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.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
The thing is that Leman Russ is a high tech version of an Interwar heavy infantry tank design. The difference is that instead of being challenged by WWII Germans, the correctness of the design was confirmed by Orks which were on lower tech level.

And the other difference is that it has a suspension that doesn't function (and will inevitably result in it immobilizing itself if it goes anywhere but a high-quality paved road), a turret that can't fit its gun, etc. It's an inexcusably bad design that is clearly worse than its real-life inspiration.

Also, I think that a WWI-era tank designer would be amazed by it's reliability, ability to accept various fuel types, life-support, electronic devices, weapons, etc.

Sure, it has some nice toys attached to it, but the overall design is shamefully bad. The WWI-era designer's reaction would probably be something like "WTF, you have magic laser guns and this is the best you can do?".

That said, in 41st millennium it's an outdated design.

No, it's a non-functional design. It isn't just old and replaced by better tanks, it's hopelessly stupid and very clearly designed by people who didn't understand how tanks work. There is no point in time when the LRBT would have been a good idea.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
My point is that Leman Russ is like it is because it was designed and initially operated in conditions similar to WW1.

No it isn't. The LRBT is like it is because the designer had no clue how tanks work and made a roughly tank-shaped lump of plastic. It would be a hilarious failure in WWI conditions, where it would immobilize itself in soft ground long before it got anywhere near the battle. The only way it could be even remotely useful in WWI is if you dig a hole, drop the LRBT into it with only the turret above ground, and cover it in dirt to create a fixed bunker. And even then it would probably suck compared to proper fortifications.

Masses of Leman Russ tanks would enjoy similar supremacy against the Orks when their STC design was created (and didn't need adamantium and ceramite and was easier to use for untrained personnel).

Who cares if orks sucked that much back then? Making a tank that would be laughably bad in 1915 when you have the ability to make lasers/FTL spaceships/etc is just insane. If you're capable of designing and building a lascannon then making at least a 1950s-era tank should be trivially easy. And that 1950s-era tank would have vastly better performance than the LRBT for a negligible increase (if any) in complexity and cost.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
The thing is that Leman Russ is a high tech version of an Interwar heavy infantry tank design. The difference is that instead of being challenged by WWII Germans, the correctness of the design was confirmed by Orks which were on lower tech level.

And the other difference is that it has a suspension that doesn't function (and will inevitably result in it immobilizing itself if it goes anywhere but a high-quality paved road), a turret that can't fit its gun, etc. It's an inexcusably bad design that is clearly worse than its real-life inspiration.

What would make it immobilize itself?

By the way, here is how the original Space Marine Leman Russ looked:
https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/traitor-russ/

 Swastakowey wrote:
It carries too much weaponry to be useful (assuming at full loadout) means the commander will have a hard time directing and commanding his tank.

The commander is further impeded by the fact he appears to be the one firing and loading the gun, as the turret clearly only has him in it. This means he is trying to do many many jobs, resulting in poor combat showings.
7 Crew at max would make this vehicle very, very cramped. Many crew would die as a result, since bailing from the vehicle is not possible for most crew (but its the imperium...) and replacing a lost crew member (as rare as that will be) would result even less combat efficiency than we already have.

That's what you are ssuming, but that's not true. Access hatches are on both sides and the top. A Panther Tank had 5 crew and only 2 hatches.
And as you can see, it is not super cramped - apart from inside the turret, but still manageable. And that is with using just 90% of the dimensions that somebody at GW made up from thin air.

 Keep wrote:

Mockup for real human scale, with FW (main)armor thickness and 150mm rounds (to fit the miniature model better), Ammo load like described in IA:1

Not too much space, not too cramped (remember, personal gear, other equipment and secondary ammo+ ammo for sponsons still needs to go in there)

By the way, here is how the original Space Marine Leman Russ looked:
https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/traitor-russ/

Wow, it looks better then the 40k plastic kit

 Keep wrote:

By the way, here is how the original Space Marine Leman Russ looked:
https://epicaddiction.wordpress.com/2012/03/26/traitor-russ/

Wow, it looks better then the 40k plastic kit

True. It looks both more odd and sci-fi and seems to have wide tracks. Also, the barrel is clarified to be inside the thick tube. I don't know what they were thinking when they created the plastic kit.

 EmpNortonII wrote:
A complete lack of innovation is fine when nothing is better than what you have.

So despite their phenomenal AI, technology and industry, and all that hype, they still can't do any better than field Tau and their auxiliaries in the field as line troops (even the way they fight) and can't even be bothered to make automated vehicles or weapons? A drone tank, more competently designed robot infantry, etc. would be more sensible (and put their own peoples lives at risk)

Oh and even if they DO have to risk their supposedly 'high value' Tau soldiers, there's tons of ways they could do this without directly exposing themselves to direct fire (apparently the Tau can't figure out how to use their railguns for indirect bombardment even thoguh we figured this out thousands of years ago?) Oh and we can get on the brilliance of using mecha in combat (not the most optimal designed for practical warfare no matter who uses them, but the Tau don't even have the Imperium's excuse of religious veneration. They're supposed to be dynamic and forward-thinking, remember?)

None of this actually changes my original point, anyhow. Tau are as moronic as everyone else in 40K, if we're going to play the mocking game. You can't pick on one faction without picking on the rest.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

It probably has speed limiters just like M1 Abrams.

Possibly. I remember a reaallly old short story in like a pre-Forgeworld (as we know it) Imperial armour where the Russes had modded engines for greater speed. Probably the souped up engine modification like Salamander Scouts have. I even think the old vehicle design rules technically (barely?) allowed such for a Russ. It could just be as simple as removing speed limiters

 Keep wrote:
I know that the conqueror supposedly has torsion bars. I haven't seen a Leman Russ description that says it has no suspension which mr wyzilla here was claiming.

I don't remember it either, although he's made this claim multiple times before IIRC. It wouldn't surprise me if there WAS a Russ like that, since tech industrial levels and materials science varying mean you're going to produce a wide variety and quality of Russes even if the basic 'design' was vaguely similar (cosmetic differences.. HAH) Just like you can have steam powered Russes.

