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.
EmpNortonII wrote: It does. The Tau codex indicates that Hammerheads win against LRs when outnumbered 5 to 1.
The western Allies used crappy Sherman tanks against German tanks that had better armor and guns and still won. Six Shermans to a Panther, but of those six one was working (it got the kill), three could be repaired and new ones were being shipped in faster than the Germans could replace their losses. Quantity is a quality all of it's own.
I met an old WWII Vet who was in a refurbishing unit or maintenance unit for American tanks, it was one of his jobs to scrub out the tank of the remains of the crew after it was knocked out by German tanks or anti-tank gunners. That had to be pretty horrible mucking out those things. They would repair them and get it back into action.
Automatically Appended Next Post: Leman Russ tanks only come in herds right?
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/19 00:32:29
Crush your enemies, see them driven before you and to hear the lamentations of the women.
OP If you're asking how tough is the Leman Russ in game, then the answer is very tough, it's a rolling slab of armour. Its side plating is as good as the frontal plating of a lot of other tanks. Railguns and lances can take them down, but they can also take down a land raider or a super heavy, so that doesn't say very much in my opinion. Their disadvantages are low speed, fairly average accuracy and they lack the dedicated anti-tank loadout available to the predator. So although it is a lighter vehicle, a predator's multiple lascannons, coupled with higher accuracy give it the edge.
If you're asking how tough are they in the fluff, I remember a scene in one of the sw novels in which marines are steering clear of a traitor tank until heavy support arrives. So they are a force to be reckoned with. Certainly low tech compared to a fire prism or hammerhead, so there's depictions of Tau or Eldar trashing them, but they do have the advantage of durability, and have respectable firepower. It often depends on what you're reading, its all very biased towards the race in question.
BlaxicanX 625892 wrote:Even in most fluff they aren't particularly durable. They die in droves in Gunheads, as well as every Gaunt's Ghost book they feature in and most of the SM books I've seen them in.
Like most things in the Imperium, they compensate against xeno equivalents via sheer numbers.
Right.
Leman russes aren't exactly flimsy, but they're not holofield falcons, or wave serpents, or disruption pod hammerheads, or land raiders. Both in game and in fluff, russes are only mediumly durable.
What makes russes relatively hardy is that, unlike basically everything else in the codex, they don't have to worry about small arms. They can wade through stuff that would slaughter an infantry platoon where it stood, but that's not really saying that much, given how easy it is to kill guardsmen. Given a few decent guns, and russes really only meet the bare minimum for what you need to be a tank.
Where the leman russ is properly good is like how guardsmen are good - not in individual rugged durability or individual firepower - but in the fact that you can absurdly mass-produce them and they require virtually no maintenance. The imperium fights against everybody simultaneously, while everyone else more or less only fights against the imperium, because the imperium has a terrifying logistics system.
Leman Russ tanks at one point were actually the heaviest armored tanks in the game (including side/rear) and Leman Russ turret armor was superior to any armor facing on a Land Raider.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
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.
Except you're ignoring the problem of the A-10 being an outdated piece of gak that wasn't even going to survive the theoretical WWIII (it was assumed to have a 100% casualty rate at the start of the war), and even against gakky Third World AA weapons it had to withdraw. During the Gulf War they had to pull A-10's out from making runs on Baghdad as it was simply too dangerous. Also, if you need CAS, then use a drone, which are cheaper, stay in the air longer, and you can have a full swarm of them equipped with missiles.
There is nothing good about the A-10. It's simply over-glorified useless tech that has only stuck around due to its only use being a morale booster. But otherwise everything it does could simply be replaced with Drones.
As for the tank I'd want to be a tanker in, either a Baneblade, Fellblade, or any Eldar tank. If I need to get out of the area fast, at least with an Eldar tank I can simply punch the thrusters and zoom out of the combat zone at supersonic to hypersonic speeds.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/19 02:08:34
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
EmpNortonII wrote: 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?
As far as MBTs go, probably the Falcon. I wouldn't want to be in combat at all, but if I was in combat I'd prefer to avoid fire than take it.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Wyzilla wrote: Except you're ignoring the problem of the A-10 being an outdated piece of gak that wasn't even going to survive the theoretical WWIII
Which hasn't happened and isn't likely to happen, so that's irrelevant.
And the A-10 being outdated is a reason to build a new CAS plane, not to throw money in to a piece of crap like the F-35, which is a miserable failure at everything it tries to be.
