The Soviet's pioneered the IFV concept in the first place with the BMP 1. The Allies panicked and copied the concept, but they did refine it a bit first.

I would say that the BMP3 though is a wonderful vehicle, considering the financial and organizational debacle of the fall of the Soviet Union.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Scipio Americanus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I love tanks, even though I don't know actually that much about tank design, but isn't a box shape a pretty bad design choice? It seems to me that those large, flat sides are a very inviting target and would be extremely easy to penetrate.

As I've been pointing out above, it depends on your purposes. For an APC or IFV, having a high profile and flat sides is largely just unavoidable. The Soviets (as always) tried their best to minimize profile with the BMP series, but (as usual) at the cost of giving the crew/passengers a horrendously uncomfortable and cramped ride. In the West we went for taller IFVs and APCs to make sure the infantry would be capable of more than just stumbling around and vomiting when they finished their ride to the battle zone.

Ah, the BMP metal coffin. In case you didn't know that's the one you see, usually with the soldiers riding on top instead of inside, because, well.....it sucks.

If I could I would slap you this instant.

The BMP-1 was a metal coffin because it was built in an era of metal coffins for infantry transports. The M113 that America had was just as fragile and didn't even give you the benefit of some fire support.

And you know what?

The BMP-1 is not in service in the Russian army anymore. And even then, it was still considered massively revolutionary in mechanized warfare because now an infantry squad's transport could provide them with adequate support.

The BMP-3M is as functional and modern as any other IFV. It's light weight yes, but that lets it cross terrain that other IFVs cannot, and it packs more dakka than any other IFV out in service.

If the BMP was as bad as idiotic westerners keep on saying it is the Soviet and later Russian military wouldn't be using the damn things.

 Kain wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

 Scipio Americanus wrote:

 Iron_Captain wrote:
I love tanks, even though I don't know actually that much about tank design, but isn't a box shape a pretty bad design choice? It seems to me that those large, flat sides are a very inviting target and would be extremely easy to penetrate.

As I've been pointing out above, it depends on your purposes. For an APC or IFV, having a high profile and flat sides is largely just unavoidable. The Soviets (as always) tried their best to minimize profile with the BMP series, but (as usual) at the cost of giving the crew/passengers a horrendously uncomfortable and cramped ride. In the West we went for taller IFVs and APCs to make sure the infantry would be capable of more than just stumbling around and vomiting when they finished their ride to the battle zone.

Ah, the BMP metal coffin. In case you didn't know that's the one you see, usually with the soldiers riding on top instead of inside, because, well.....it sucks.

If I could I would slap you this instant.

The BMP-1 was a metal coffin because it was built in an era of metal coffins for infantry transports. The M113 that America had was just as fragile and didn't even give you the benefit of some fire support.

And you know what?

The BMP-1 is not in service in the Russian army anymore. And even then, it was still considered massively revolutionary in mechanized warfare because now an infantry squad's transport could provide them with adequate support.

The BMP-3M is as functional and modern as any other IFV. It's light weight yes, but that lets it cross terrain that other IFVs cannot, and it packs more dakka than any other IFV out in service.

If the BMP was as bad as idiotic westerners keep on saying it is the Soviet and later Russian military wouldn't be using the damn things.

^ Not only that, but the west wouldn't be copying the idea either. The idea of an IFV at all? Russian. The idea to put an autocannon on an IFV? Russian. The idea to put an ATGM on an IFV? Russian. The idea to put a tank cannon on an IFV (with which the west has not caught up)? Russian. The idea to make their IFVs amphibious to facilitate wide-ranging Deep Operations? Russian.

The thing about 'rationalization' is it's very context sensitive, in the sense how are you defining 'rational?' If you compare the Russ to any modern tank or modern design standards, its going to be horrible, because Modern tanks are designed (and in the case of some tanks like the Abrams, optimized) towards particular roles. There are always tradeoffs between different goals and needs/wants (speed, protection, firepower, ammo capacity, fuel efficiency/range, complexity/maintenance, cost, etc.) and you really can't expect to have everything.