I also find the idea of feudal era societies producing steam tanks (The same way feral orks could make steam gargants a thing) perversely amusing, honestly. If I had any gripe about them it would be the seemingly limited arcs (they fan fire ahead and to the sides, but its not 180 degree arcs, which leaves a pretty big blind spot for a supposedly useful weapon.)

The 'design' or 'look' of the Russ whilst maintaining a broadly similar looking appearance almost certainly changes according to who builds it, how they build it, and what they build it for. Just like real life tanks. That's going to produce variable quality but its also a simple fact of the way things are set up. It's not like the visuals clash with the fluff as far as 'correct' goes, anyhow (Ironically the Russ is actually shorter by diagrams.. unless Imperial guardsmen as a rule are 2+m tall routinely!)

Again thats part of the problem. The assumption is that the Leman Russ must either be 'all good' or 'all bad'... because somehow being capable of being both (or having a combination of good and bad qualities, which is more likely and more 'realistic' if anything) is not possible/desirable. This is rather puzzling.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:

Original Leman Russ from space Marine looked more like a remotely controlled external turret. The old Demolisher cutout that I posted seems to have them as remotely operated weapon stations with the operators sitting inside. Currently the sponson is mounted over second access hatch. I don't think they actually cut it out.

If you look at the Inferno cutaway for the Demolisher I posted, the guns don't look anything like sponsons, they also look like remotely controlled weapons stations inside the hull. Not quite the same thing as sponsons. That doesn't mean they DON'T use sponsons on some designs of course (because they do, including on Superheavy tanks) but its more of that technicial/industrial/doctrinal inconsisteny that makes the IG so dysfunctionally varied. If they have the tech they go with remote stations (which have been a thing since 1st edition anyhow). If they don't, they use the lower tech option of sponsons (at least on some tanks. Even then not all tanks always use sponsons, its an optional thing like most attahcments/'upgrades')

How old is that Inferno cutaway?
If we compare the situation to SM Bolters who where initially said to be exclusively rocket propelled and look at it now....

But i'm definitely with you in that there are certainly tech level differences. A PDF will propably be equipped with lesser stuff then actual IG tank units.

If I had any gripe about them it would be the seemingly limited arcs (they fan fire ahead and to the sides, but its not 180 degree arcs, which leaves a pretty big blind spot for a supposedly useful weapon.

The arc is 180° to the front (90° per sponson). With sponsons you have a pretty big arc of coverage. Compare that to WW2 hull machinegunners... Leman Russ with 3x HB is definitely less prone to close infantry attack. And maximum gun depression is much higher for the sponsons then it would be for a hull mg on strongly sloped armor. So it's easier to shoot at infantry in holes or trenches

The assumption is that the Leman Russ must either be 'all good' or 'all bad'

? I think the strengths and weaknesses are pretty obvious for the Leman Russ (measured in the 40k universe, not compared to modern tanks)

It could just be as simple as removing speed limiters

Nah, it won't suddenly go 60+kph. Not with that puny engine or horsepower to weight ratio. Add to that the big track section, which will likely have alot more power losses due to increased friction.

 Keep wrote:
How old is that Inferno cutaway?
If we compare the situation to SM Bolters who where initially said to be exclusively rocket propelled and look at it now....

Late 90s I think. Not that time seems to have any difference on fluff, otherwise Necromunda, the Inquisitor RPG, Epic, or much BFG would be invalid I suspect. Not to mention a whole slew of 40K novels and other source material.

But i'm definitely with you in that there are certainly tech level differences. A PDF will propably be equipped with lesser stuff then actual IG tank units.

I suspect there's differences even in line units, the same way you get IG regiments that field rough riders (or some equivalent.) There may be tech disparities (because such extreme contrasts are also about 40K - the mind impulse unit steam tanks from IA1 for example) but it still happens. I expect there is some hilarious game of perpetual catchup in the Imperium trying to 'standardize' and only meeting with imperfect results because stuff keeps changing.

The arc is 180° to the front (90° per sponson). With sponsons you have a pretty big arc of coverage. Compare that to WW2 hull machinegunners... Leman Russ with 3x HB is definitely less prone to close infantry attack. And maximum gun depression is much higher for the sponsons then it would be for a hull mg on strongly sloped armor. So it's easier to shoot at infantry in holes or trenches.

Each 'sponson' could cover 180 or so of the sides (and rear, if they work together.) which would be more useful in its 'anti-infantry' role. Then again some may actually be like that. We're going by the visuals for what they are, and I already commented on that :d

? I think the strengths and weaknesses are pretty obvious for the Leman Russ (measured in the 40k universe, not compared to modern tanks)

I'm commenting once again on the polarization of the debate. If things were 'well there's good and bad stuff about it' it wouldn't be shaping up as an argument.

Nevermind that strength or weakness can be context dependent as well. Tanks aren't just used for shooting at other tanks (that's kinda western philosophy) they have some significant support roles too, and a tank optimized for one role may not be as good at the other (tradeoffs are just apart of any sort of systemic design. You can't have everything.)

Alternately if you design something to be a little bit good at everything (which could qualify for a Russ) its not likely to be exceptional at anything (even with advanced tech.)

Of course this assumes we're applying some measure of logic to things (at least a logic that resembles real life.) I mean if you have dropships/shuttles, missiles, computers, and all sorts of high tech stuff, it becomes much harder to have a literal WW1 STYLE WARFARE IN EVERY WAY, because the way wars are fought (including WW1) is shaped as much by the technology as the doctrine. Some bits of tech may not shape it much (EG lasguns or high tech body armor) but others WILL have a huge difference (Sensors/computers/missiles. Heck superheavy tanks and artillery that can shoot down titans shape it, because how do you defend against that short of theatre shielding which you almost certainly won't always have. Or aircraft, how do you protect yourself in trenches against those?). One could argue that such 'logic' does not apply in such debates (or apply a wholly different standard), but then alot of the comparisons made (including real world ones) would cease to matter and this thread I suspect becomes rather pointless.