You can use drones for air superiority, you realize. In fact, they're better at it, as they aren't restricted by the pilot's biology and don't need to have a special cockpit, and thus are more maneuverable and smaller than planes.
It's durable, it has a good turn rate, and it has good armament. Which makes it better at its job than the F-35, which is mediocre-at-best and terrible at worst.
There is nothing that the F-35 can do in regards to CAS missions that a properly deployed A-10 can't do better.
Nothing. Not even with its VTOL can it do what the A-10 can do, because it'd just get its ass torn up by enemy fire due to its flimsy, gakky armor, whereas the A-10 can actually take a beating and keep laying down fire, and then make it back to base safe and sound. The F-35 is an abject lesson in failed engineering projects.
This message was edited 5 times. Last update was at 2014/12/19 03:09:45
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
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.
Except you're ignoring the problem of the A-10 being an outdated piece of gak that wasn't even going to survive the theoretical WWIII (it was assumed to have a 100% casualty rate at the start of the war), and even against gakky Third World AA weapons it had to withdraw. During the Gulf War they had to pull A-10's out from making runs on Baghdad as it was simply too dangerous. Also, if you need CAS, then use a drone, which are cheaper, stay in the air longer, and you can have a full swarm of them equipped with missiles.
There is nothing good about the A-10. It's simply over-glorified useless tech that has only stuck around due to its only use being a morale booster. But otherwise everything it does could simply be replaced with Drones.
As for the tank I'd want to be a tanker in, either a Baneblade, Fellblade, or any Eldar tank. If I need to get out of the area fast, at least with an Eldar tank I can simply punch the thrusters and zoom out of the combat zone at supersonic to hypersonic speeds.
This is literally the only place I've ever heard this about the A-10. It's generally got a stellar mission capable rate, large combat load, very durable airframe, excellent capabilities against a wide variety of targets, and is relatively cheap to maintain and deploy. AFAIK anywhere they didn't allow A-10's to fly applied to lots of other aircraft as well, largely anything that wasn't attacking from high altitudes, never just specifically the A-10, usually because there were intact and capable air defense networks.
No current drone that I can think of (or even any in development that I know of) has anything like the capabilities of something like an A-10 or is deployed in large "swarms". Not the Predator, not the Firescout, not the UCAS, or Globalhawk or any of the like. By the same token, the F-35 disaster certainly isn't going to even duplicate, much less surpass, the 40something-year-old A-10's capabilities.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/19 03:17:59
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
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.
Except you're ignoring the problem of the A-10 being an outdated piece of gak that wasn't even going to survive the theoretical WWIII (it was assumed to have a 100% casualty rate at the start of the war), and even against gakky Third World AA weapons it had to withdraw. During the Gulf War they had to pull A-10's out from making runs on Baghdad as it was simply too dangerous. Also, if you need CAS, then use a drone, which are cheaper, stay in the air longer, and you can have a full swarm of them equipped with missiles.
There is nothing good about the A-10. It's simply over-glorified useless tech that has only stuck around due to its only use being a morale booster. But otherwise everything it does could simply be replaced with Drones.
As for the tank I'd want to be a tanker in, either a Baneblade, Fellblade, or any Eldar tank. If I need to get out of the area fast, at least with an Eldar tank I can simply punch the thrusters and zoom out of the combat zone at supersonic to hypersonic speeds.
This is literally the only place I've ever heard this about the A-10. It's generally got a stellar mission capable rate, large combat load, very durable airframe, excellent capabilities against a wide variety of targets, and is relatively cheap to maintain and deploy. AFAIK anywhere they didn't allow A-10's to fly applied to lots of other aircraft as well, largely anything that wasn't attacking from high altitudes, never just specifically the A-10, usually because there were intact and capable air defense networks.
No current drone that I can think of (or even any in development that I know of) has anything like the capabilities of something like an A-10 or is deployed in large "swarms". Not the Predator, not the Firescout, not the UCAS, or Globalhawk or any of the like. By the same token, the F-35 disaster certainly isn't going to even duplicate, much less surpass, the 40something-year-old A-10's capabilities.