The Imperium, for the most part, lacks alot of the 'advantages' modern forces have and faces a dramatically different sort of cultural, political, economic, and military situation. Much wider diversity of enemies it must face (harder to predict or optimize against any one threat without making sacrifices against another.), much wider diversity of 'threats' in terms of weaponry (multiple kinds of kinetic, explosive/chemical energy, and directed energy weapon attacks... again you can't - for example - optimize against one specific kind of attack without sacrificing against others.) The inconsistent and largely non-standardized levels of technology across different worlds and the unreliability of warp travel (you have to be able to run/maintain your tank on what is available, which could mean wood and sunlight, quite literally.) And different kinds of culture, politics, methods of warfare (again lack of any really deeply standardized doctrine/way of war beyond attrition, tactics, etc. You could have a force fighting anything from jungle warfare to highly mobile open plains warfare to cityfighting to trench/siege warfare. Possibly all in the same battle.)

To put it simply, the Russ is meant to be a generalist.. a balance of a bunch of competing necessities and tradeoffs - versatile, adaptable, easily built/maintained, able to be powered by almost anything available and still function, durable and efficient, and a certain minimum level of effectivenss in whatever it does (and probably other factors, I'm just listing off the ones most immediate to mind.) That means it can't really excel at any one particular thing (That's what the more specialist variants are for) and when put up against anything that is specialized, it is going to be less effective (design wise. Technology may or may not factor into this, depending on the comparison of tech levels and perceived capabilities and suchlike. I expect a Leman Russ built to early 20th century industrial standards (WW1) is not going to be the same as one built more towards modern-futuristic level tech bases.

Now beyond that there are two ways to look at it as well. The first is not to pay too much attention to the artwork/drawings in any detail (stats may or may not be another story.) and as odd as this may sound its not unreasonable. The scale/proportions of alot of the models and artwork are, to put it nicely, 'off' - the Russ for example is listed as having a 120mm smoothbore but the actual muzzle is freaking massive and totally not 120mm (Same way with most weapons, or bolters ejecting casings for some people, Power armour looking to be half a foot thick and impossible to move in, etc.) likewise, 'normal' humans are supposed to be able to ilft those shells and you're supposed to be able to stick dozens of them inside the tank (which at the 'battleship/mortar' scale-muzzle sizes you simply couldn't do unless the Russes happen to have a pocket dimension as a magazine and your loader is a micro-ogryn.) Earthshakers arguably have the same issue (125-132mm, but looking much more massive than that, loaded by hand, large ammo stockpile, etc.) Some I have remembered have made similar issues about chimeras and Rhinos and transport capability (at least with space Marines) so there might be another reason to not take the visuals quite so literally. But given that (and the absence of any centralized canon policy) you could certainly fudge the appearance of the Russ (local hull variation, modification, etc.) you might like. Even if you can't though, the 'multi-role' aspect still matters - it has to conduct WW1 type warfare sometimes, so having some WW1 traits (that does not totally compromise its ability in other roles) will probably be desirable (even if itis less than optimal in those other, non-WW1 roles.) Likewise, the higher profile is a trade off because to make it shorter you often have to make ti longer/wider. That means that in at least one dimension it is going to be bigger/more visible. Given that warfare in 40K, even on the ground, has as much an aerial/orbital component as on the ground, you might argue that making ti 'shorter' sacrifices visibility from above (easier to hit by certain enemies from orbit or in the air) even though that is less optimal against a 'modern' tank. An considering how many anti-grav/skimmer enemies they face, low elevation is probably not much of an advantage anyhow.)

So tl;dr version: Depends on how you view things, there is no one clear 'truth' on such matters, and the meaning you attach to words like 'effective' is highly context dependent. So basically 'its open to interprtation, decide what you think is best.'