Nah, it won't suddenly go 60+kph. Not with that puny engine or horsepower to weight ratio. Add to that the big track section, which will likely have alot more power losses due to increased friction.

Acceleration isn't going to be high that its going from 0-60 in 1 second no, but it culd achieve 60 kph on or even off road depending on the design. There were 2nd edition Russes that did exactly that:

Codex Chaos: page 80 wrote:The Leman Russ batlte tank rumbled along the pass, its tracks squealing in protest as the vehicle was driven at speed over the rocky terrain. The steep sides of the gorge rose up menacingly on either side, the black volcanic wlals leaving the pass in permamant shadow. Behind the battle tank came a short column of Imperial Chimeras, the armoured troop carriers multi-lasers swivelling to cover the sides of the pass in case of enemy attack.

...

"How far now?" he continued, trying to put the thought of dameons out of his head.

"Thirteen klicks, sir." the Guardsman replied, checking the instruments in front of him.

"Estimated time till arrival?"

"Eleven minutes, sir."

The battle tank was suddenly shaken by a deep, rumbling blast as a weapon was fired into the pass. Looking through the sights Rosman saw a section of the gulley wall to the right erupt. Much of that part of the gorge wall proceeded to give way, chunks of rock as big as the Leman Russ tumbling down into the pass, partially blocking the reinforcements' route.

A second blast, like a thrumming boom, rocked the tank and over the comm-link Rosman heard a cry of anguish from one of the other vehicles. The tank commander scanned the sides of the pass through the tank's sights but could see nothing. Simultaneously the cliff face behind the tank crumbled, separating the Leman Russ from the rest of the cavalcade.

Obviously not a standard by any means, but I think it does show just how variable it is (since the other end is literally slower than the forgeworld standard, at 19 km/hr and some variants even slower.) Must be some good suspension, too

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
What would make it immobilize itself?

The fact that it has an inch of ground clearance at most, and it has all of its weight concentrated on narrow tracks. If the tracks sink an inch into soft ground the side armor next to them touches the ground and starts to dig in. And then, instead of rolling across the ground on tracks, the LRBT is trying to drag itself through the mud like a boat in water.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
So despite their phenomenal AI, technology and industry, and all that hype, they still can't do any better than field Tau and their auxiliaries in the field as line troops (even the way they fight) and can't even be bothered to make automated vehicles or weapons?

This is probably one of those "the fluff only looks at the interesting stuff" cases. Nobody wants to read a story about a Tau cargo ship dumping a few million gun drones onto a planet and coming back a month later after they've killed everything. So those battles happen in the background, while the stories we get are the ones where Tau characters are involved and the gun drones are supporting them.

I don't remember it either, although he's made this claim multiple times before IIRC.

It's never explicitly stated that the LRBT has no suspension, it's just clear from every visual example of the tank that it either doesn't have one or has one that is so ridiculously ineffective that it's worse than having no suspension at all (because it adds weight and complexity with no benefit). The issue is that the tracks have nowhere to go without taking them inside the adjacent armor plates and allowing the tank's hull to touch the ground. And this is a very consistent "feature" of the tank: the model has it, the codex art has it, the FW cutaway drawing has it, etc. In fact, I can't remember ever seeing a picture of a LRBT that doesn't have this flaw.

Each 'sponson' could cover 180 or so of the sides (and rear, if they work together.) which would be more useful in its 'anti-infantry' role. Then again some may actually be like that. We're going by the visuals for what they are, and I already commented on that :d

Not if it's manned by a human gunner. You need to armor it, and if it was able to turn 180° you would need 360° of armor. That means you could only climb in from the top. And there is not a whole lot of space in that little sponson to begin with.

If you have it swivel mounted, like on a predator, then certainly. But the weapon itself isn't armored and quite vulnerable actually.

There were 2nd edition Russes that did exactly that:

That assumes that the guardsmans estimation is correct, he can calculate correctly, that local minutes are realworld minutes and that 13 klicks are still 13 kilometer. OR that the author knows what any of these are.

would be invalid I suspect

Not so much as invalid. But things in the fluff changed over the time.

I don't see how missiles, computers and jet aircraft change the fact that infantry in trenches is extremely difficult to clean out. WW1 was like it was because forces where equal, resulting in a deadlock and war of attrition. Add AA screen on both sides, add antitank weapons on both sides. And it's still a deadlock. And if there is one thing IoM is good at, its bringing in fresh meat.

 Keep wrote:
Not if it's manned by a human gunner. You need to armor it, and if it was able to turn 180° you would need 360° of armor. That means you could only climb in from the top. And there is not a whole lot of space in that little sponson to begin with.

Huh? Why would you need 360* of armor? You only need to armor the parts that are outside the hull, the 180* arc the gunner pivots through is behind the tank's hull armor and doesn't need additional protection.

I don't see how missiles, computers and jet aircraft change the fact that infantry in trenches is extremely difficult to clean out.

Because aircraft can drop napalm bombs from above and turn the trenches into an oven, carpet bomb everything so thoroughly that the trenches don't matter, etc. Or they can simply bypass the trenches entirely and land troops behind the fixed defenses. Missiles and computer-aimed artillery vastly improve the accuracy of weapons and make it a lot easier to destroy fixed fortifications and airburst shells above the trenches. And of course the ultimate change of the modern era is tactical nuclear weapons capable of wiping out vast sections of trenches along with everything inside them.

WW1 was like it was because forces where equal, resulting in a deadlock and war of attrition. Add AA screen on both sides, add antitank weapons on both sides. And it's still a deadlock. And if there is one thing IoM is good at, its bringing in fresh meat.

And then someone in orbit drops a bombardment on the whole region, ending the stalemate.

 Peregrine wrote:

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
What would make it immobilize itself?

The fact that it has an inch of ground clearance at most, and it has all of its weight concentrated on narrow tracks. If the tracks sink an inch into soft ground the side armor next to them touches the ground and starts to dig in. And then, instead of rolling across the ground on tracks, the LRBT is trying to drag itself through the mud like a boat in water.