Of course the A-10 will have a stellar record, you always will get a stellar record for any kind of aircraft when you solely deploy it against targets that can barely even reliably threaten the thing. It's like saying a guy's super tough because all he does is beat up people in wheelchairs. And enemy that lacks SAM batteries, quality AA cannons, or personnel guided missiles isn't going to be much of a threat to an aircraft like the A-10. The problem is that if you fight anything other then Insurgents, like say China, Russia, or even just Iran, you're going to end up with a whole lot of dead pilots.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
Except it's exacerbated by the A-10, as its ceiling is low and its ability to fight enemy aircraft is non-eixistant. It also can't go fast to avoid the ability of the enemy to even target it, and it can't use stealth given that the A-10 is about as stealthy as a baneblade driving through your home. The only thing the A-10 has to defend itself if it comes across an actual threat is its armor, and with aircraft that's generally a terrible thing to rely on.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
It was never intended to go out and engage hostile forces without there being a CAP in the sky, we've just done so because no recent adversaries have had aircraft which warranted maintaining a CAP. It was always intended to have fighter support, that's just air-combat 101.
That's like complaining that Stukas were bad at combat air support during WW2 because they were easy prey for enemy fighters. Well, they were, but they were supposed to be escorted, and when escorted did great jobs of demolishing enemy armor.
The A-10 also far more able to deal with and survive ground based weapons systems than something like an F-16 or F-35 would. That armor has saved more than one aircraft, likewise so has redundancy of systems.
Stealth likewise is far over-relied on. It only works under certain conditions and from certain angles (particularly on the F-22 and F-35 especially), things like simple rain can still light it up like a lite-bright, etc. Likewise, any external weapons systems (like wing mounted bombs or missiles) will effectively break stealth capabilities. Stealth was defeated by a podunk Serbian AA crew with a 1961 vintage weapons system fifteen years ago and parts of the wrecked aircraft went to both Russian and China by many accounts who now are fielding their own prototype Stealth aircraft, the principles are well known now, relying on Stealth is a wee bit silly.
Stealth is an edge, not a make-or-break capability.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/19 04:54:24
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Psienesis wrote: ... but that's true of every tank. Everywhere. All the time.
Immune to small arms, absolutely fethed by anything actually designed to kill a tank.
Wave serpents aren't, though. Neither is anything with a holofield. Same with disruption pods.
Imperium vehicles like russes and preds are screwed over by dedicated anti-tank weapons, which is why they're in the middle of the pack above venoms and raiders and vypers (which you don't need anti-tank weapons for) and below fast skimmers with extra shielding (which anti-tank weapons don't necessarily work as intended on).
On the issue of durability, apparently a russ can survive being rolled over by a battle-wagon or battle-fortress and still perform its job, oddly after having turret damage if Pask's back story is true.
Also if the russ looses its weapons, its well suited to being used as a battering ram, and would probably come out better than the opposing xenos variant.
Vaktathi wrote: That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
Except it's exacerbated by the A-10, as its ceiling is low and its ability to fight enemy aircraft is non-eixistant. It also can't go fast to avoid the ability of the enemy to even target it, and it can't use stealth given that the A-10 is about as stealthy as a baneblade driving through your home. The only thing the A-10 has to defend itself if it comes across an actual threat is its armor, and with aircraft that's generally a terrible thing to rely on.
It wasn't designed to fight other airplanes though. The A-10 is usually deployed after air superiority has already been achieved. Once any credible threats to the plane are eliminated, it is sent in to do the job it was built for, strafing ground targets and providing close air support. It doesn't need to be stealthy at that point. You would be insane to send in an A-10 during the initial phase of a bombing campaign. Let the fighters control the skies, have the strike eagles take out major anti air weaponry and then send your Warthogs in to mop up.
Saying that something sucks because it fails to perform well in a situation it was never built for is like saying that your car sucks because it can't also act as a boat when you want it to.
Also, the A-10 can fly during rainy weather, the F-35 cannot. Also, the F-35 is dumb and it literally catches fire when they turn the engine on.
Vaktathi wrote: That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
Except it's exacerbated by the A-10, as its ceiling is low and its ability to fight enemy aircraft is non-eixistant. It also can't go fast to avoid the ability of the enemy to even target it, and it can't use stealth given that the A-10 is about as stealthy as a baneblade driving through your home. The only thing the A-10 has to defend itself if it comes across an actual threat is its armor, and with aircraft that's generally a terrible thing to rely on.