There is also the fact that flat-sided vehicles are easier to build, and in an era of directed-energy weapons that can burn a hole in one side of a tank and out the other, sloped-sides and rounded turrets might not offer the defensive benefits to justify the increase in production time (whole lot easier to bang out a flat plate than a curved one that has to then fit into other curved ones).

In the modern era, sure, those sloped sides and rounded bits can cause incoming fire to deflect away from the tank, thus saving both the lives of its crew as well as the tens of millions of dollars the tank cost... but, then again, we don't put our Abrams up against lascannons.

Sloping isn't totally unknown in the Imperium. The russes turret is actually quite small and from the front has quite a sharp slope (or so I remember one Marine tanker I know telling me as we discussed it) Turret variants could probably play around with that, but even more, you could have variations in hull design (we never see significant ones, except the forge world 'Mars pattern' which has the elongated rear, but there's no reason you couldn't envision something more to suiting a particular taste.)

But more, sloping can occur in more than one dimension (vertical or horizontal) so you probably could arrange some kind of slope that better suited the Russ (not guaranteeing it would be as good as modern, but some is better than none when we're talking design compromises.)

I'm also wondering if flat surfaces might be better for certain things like reactive/ablative/spaced and other extra armor (and we know those exist, from the old Inferno magazine diagrams, Forge world, etc. so that is an option.) at least in terms of coverage.

Even in the case of energy weapons, having the armor sloped still helps by virtue of putting more of it along the beam path. My concept for the internal sloped armor of the sides is consistent with what you're suggesting, Connor.

Only if it deflects, and the beam does not simply "wrap" in line with the curve, and burn right the feth through it anyway. Being that it is a coherent beam of focused light, relying (in some sci-fi way) on both thermal energy and kinetic impact, it could be a coin toss as to how it behaves.

Also, something to consider, is the effect that superheating the armor would have.

Even if the armor is amazing at dispersing thermal energy, it still could expand and burst seams/buckle. In that case, it would be easier to pull into the lee of a building and re-rivet a solid, uncomplicated slab of armor onto one that burst as an emergency repair, rather than to haul out some fancy, cast-steel, curved piece that is welded on.

I can really get into the nitty-gritty of how high-power lasers interact with materials if you guys want me to (it's one of my specialties), but suffice to say that for the way I've chosen to model lascannons the primary damage mechanism is pulsed supersonic drilling/ablation. This is the most efficient way of going through hard stuff and it also produces a beam with all the characteristics typically attributed to lascannons in the fluff. Effectively, each shot is a train of pulses (far too short and closely space together in time to distinctly percieve) and they explosively drill their way through the armor, one after another, until it's fully penetrated. Putting more armor in front of it is advantageous both because it increases the amount of energy needed to drill through and because it adversely affects the aspect ratio of the hole - the deeper and skinnier the hole the more likely that energy will be wasted heating up the sides or splashing out of it entirely due to the relative motion of target and weapon.

 Scipio Americanus wrote:
I can really get into the nitty-gritty of how high-power lasers interact with materials if you guys want me to (it's one of my specialties), but suffice to say that for the way I've chosen to model lascannons the primary damage mechanism is pulsed supersonic drilling/ablation. This is the most efficient way of going through hard stuff and it also produces a beam with all the characteristics typically attributed to lascannons in the fluff. Effectively, each shot is a train of pulses (far too short and closely space together in time to distinctly percieve) and they explosively drill their way through the armor, one after another, until it's fully penetrated. Putting more armor in front of it is advantageous both because it increases the amount of energy needed to drill through and because it adversely affects the aspect ratio of the hole - the deeper and skinnier the hole the more likely that energy will be wasted heating up the sides or splashing out of it entirely due to the relative motion of target and weapon.