It's annoying that they introduced these flaws when creating the 28mm version of the tank while they weren't present in the initial design.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
If you look at the Inferno cutaway for the Demolisher I posted, the guns don't look anything like sponsons, they also look like remotely controlled weapons stations inside the hull. Not quite the same thing as sponsons. That doesn't mean they DON'T use sponsons on some designs of course (because they do, including on Superheavy tanks) but its more of that technicial/industrial/doctrinal inconsisteny that makes the IG so dysfunctionally varied. If they have the tech they go with remote stations (which have been a thing since 1st edition anyhow). If they don't, they use the lower tech option of sponsons (at least on some tanks. Even then not all tanks always use sponsons, its an optional thing like most attahcments/'upgrades')

I think it's more of a question of progressing degradation of Imperial Guard by GW.
Starting out in Rogue Trader with Predators, Rhinos and Land Raiders, all of which had auto-aim and power fields, then degrading to Leman Russes with remote weapon stations and auto-loaders and finally suffering the final degradation of Gunners actually being in sponsons and manually loaded battle-cannon.

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
It's annoying that they introduced these flaws when creating the 28mm version of the tank while they weren't present in the initial design.

Sure, but the original LRBT was a vaguely tank-shaped lump of metal (like all the other Epic stuff) with even worse design flaws. And it still doesn't have a functioning suspension. The only difference is that its tracks are at least wider than the side sections and able to support it properly. And really, we can't even be sure of that much because the lack of precision in the old Epic models makes it unclear whether the track width was deliberate or merely just sloppy sculpting work.

 Keep wrote:
Not if it's manned by a human gunner. You need to armor it, and if it was able to turn 180° you would need 360° of armor. That means you could only climb in from the top. And there is not a whole lot of space in that little sponson to begin with.

The stuff in the Inferno diagram isn't lierally a sponson. Its a stuck on gun mount that happens to overlay the hull, operated remotely by the gunner. And making it 180 degrees (swivelling to cover the rear half of the tank) simply means readjusting the mounting so that it doesn't have a big mass of matter sticking in the back and restricting it to a 90 degree angle. You could make a better case for the hull mounted lasguns in the Chimera being 'sponsons' because they at least have to fire out of a hole made in the hull.

That assumes that the guardsmans estimation is correct, he can calculate correctly, that local minutes are realworld minutes and that 13 klicks are still 13 kilometer. OR that the author knows what any of these are.

You can say that about literally any fluff put out by 40K, including the codexes. If we go that route, then we don't really know anything do we? Unless you have a foolproof, objective and GW approved method for sorting fact from fallacy in 40K fluff.

I don't see how missiles, computers and jet aircraft change the fact that infantry in trenches is extremely difficult to clean out. WW1 was like it was because forces where equal, resulting in a deadlock and war of attrition. Add AA screen on both sides, add antitank weapons on both sides. And it's still a deadlock. And if there is one thing IoM is good at, its bringing in fresh meat.

As noted, aircraft can drop bombs. They can use it to take out your own artillery or your forces that are hiding in a trench (That has literally no overhead protection.) They can also provide targeting data for more precise artillery bombardments. Missiles are guided munitions (EG more precision, and they don't have to be in line of sight to fire.. they can hit anything in range.) Computers help you do all that - they've massively improved the way warfare has changed by providing more information (targeting and otherwise) that enables us to do so many things and do it better.

Or even better, you now have starfighters AND STARSHIPS that can bomb stuff. From orbit. What good are trenches when your enemy has countless ways to make a colossal hole in your trench lines that the other side can use his own forces to exploit (especially if they have dropships, mechanized units, etc.)

 Aszubaruzah Surn wrote:
I think it's more of a question of progressing degradation of Imperial Guard by GW.
Starting out in Rogue Trader with Predators, Rhinos and Land Raiders, all of which had auto-aim and power fields, then degrading to Leman Russes with remote weapon stations and auto-loaders and finally suffering the final degradation of Gunners actually being in sponsons and manually loaded battle-cannon.

I don't think the IG are 'degrading' being GW's fault. Its that we keep getting more and more data about the IG dumped on it, and this tends to cloud the issue because so many different 'views' of what it is arise. I mean they've actually regaind DEathstrikes for the last few editions, which makes them something of a quasi-pentomic army (not something that works with a ww1 doctrine. At all.) And we got the Taurox in 6th (whaver people say about how it looks its still a vehicle that MOVES.) And there were tons of other little details, like the auger arrays:

These ‘spyboxes’ feed intelligence back to command elements behind the lines. Strategic servitors compile and redistribute this data in order to refine the coordinates issued to support elements in the field.

That is DEFINITELY not WW1. Any bit of it. But its not exactly anything SPECIFIC either, because the IG by design is not meant to be any one, standardized thing, but a huge, dysfunctional mess incorporating everything that sometimes works, and sometimes doesn't, but somehow still manages to forge on.

 Peregrine wrote:
Sure, but the original LRBT was a vaguely tank-shaped lump of metal (like all the other Epic stuff) with even worse design flaws. And it still doesn't have a functioning suspension. The only difference is that its tracks are at least wider than the side sections and able to support it properly. And really, we can't even be sure of that much because the lack of precision in the old Epic models makes it unclear whether the track width was deliberate or merely just sloppy sculpting work.

Are we talking about This Epic LRBT? Not sure about the rest of that or not (I see springs at least, I think) but it does have the virtue of not having a moronically oversized (and unrealisticly proportioned) battle cannon. That seems more plausible than midget Ogryn loaders anyhow

Connor MacLeod wrote:
Are we talking about This Epic LRBT?

About the model that was linked a few posts ago, but it seems to match that picture at least as well as any of the early-era (and non-FW) Epic blobs of metal match their respective fluff.