It wasn't designed to fight other airplanes though. The A-10 is usually deployed after air superiority has already been achieved. Once any credible threats to the plane are eliminated, it is sent in to do the job it was built for, strafing ground targets and providing close air support. It doesn't need to be stealthy at that point. You would be insane to send in an A-10 during the initial phase of a bombing campaign. Let the fighters control the skies, have the strike eagles take out major anti air weaponry and then send your Warthogs in to mop up.
Saying that something sucks because it fails to perform well in a situation it was never built for is like saying that your car sucks because it can't also act as a boat when you want it to.
Also, the A-10 can fly during rainy weather, the F-35 cannot. Also, the F-35 is dumb and it literally catches fire when they turn the engine on.
No, the problem is that the A-10 is only useful against backwater ancient soviet tech used by fairly incompetent insurgents opposed to actual modern armor used by modern Russians, modern Chinese, etc. It's CAS and it's CAS that needs to be protected from just about everything because the plane is stupidly vulnerable, hence why the Gov keeps trying to kill the plane. The only thing the A-10 is good for in a modern American military is boosting the morale of our troops and scaring the enemy shitless with the famed gatling cannon.
But against a foe that isn't a backwater insurgent force and it'll likely get massacred. See again the survival rate expected of A-10 pilots stationed in Germany at the height of the Cold War if WWIII were to ever break out.
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
Against modern armor pretty much all of its weapons are still perfectly capable. The GAU-8 has shown no lack of effectiveness at all from any information I can find. Likewise, I don't recall any armored vehicle that's walking away from a Hellfire missile, modern or not, likewise 500lb iron bombs are still pretty effective against whatever they're thrown against.
What weapon would you use against modern armor (or any target an A-10 would be thrown against) that an A-10 won't be carrying?
The Gov doesn't keep trying to kill it. There are sections of the Air Force that have tried to kill it, and any other close air support aircraft, since it was developed, because it's not a supersonic awesome interceptor. Every time its come up before a budget committee however, the A-10 gets maintained.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/19 07:13:03
IRON WITHIN, IRON WITHOUT.
New Heavy Gear Log! Also...Grey Knights! The correct pronunciation is Imperial Guard and Stormtroopers, "Astra Militarum" and "Tempestus Scions" are something you'll find at Hogwarts.
Vaktathi wrote: That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
Except it's exacerbated by the A-10, as its ceiling is low and its ability to fight enemy aircraft is non-eixistant. It also can't go fast to avoid the ability of the enemy to even target it, and it can't use stealth given that the A-10 is about as stealthy as a baneblade driving through your home. The only thing the A-10 has to defend itself if it comes across an actual threat is its armor, and with aircraft that's generally a terrible thing to rely on.
It wasn't designed to fight other airplanes though. The A-10 is usually deployed after air superiority has already been achieved. Once any credible threats to the plane are eliminated, it is sent in to do the job it was built for, strafing ground targets and providing close air support. It doesn't need to be stealthy at that point. You would be insane to send in an A-10 during the initial phase of a bombing campaign. Let the fighters control the skies, have the strike eagles take out major anti air weaponry and then send your Warthogs in to mop up.
Saying that something sucks because it fails to perform well in a situation it was never built for is like saying that your car sucks because it can't also act as a boat when you want it to.
Also, the A-10 can fly during rainy weather, the F-35 cannot. Also, the F-35 is dumb and it literally catches fire when they turn the engine on.
No, the problem is that the A-10 is only useful against backwater ancient soviet tech used by fairly incompetent insurgents opposed to actual modern armor used by modern Russians, modern Chinese, etc. It's CAS and it's CAS that needs to be protected from just about everything because the plane is stupidly vulnerable, hence why the Gov keeps trying to kill the plane. The only thing the A-10 is good for in a modern American military is boosting the morale of our troops and scaring the enemy shitless with the famed gatling cannon.
But against a foe that isn't a backwater insurgent force and it'll likely get massacred. See again the survival rate expected of A-10 pilots stationed in Germany at the height of the Cold War if WWIII were to ever break out.
Be polite, motyak
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/19 13:24:31
iGuy91 wrote: You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it.
Elbows wrote: You know what's better than a psychic phase? A psychic phase which asks customers to buy more miniatures...
the_scotsman wrote: Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming?
No, the problem is that the A-10 is only useful against backwater ancient soviet tech used by fairly incompetent insurgents opposed to actual modern armor used by modern Russians, modern Chinese, etc. It's CAS and it's CAS that needs to be protected from just about everything because the plane is stupidly vulnerable, hence why the Gov keeps trying to kill the plane. The only thing the A-10 is good for in a modern American military is boosting the morale of our troops and scaring the enemy shitless with the famed gatling cannon.