Well the ease of repair argument still stands. I trust the inner lining of the tank to protect the crew from popping rivets, and slabs of riveted metal are much much easier to repair, especially if the metal in question is so heat resistant that it literally cannot be welded with any efficiency.

The idea to make their IFVs amphibious to facilitate wide-ranging Deep Operations? Russian.

The Ducks the Marines used in late WWII would disagree with you on that one.

 Frazzled wrote:

The idea to make their IFVs amphibious to facilitate wide-ranging Deep Operations? Russian.

The Ducks the Marines used in late WWII would disagree with you on that one.

I don't think those were IFVs.

The Leman is unrealistic in several ways that can't be explained away, but could be converted modelwise.
1. Ground clearance. It effectively has almost none.
2. Bolted hull. Bolts are bad in any kinetic environment.
3. Front openings in glacis plate create areas of less armor in the front.
4. Did I mention gun barrels so wide it would make a battleship blanch?

Its still a kewl model though. I have an armored company's worth.

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well the ease of repair argument still stands. I trust the inner lining of the tank to protect the crew from popping rivets, and slabs of riveted metal are much much easier to repair, especially if the metal in question is so heat resistant that it literally cannot be welded with any efficiency.

While (good) rivets can actually be stronger than welds, there are a number of reasons for strongly preferring welds on a military vehicle. Part of it is the skill required for riveting, and part of it is that riveted plates don't respond well to being deformed and smacked around by shellfire. Tears can propagate along the rivet-holes, for instance.

 Scipio Americanus wrote:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Well the ease of repair argument still stands. I trust the inner lining of the tank to protect the crew from popping rivets, and slabs of riveted metal are much much easier to repair, especially if the metal in question is so heat resistant that it literally cannot be welded with any efficiency.

While (good) rivets can actually be stronger than welds, there are a number of reasons for strongly preferring welds on a military vehicle. Part of it is the skill required for riveting, and part of it is that riveted plates don't respond well to being deformed and smacked around by shellfire. Tears can propagate along the rivet-holes, for instance.

Yes, I know. But if you need a fluff reason for rivets, then just say that the metal is so resilient that it cannot be welded.

 Frazzled wrote:
The Leman is unrealistic in several ways that can't be explained away, but could be converted modelwise.
1. Ground clearance. It effectively has almost none.

Yep, and no suspension. That was my first priority with the redesign.

 Frazzled wrote:
3. Front openings in glacis plate create areas of less armor in the front.

I ended up deciding to shrink the driver's hatch and slope it back more to keep that from being such a weakness. I also came up with the solution to have the bow weapon mount be largely external (except for power/ammunition feed via a relatively small hole) to try and surmount this problem.

 Frazzled wrote:
Its still a kewl model though. I have an armored company's worth.

Have you taken any pics of them all together? I'd love to see that.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Unit1126PLL wrote:
Don't forget that part of the reason the BMP isn't as good as its Western counterparts is that it is also older.

The Soviet's pioneered the IFV concept in the first place with the BMP 1. The Allies panicked and copied the concept, but they did refine it a bit first.

I would say that the BMP3 though is a wonderful vehicle, considering the financial and organizational debacle of the fall of the Soviet Union.

IIRC the Germans actually win this one with the Schützenpanzer Lang HS.30 in the late 50s. Admittedly, everyone was playing with the idea by that point. The Soviet contribution was to condense all the good ideas floating around into one vehicle with a very low profile and good frontal protection. I guess we could say they pioneered good IFV design.

Agree with the BMP-3. Does just what it's supposed to do and does it (as far as anyone can tell) quite well.

The design and usual description of a lascannon makes me think more of a particle beam than a laser weapon to be perfectly honest. But honestly I think it's really just better to assume that the Imperial (and Eldar) term for "laser" is really just a grab bag designation for various kinds of beam or "energy" bolt emitters. My head hurts trying to fathom why lascannons need a barrel you can shove your fist into if they're actually lasers. I'd guess that it may be lots of emitters placed together, but I've never read any descriptions of the weapons that paints them as such.