(I see springs at least, I think)

It has springs, but they can't possibly do anything. Just look at the picture and tell me what happens if the track moves upward more than a couple inches. And then compare it to the original 40k-scale Baneblade model:



Not only does the model have suspension elements included (though not visible from the side because they're blocked by the wheels) the tracks have room to move upward without letting the tank drag along the ground.

but it does have the virtue of not having a moronically oversized (and unrealisticly proportioned) battle cannon.

I don't know, it's still pretty bad. It's a bit smaller than the battlecannon on the standard plastic kit but it looks like it scales to about the same size as the gun on the FW alternate turrets.

Huh? Why would you need 360* of armor? You only need to armor the parts that are outside the hull, the 180* arc the gunner pivots through is behind the tank's hull armor and doesn't need additional protection.

You need a hole to stick the gun through. And that hole has to move in some way. If you point it forward the backside of the thing that holds the gun shows to the rear and vice versa. Take a guess why WW1 tank sponsons looked like they did.

Because aircraft can drop napalm bombs from above and turn the trenches into an oven, carpet bomb everything so thoroughly that the trenches don't matter, etc. Or they can simply bypass the trenches entirely and land troops behind the fixed defenses.

Carpetbombing differs in the effect exactly how from an artillery barrage? Artillery can also take out enemy artillery. And if aircraft can fly over the trenches undisputed, it's not a deadlock. In an AA heavy environment they will do that little trick once or twice and that's it. Airbursting was already done in WW1...
And space ships are out of the equation, because if they send troops down somewhere they either want it intact, or they can't use them due to orbital defenses.
And ballistic missiles are not the pinpoint accurate solution you try to make them out to be. we are talking about 50m up to 3km (early scud) of mean deviation.

And of course the ultimate change of the modern era is tactical nuclear weapons capable of wiping out vast sections of trenches along with everything inside them.

IG isn't modern era. Nuking isn't an option, unless we are talking about an exterminatus. If IG would have cheap use of nuclear warheads, many landbased threats wouldnt exist anymore. That means they either don't use it, or it's not available in significant enough numbers to make a big impact.

That Baneblade picture looks like it has quite exposed wheels and tracks. Would that not make them vulnerable to enemy fire?

 Ashiraya wrote:
That Baneblade picture looks like it has quite exposed wheels and tracks. Would that not make them vulnerable to enemy fire?

It would, but virtually every real-world tank has the same problem. There's just no practical way to have both mobility and significant armor for the sides of the tracks.

 Peregrine wrote:
It has springs, but they can't possibly do anything. Just look at the picture and tell me what happens if the track moves upward more than a couple inches. And then compare it to the original 40k-scale Baneblade model:



Not only does the model have suspension elements included (though not visible from the side because they're blocked by the wheels) the tracks have room to move upward without letting the tank drag along the ground.

I'm not versed enough in the intricies of suspension enough to dispute on this or judge so.. eh. I consider it academic anyhow, since if nothing else there is the Honour Guard quote, and its already been established there's plenty of reason for ludicrous variation in the Leman Russ (like the IG as a whole.)

PS: Not trying to dimsis what you're saying as being totally irrelevant or accuse you of anything. It still applies, I just don't think it's the sole consideration/relevant evidence.

I don't know, it's still pretty bad. It's a bit smaller than the battlecannon on the standard plastic kit but it looks like it scales to about the same size as the gun on the FW alternate turrets.

Short barreled is not neccesarily itself a problem, depending on the design of the weapon and its ammunition. the M551 Sheridan had a stubby, wide calibre barrel (Same used on the M60 Patton STarship, and a slightly longer version was proposed for the MBT-70 experiment. If you want even crazier ideas, there have been rocket-assisted KE rounds, at least by some of the US tank design history books I've read, and the MBT-70 was designed to fire anti-tank ammo as well.) That said, there's no way in heck you can justify something bigger than my freaking head calibre wise (140-150mm would be bad enough because IRL they require autoloaders to work. You might be able to get around that with 40K magic, but a shell caliber rivalling naval battleship artillery for size? That's like hundreds of kilos at a minimum, envermind the volume of said shells.) If I had to take 'short barrel' vs 'unrealistically huge barrel' I'm definitely taking the former, because there's no way in hell to make the latter realistically work (if we're going to obsess about realism, of course.)

 Keep wrote:
And space ships are out of the equation, because if they send troops down somewhere they either want it intact, or they can't use them due to orbital defenses.

First, that's not true. Plenty of novels have done it (Heck, 13th Legion novel had the Last Chancers infiltrating a city shortly AFTER an orbital bombardment cremated the army in their path!) Heck it's a part of the 5th edition codex:

They [Officers of the Fleet] coordinate with the Imperial Navy bomber wings and even the lance batteries onboard warships. Whilst the full might of the Imperial Fleet cannot be called upon, the avaialble firepower is enough to disrupt the enemy's supply lines, forcing their reserves to take shelter or face destruction from above. Such actions delay enemy reinforcements from entering the fray...

And they were an aerospace option in Epic Armageddon (There were units that provided orbital bombardment like the Emperor-class Battleship)

This category includes all of the interstellar spacecraft used by armies to move from one star system to another. These craft can vary in size from small escorts to huge battleships armed with enough firepower to level a hive city! In Epic they are assumed to be operating from low orbit where they can land drop pods and provide long-range support for ground troops.

This still doesn't address drop ships and shuttles, because the IG explicitly deploy from orbit at some point once they get to their destination, and that includes directly into the fight (how many pictures have we seen of the IG doing that? Cover of the 5th edition rules? the Tyrok Fields artwork?)

And ballistic missiles are not the pinpoint accurate solution you try to make them out to be. we are talking about 50m up to 3km (early scud) of mean deviation.

you mean like Hunter-Killer missiles, right? If we're talking something like Deathstrikes, well, they're basically nukes (or worse). IF we're talking manticores accuracy becomes less of an issue because they rely on submunitions (like fairly recent missiles.) and you don't need extreme precision with that (you're deliberately going for area of effect.) You don't even have to be modern to be 'not-WW1', since 50s or 60s would suffice quite well.