The Air Force keeps trying to kill the plane because the Air Force doesn't care about CAS.
Only a tiny fraction of Chinese and Russian tank forces are made up of modern tanks. The rest are T-54/55s, T-62s, T-72s, Type 59s and Type 69s... which by your own admission, the A-10 is fine against.
Vaktathi wrote: That's not unique to the A-10 however by any means, any manned aircraft is going to have those issues, while drones aren't advanced enough to replace them, especially because nobody knows what an engagement between two first class militaries in the 21st century would actually look like, largely because it hasn't happened in 70 years.
Except it's exacerbated by the A-10, as its ceiling is low and its ability to fight enemy aircraft is non-eixistant. It also can't go fast to avoid the ability of the enemy to even target it, and it can't use stealth given that the A-10 is about as stealthy as a baneblade driving through your home. The only thing the A-10 has to defend itself if it comes across an actual threat is its armor, and with aircraft that's generally a terrible thing to rely on.
It wasn't designed to fight other airplanes though. The A-10 is usually deployed after air superiority has already been achieved. Once any credible threats to the plane are eliminated, it is sent in to do the job it was built for, strafing ground targets and providing close air support. It doesn't need to be stealthy at that point. You would be insane to send in an A-10 during the initial phase of a bombing campaign. Let the fighters control the skies, have the strike eagles take out major anti air weaponry and then send your Warthogs in to mop up.
Saying that something sucks because it fails to perform well in a situation it was never built for is like saying that your car sucks because it can't also act as a boat when you want it to.
Also, the A-10 can fly during rainy weather, the F-35 cannot. Also, the F-35 is dumb and it literally catches fire when they turn the engine on.
No, the problem is that the A-10 is only useful against backwater ancient soviet tech used by fairly incompetent insurgents opposed to actual modern armor used by modern Russians, modern Chinese, etc. It's CAS and it's CAS that needs to be protected from just about everything because the plane is stupidly vulnerable, hence why the Gov keeps trying to kill the plane. The only thing the A-10 is good for in a modern American military is boosting the morale of our troops and scaring the enemy shitless with the famed gatling cannon.
But against a foe that isn't a backwater insurgent force and it'll likely get massacred. See again the survival rate expected of A-10 pilots stationed in Germany at the height of the Cold War if WWIII were to ever break out.
OH MY GOD JUST SHUT THE F UP ABOUT BLOODY WWIII YOU DUMB S HEAD IT IS GOOD AT WHAT IT DOES, IT DOESN'T NEED TO BE ABLE TO KILL RUSSIAN AND CHINESE TANKS, 'CAUSE IT'S ONLY FIGHTING THOSE CRAPPY INSURGENTS, YOU F TARD!!! AND THERE SURE AS HELL ISNT GOING TO BE THIS MYTHICAL WORLD WAR 3, AND IF THERE IS IT'LL BE NUKES NOT PLANES AND TANKS!!!!
ALWAYS ANGRY, ALL THE TIME!!!!!!!
You prepare for what has the ability to threaten your continued survival. Not that which is a minor annoyance, and is stuck in the middle of bum feth nowhere.
But as for WWIII, it is inevitable, and it will not involve carpet glassing, because nobody has the balls to let loose everything. But a single tactical nuke followed up with conventional warfare after softening up the enemy forces with nuclear bombardment, as per modern Russian doctrine? Very real and very probable. Of course, then there's the greater misconception that nukes mean the end of the world, except yet we've already detonated two thousand years after the last sixty years or so, with no major affect on Earth except some increased cancer rates in the South West.
No, the problem is that the A-10 is only useful against backwater ancient soviet tech used by fairly incompetent insurgents opposed to actual modern armor used by modern Russians, modern Chinese, etc. It's CAS and it's CAS that needs to be protected from just about everything because the plane is stupidly vulnerable, hence why the Gov keeps trying to kill the plane. The only thing the A-10 is good for in a modern American military is boosting the morale of our troops and scaring the enemy shitless with the famed gatling cannon.
The Air Force keeps trying to kill the plane because the Air Force doesn't care about CAS.
Only a tiny fraction of Chinese and Russian tank forces are made up of modern tanks. The rest are T-54/55s, T-62s, T-72s, Type 59s and Type 69s... which by your own admission, the A-10 is fine against.