I thought the Russ was based on an interwar French design, which had dual machine guns in a turret rather then the oversized howitzer GW added to the kit, and another mounted where the front lascannon is. I can't seem to find it in my list of tanks now though.

The big problem with the Russ specifically, is the battle cannon makes the turret far too small. The newer turret is a bit larger, but there still doesn't seem room for the extra shells plus crew, once you factor for recoil. The only way it seems to work is if the shells are rocket assist, as the Baneblades are said to be, which would mitigate some of the recoil and not have the breech hit the back of the turret.

I've always assumed that the 40k tank tread systems incorporated some sort of adaptive track like the Swedish S tanks, allowing them to raise to go over terrain and lower when in battle for better protection. The models you see are in the "protected" mode.

Some designs that look neat, making sense I will have to see what I can justify.

Or

Or

Or

Best I could find on short notice.

These are modified versions of the Russ, to re-model and keep a Russ look will still need that distinctive shape of the tread which in the fist picture reverses it.
The hull mount is the next main feature and the oddly shaped engine in the back is the finishing touch.
I think we could do pretty much anything to the turret and not much would take away from it (but it needs to be a big bore...).

Yes, slanted plating and reduced profiles "make sense" but in the madcap world of 40k a big grinding flat-faced monolith of a tank exudes the attitude the Imperium seems to like and care little on increased survivability, just crank them out by the millions and sheer volume and brute force will carry the day.

Liked the redesign so-far though!

The BMP-1 was a metal coffin because it was built in an era of metal coffins for infantry transports. The M113 that America had was just as fragile and didn't even give you the benefit of some fire support.

Just because something is revolutionary does not mean it doesn't suck. Here is an idea, lets store all the fuel in the doors thus making sure nobody can escape a flaming coffin. Talk about Ronsin lighters? I think I rather be in a BTR (the hard top ones) instead of a BMP.

 Andrew1975 wrote:

The BMP-1 was a metal coffin because it was built in an era of metal coffins for infantry transports. The M113 that America had was just as fragile and didn't even give you the benefit of some fire support.

Just because something is revolutionary does not mean it doesn't suck. Here is an idea, lets store all the fuel in the doors thus making sure nobody can escape a flaming coffin. Talk about Ronsin lighters? I think I rather be in a BTR (the hard top ones) instead of a BMP.

The BMP-1 was as well armored if not better so than the M113 which it completely outclassed.

It is obsolete today because it's a damn old design.

If it were bad, the Red Army would have never used it.

 Kain wrote:

 Andrew1975 wrote:

The BMP-1 was a metal coffin because it was built in an era of metal coffins for infantry transports. The M113 that America had was just as fragile and didn't even give you the benefit of some fire support.

Just because something is revolutionary does not mean it doesn't suck. Here is an idea, lets store all the fuel in the doors thus making sure nobody can escape a flaming coffin. Talk about Ronsin lighters? I think I rather be in a BTR (the hard top ones) instead of a BMP.

The BMP-1 was as well armored if not better so than the M113 which it completely outclassed.

It is obsolete today because it's a damn old design.

If it were bad, the Red Army would have never used it.

Common Russian phrasing on the BMP Bratskaya Mogila Pehoty loosely translated to Common Grave of the Infantry

I never said it sucked compared to the m113, I just said it sucked. Flaming doors make poor transports, now sure you could fill the doors with sand instead, so there is some saving grace. I'm sure there are other factors involved, but I've seen many many more burned up BMPs than I've seen burned up M113s. I personally knew some guys who rode these into Chechnya, lets just say they were less than thrilled with the performance and I believe at that time they would have been in the better bmp3.

The red army has used plenty of less than optimal equipment. The red army motto is that quantity is a quality of its own. Rarely has red army equipment had the best performance, reliability sure, ease of maintenance, ok, numbers yep....performance.....no.