IG isn't modern era. Nuking isn't an option, unless we are talking about an exterminatus. If IG would have cheap use of nuclear warheads, many landbased threats wouldnt exist anymore. That means they either don't use it, or it's not available in significant enough numbers to make a big impact.

Of course they aren't modern era. 'modern' forces operate under a culture and doctrine/rules/political system vastly different from 40K, against a more diverse and vatly different sieres of opponents. It's not going to be remotely comparable. but it doens't HAVE to be modern to be 'Not just WW1' or demonstrate highly variable warfare. Most if not all modern forces also don't have anything like a Deathstrike in their inventory do they?

 Ashiraya wrote:
That Baneblade picture looks like it has quite exposed wheels and tracks. Would that not make them vulnerable to enemy fire?

Not just that, but I know there's some Baneblade cutaways that actually DO show them with Sponsons, and that can be a real disadvantage potentially because its a thinning/weakening of the overall armor integrity (you have to makea hole to fit the gun, as has been noted.) That can be 'vulenrable' to enemy fire too. Better hope the baneblade has good compartmentalization (maybe it does!)

On the other hand there was the Baneblade from Courage and Honour that stood up pretty well to repeated Tau railgun hits as well. *cue random potential outrage at mention*

This still doesn't address drop ships and shuttles, because the IG explicitly deploy from orbit at some point once they get to their destination, and that includes directly into the fight (how many pictures have we seen of the IG doing that? Cover of the 5th edition rules? the Tyrok Fields artwork?)

Shuttles and Dropships are subject to AA just like any fighter would if deployed in the combat zone. And it's quite frankly a stupid idea...

Plenty of novels have done it (Heck, 13th Legion novel had the Last Chancers infiltrating a city shortly AFTER an orbital bombardment cremated the army in their path!) Heck it's a part of the 5th edition codex:

These are not situations where trench lines develop however. If they have any form of superiority it's obvious that deadlocks can't form up.

IF we're talking manticores accuracy becomes less of an issue because they rely on submunitions

again - not any better then an artillery barrage against a trench/fortification network. Yes you will hit something but it's not causing the entire network to fall down. Apart from that, every missed explosion creates an additional crater. It's not going to give you any decisive edge. It's just grinding more meat.

 Keep wrote:
You need a hole to stick the gun through. And that hole has to move in some way. If you point it forward the backside of the thing that holds the gun shows to the rear and vice versa. Take a guess why WW1 tank sponsons looked like they did.

Ok, I think I see what you're saying, but you're making some very specific assumptions about how the sponsons are designed. It's possible to make sponson guns with a much larger firing arc than the LRBT has without having giant plates of armor inside the tank. For example, look at how the Malcador sponsons are designed. They're not quite 180* but they cover a much wider area with very little difference in armor required.

Carpetbombing differs in the effect exactly how from an artillery barrage?

Because of the vast difference in firepower. A 155mm artillery shell is about 100lbs. A single B-52 carries 70,000lbs of bombs. That's the rough equivalent of 700 artillery shells delivered simultaneously to a concentrated area from one bomber.

Artillery can also take out enemy artillery.

Yes, which is why computers and aircraft make such a difference. If you have radar tracking the incoming shells and computer-aimed return fire static artillery positions are suicide. The best you can do is fire a few shells and then immediately start running before the return fire can arrive. So that puts a severe limit on how much firepower artillery can deliver, and makes WWI/Vraks-style "spend a day shelling the trenches before you attack" use of artillery impossible. Aircraft, on the other hand, can deliver a massive "artillery" strike with a single bombing run and completely annihilate a target.

And if aircraft can fly over the trenches undisputed, it's not a deadlock. In an AA heavy environment they will do that little trick once or twice and that's it.

And that's exactly the point! You can't have a WWI-style stalemate because one side will quickly gain air superiority (especially when pretty much everyone in the setting is eager to be martyred and has no objection to taking 90% losses if it wins the war), obliterate static AA defenses, and start bombing everything on the ground.

Airbursting was already done in WW1...

Not the same kind. Proximity fuses weren't invented until WWII, so airbursting required timer fuses that aren't as effective against trenches.

And space ships are out of the equation, because if they send troops down somewhere they either want it intact, or they can't use them due to orbital defenses.

Why are we just magically assuming that an important element of the setting is completely absent, despite its frequent use in the fluff? And orbital strikes are just one example of why trench warfare doesn't work, even if they don't exist at all because of plot you still have the other reasons.

And ballistic missiles are not the pinpoint accurate solution you try to make them out to be. we are talking about 50m up to 3km (early scud) of mean deviation.

And? Ballistic missiles are armed with nukes. 50m inaccuracy with a tactical nuke is so trivial it might as well be zero. Also, I don't know why you're focusing on ballistic missiles when guided weapons (including guided weapons with nukes) exist and have much better precision.

Nuking isn't an option, unless we are talking about an exterminatus.

Why not? Tactical nukes are not a significant long-term threat to the planet itself, so the only reason not to use them is for moral reasons. And we know very clearly that the Imperium has no such moral reasons.

If IG would have cheap use of nuclear warheads, many landbased threats wouldnt exist anymore. That means they either don't use it, or it's not available in significant enough numbers to make a big impact.

Yes, and that's kind of the point: IG act stupidly. Nobody is denying that trench warfare happens in 40k, the point is that it shouldn't happen and all examples of it are the result of stupidity by everyone responsible.

Because of the vast difference in firepower. A 155mm artillery shell is about 100lbs. A single B-52 carries 70,000lbs of bombs. That's the rough equivalent of 700 artillery shells delivered simultaneously to a concentrated area from one bomber.[...]And that's exactly the point! You can't have a WWI-style stalemate because one side will quickly gain air superiority (especially when pretty much everyone in the setting is eager to be martyred and has no objection to taking 90% losses if it wins the war), obliterate static AA defenses, and start bombing everything on the ground.