Which can also be taken out by automated aircraft that cost a lot less to lose in combat then pilots. A-10's again, are only good for providing CAS against insurgent forces. Not actual armies.
Using the A-10 to justify the existence of the Leman Russ is bs, as the A-10 would not survive WWIII fighting conditions against foes who have varied AA abilities that even infantry can carry. The Imperium however is engaged in constant, permanent total war, with the average enemy being their own people carrying their own weapons. So the Leman Russ is constantly going up against AT weapons.... and dies because of it. It's not picking on hapless rebel forces, it's fighting guys with meltaguns, lascannons, rocket launchers, and autocannons. People who can take advantage of the Leman Russ being an ungodly abomination of a tank with a hilariously massive slew of crippling flaws that can be exploited to massacre the tank with proper weapons. You don't even need to blow it up, with its exposed tracks you can do simple mission kill things, like fuse the tracks to the tank's body with some high-energy munitions. Or hide in an area full or mud or derbies, which would gimp the tank's offensive ability due to the Russ lacking suspension. Fight purely in entrenched fortifications so the Leman Russ sticks out of the open with its massive profile to make for easy strikes against the turret. Etc.
It's a piece of gak tank that has no right to exist. Poorly made, poorly designed, the only reason why it persists is because of the technological stagnation of the Imperium at this current stage.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2014/12/19 10:18:21
“There is only one good, knowledge, and one evil, ignorance.”
Your hilariously insane bias against the A-10 is not based on reality, logic, or rational thought, sadly, so I'm not sure there's a reason for me to continue this conversation, however amusing it was for a while. I will however reiterate that the F-35 is an expensive piece of gak that doesn't do what it's built to do. It's an inferior air superiority plane to modern Russian and Chinese air superiority planes, it's an inferior CAS plane to any purpose-built CAS planes, and its vtol capability is pretty much worthless. The F-35 isn't even released yet, and it's already obsolete.
The Leman Russ, thankfully, does not have any of those problems, it is an effective, durable tank that does what it's built to do. It's not the MOST durable tank, but in terms of raw capacity to take damage and not give a damn, it's better than the other MBTs within 40k, which tend to prefer to avoid damage, but are far less capable of taking it.
This message was edited 4 times. Last update was at 2014/12/19 10:53:04
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
iGuy91 wrote: You love the T-Rex. Its both a hero and a Villain in the first two movies. It is the "king" of dinosaurs. Its the best. You love your T-rex.
Then comes along the frakking Spinosaurus who kills the T-rex, and the movie says "LOVE THIS NOW! HE IS BETTER" But...in your heart, you love the T-rex, who shouldn't have lost to no stupid Spinosaurus. So you hate the movie. And refuse to love the Spinosaurus because it is a hamfisted attempt at taking what you loved, making it TREX +++ and trying to sell you it.
Elbows wrote: You know what's better than a psychic phase? A psychic phase which asks customers to buy more miniatures...
the_scotsman wrote: Dae think the company behind such names as deathwatch death guard deathskullz death marks death korps deathleaper death jester might be bad at naming?
You've angered CREEED and distracted from his favorite topic - really big tanks. Can we get back On Topic?
IN ancient times a Leman was the heavy in the game outside of the landraider. It could even fire from off the table, something nothing else could do.
Fluffwise as noted it tough. Super advanced ships with dedicated antitank are better one on one, but its never one on one, and in those instances Lemans can rely on artillery and its own antitank variants.
Another interesting discussion is, what tank is better than a Leman or one of its many variants in the anti infantry or light skimmer context? Your standard Leman has a nice battlecannon, two heavy bolters, and the lascannon could be swapped out for another if desired. Other variants have autocannon, plasma cannon, etc. Thats a lot of dakka.
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2014/12/19 12:41:09
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Don't think there is such a thing as an MBT better than the LRBT in the anti-infantry role.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
"That time I only loaded the cannon with powder. Next time, I will fill it with jewels and diamonds and they will cut you to shrebbons!" - Nogbad the Bad.
WEll, mean the LR as a tank in general, but fair point.
The people in the past who convinced themselves to do unspeakable things were no less human than you or I. They made their decisions; the only thing that prevents history from repeating itself is making different ones.
-- Adam Serwer
My blog
UP ABOUT BLOODY WWIII YOU DUMB S 