A marauder only carries 12k lbs of bombs. And while he can drop them at once, he has to then fly back (safely), land, repair and rearm, start, fly again. That takes a long time.
By that time an artillery piece has propably shot the same amount, and is cheaper, requires less training, less maintenance and less sophisticated equipment.

IN doesn't throw it's equipment away like IG. Going against Air defenses with air you're going to suffer heavily. Manticore AA missiles sure as hell are easier to optain then a thunderbolt, lightning or marauder including their pilots.

You're arguing with the perspective of present day equipment and present day numbers (US vs whoever the hell it is they're invading this time). This is 40k however.

Connor MacLeod wrote:
I'm not versed enough in the intricies of suspension enough to dispute on this or judge so..

It's not really an intricate detail thing, it's a pretty fundamental flaw. The basic concept of a suspension is that the wheel/track/ski/whatever moves up and down on a spring. Let's say the obstacle in question is an average speed bump in the tank's path. When a vehicle with proper suspension hits the speed bump the first wheel moves upward in response, the spring absorbs most of the energy of the impact, and the main hull of the vehicle doesn't move very much. Then as it passes over the bump the spring forces the wheel back down (again, without moving the rest of the vehicle very much) and the next wheel reaches the obstruction and repeats the process. The end result is that the wheels and springs do most of the moving, while the rest of the vehicle remains stationary (in the vertical axis at least). But this requires that it be possible for the wheels to move.

In the case of the LRBT this simply can't happen. Even if the tracks have wheels and springs the moment any part of the wheels/tracks moves upward it rises above the bottom edge of the tank and the main hull of the tank hits the speed bump. You've essentially created the tank equivalent of those idiots who modify their cars to put the body an inch above the road and can't go over speed bumps without scraping the bottom of the car. And if the tank sinks even slightly into soft ground the bottom edge of the tank will immediately touch the ground and start to dig in as well.

Now compare this to the Baneblade, where if a wheel moves upward it has a long way to go (about 1.5-2") before it rises above the bottom edge of the tank. and any part of the tank besides the tracks touches the ground. Alternatively, the Baneblade could sink 1" into mud and still only have the tracks touching the ground.

eh. I consider it academic anyhow, since if nothing else there is the Honour Guard quote, and its already been established there's plenty of reason for ludicrous variation in the Leman Russ (like the IG as a whole.)

The problem is that it's actually a very consistent problem. Virtually every visual example of the LRBT (and possibly every example, I have yet to see one that breaks the trend) suffers from the same problem. The only counter-examples are all written descriptions, and they all require the visual ones to be wrong to a much greater degree than can be plausibly explained by artist error. The inevitable conclusion is that the standard LRBT does not have a functioning suspension. Maybe there's some incredibly rare high-end variant that changes the design significantly but is still called a LRBT, but it has to be so rare that we've never seen any pictures of it.

Short barreled is not neccesarily itself a problem, depending on the design of the weapon and its ammunition.

But the short barrel isn't the issue, it's the diameter. I agree that the LRBT's barrel diameter is ridiculously huge, but my point is that the Epic variant suffers from the exact same problem. It looks like it's slightly smaller than the plastic kit and roughly the same size as the FW variant turret. That's still way beyond any real-world tank by a huge margin.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Keep wrote:
A marauder only carries 12k lbs of bombs.

The Marauder is also explicitly stated to be a medium bomber at most. We just don't see bigger ones because strategic bombing is beyond the scale of any 40k-universe game GW has published.

By that time an artillery piece has propably shot the same amount, and is cheaper, requires less training, less maintenance and less sophisticated equipment.

Except it probably hasn't, because the artillery piece has spent most of its day running and desperately trying to dodge incoming fire. Even the Marauder carries the equivalent of 120 155mm artillery shells. Let's assume that the Marauder is flying one mission per day (a very conservative estimate, especially if you're willing to have multiple crews for a single bomber). To match the Marauder's daily delivery of explosives the Basilisk* would have to maintain a rate of fire of five shells per hour, or about ~10 minutes per shot. That sounds reasonable, but remember that the Basilisk is probably going to be shooting ~5 shells at most and then running away before the return fire lands, and will also have to spend time refueling and reloading (and probably swapping crews if you don't want fatigue to be an issue). So in theory the Basilisk can match the low-end estimate from a medium bomber, but not by a very impressive margin.

And then there's one very important difference: the rate of delivery. The most effective shot in an artillery barrage is the first one, and the value of each shot after that decreases significantly as the targets take cover. The Basilisk in this situation is going to pay a heavy penalty in marginally-effective shells because its firepower is spread out across an entire day. The Marauder, on the other hand, delivers its entire payload simultaneously. There's no warning or opportunity to take cover, the entire 120-shell equivalent has the full effectiveness of the first shell in the Basilisk's barrage.

*We're going to assume it's a Basilisk since a towed earthshaker gun would be instantly destroyed by return fire against a modern-level enemy.

Going against Air defenses with air you're going to suffer heavily.

So? What's the alternative, sit back and do nothing while you take heavy losses in trench warfare?

Manticore AA missiles sure as hell are easier to optain then a thunderbolt, lightning or marauder including their pilots.

But that's not the comparison. It's not one AA missile (which isn't a guaranteed kill, so make that several AA missiles) against one plane, it's the AA missiles, their launcher/radar site/etc that was destroyed after the missiles were fired, and the value of everything that was destroyed by air strikes once the AA was removed, and the value of winning the battle after making the required sacrifice against one plane.

You're arguing with the perspective of present day equipment and present day numbers (US vs whoever the hell it is they're invading this time). This is 40k however.

Yes, and that was the point: the IG is stuck in WWI-era tactics because of plot reasons, and pretty much everyone in charge of deciding how they fight (in-universe) is a complete idiot.

 Peregrine wrote:
For example, look at how the Malcador sponsons are designed. They're not quite 180* but they cover a much wider area with very little difference in armor required.

The side sponsons can't shoot directly to the front, and don't even talk abobut overlapping field of fire. Besides, this variant takes more room internally.

In the case of the LRBT this simply can't happen. Even if the tracks have wheels and springs the moment any part of the wheels/tracks moves upward it rises above the bottom edge of the tank and the main hull of the tank hits the speed bump.

You are assuming that the tracks sit flush with the sideskirts all the time. And that the springs are soft as if they where made for a tank that has a lot of travel. If they travel down they can be damped. And the ride heigth could be adjustable (so it looks a bit like the malcador, at least on the bottom section).
The suspension is pretty bad, but to claim that it could not happen at all is a stretch.

the IG is stuck in WWI-era tactics because of plot reasons

Not sure about you, but to me that's actually what makes it fun. If i want modern day everything i concern myself with coldwar what-might-have-been scenarios. If you refuse to emerse yourself into the setting and claim that everyone is stupid, just because they dont have access to everything we've got now... well maybe try something else then, if it's so bad.

So? What's the alternative, sit back and do nothing while you take heavy losses in trench warfare?

Eitherway losses will be high. And ground assetts are easier to replace for the IoM

 Keep wrote:
You are assuming that the tracks sit flush with the sideskirts all the time.

And it's an entirely justified assumption. That's how it is on the model, and that's how it is in every piece of codex art/cutaway drawing/video game/etc.

And that the springs are soft as if they where made for a tank that has a lot of travel.

They have to be, because if they are too stiff there's no difference between having a suspension and just bolting the wheels directly to the hull. A suspension has to move to function correctly.

And the ride heigth could be adjustable (so it looks a bit like the malcador, at least on the bottom section).

And there's no evidence for that at all. The only reason to even speculate that it might work that way is if you're stubbornly opposed to admitting that the LRBT is a bad design.

Not sure about you, but to me that's actually what makes it fun. If i want modern day everything i concern myself with coldwar what-might-have-been scenarios. If you refuse to emerse yourself into the setting and claim that everyone is stupid, just because they dont have access to everything we've got now... well maybe try something else then, if it's so bad.

Who said that I don't enjoy it? Pointing out in-universe stupidity is not the same thing as saying that 40k sucks and we hate it. And yes, the lack of access to modern weapons/tactics/etc is a sign of stupidity. These things should be trivial for an empire that has laser rifles/FTL spaceships/etc, there's absolutely no reason for a competent military to be stuck in 1915 (or earlier!).

Eitherway losses will be high. And ground assetts are easier to replace for the IoM

Then what's the point of having aircraft at all if you're never going to use them? If you're willing to sacrifice a whole regiment of guardsmen to save a single Thunderbolt and pilot then your aircraft are going to spend the entire war in their hangars, and you might as well scrap them and use the metal to build knives for your guardsmen.

I think someone here is overstating the effect of aircraft in a contested airspace on the field and then giving artillery waaay to much downplay on their importance...

Artillery have very complex set ups, requiring counter artillery sections, diversionary sections and then the main guns. The rate at which artillery fire is very fast, and when employed in barrages has devastating effect.

Added to this is the fact that artillery is mobile (unlike video games where they are portrayed as stationary etc) having their limbers or transports nearby. Today we even have a lot of mechanized artillery. The battle of guns are always moving and so on. Its all very complex stuff.

Aircraft however, are drastically impeded in contested airspace. Its all well and good having aircraft blow up poor people in poor countries, but in a conventional war aircraft, like in previous wars, will drop like flies until one side wins the attrition war and claims the airspace and even then, losses are still an issue. So if your mauruder bomber somehow makes it through enemy defense, they then have target, they only have a few tries at this (as apposed to artillery which can correct rounds through the use of spotters etc) before it has to spend hundreds of thousands + flying home to try again. If it survives this is.

Its all complex stuff, no matter thew time period. The problem with 40k, is nothing about it is realistic. It should be a huge combined arms effort with detailed plans and clear logistics etc, instead they magically havew things then drive everything forward. Special things poof forward instead, negating some of the walking forward.

But one thing is clear, in a real war, artillery will be far more practical. Of course, on sea the opposite is true (aircraft reign king of the seas).

As for the tank, it sucks. Ever driven a car (not a 4 wheel drive etc) but a family car off road? It wrecks it pretty fast. Imagine how much worse that would be for a tank... Suspension is very important for its function.

Then what's the point of having aircraft at all if you're never going to use them? If you're willing to sacrifice a whole regiment of guardsmen to save a single Thunderbolt and pilot then your aircraft are going to spend the entire war in their hangars,

They get shipped to another location if they can't conduct any effective work. Yes IoM is like that. Human lives dont matter.

And there's no evidence for that at all. The only reason to even speculate that it might work that way is if you're stubbornly opposed to admitting that the LRBT is a bad design.

No, i'm not stubbornly opposed to admitting the LRBT is a bad design. It is bad. I'm stubbornly opposed to surrendering to a technical challenge and thinking how to actually make work what it is supposed to do/be instead of claiming it doesnt work without even trying.

They have to be, because if they are too stiff there's no difference between having a suspension and just bolting the wheels directly to the hull. A suspension has to move to function correctly.

No suspension is as stiff has having none at all. Even slight suspension reduces parts from breaking quickly.

 Swastakowey wrote:
Added to this is the fact that artillery is mobile (unlike video games where they are portrayed as stationary etc) having their limbers or transports nearby. Today we even have a lot of mechanized artillery. The battle of guns are always moving and so on. Its all very complex stuff.

Define "mobile". And then remember that radar-aimed counter-battery fire will potentially be on its way before the first shells have reached their targets. IA1 states that a Basilisk shell takes about 18-19 seconds to reach its maximum range, so that's maybe 30-40 seconds at most from the moment the first shells are fired to complete the barrage, dismantle the guns, attach them to their transports, and get out of the threat radius of the incoming shells. An artillery tank like a Basilisk can do that, a towed earthshaker gun is almost certainly dead. And even the Basilisk is probably going to have to be very careful about preparing its escape route, not getting spotted moving into its next firing position, etc. Sustained rate of fire is going to be much lower than the theoretical maximum rate that you can load shells into the gun.

Its all well and good having aircraft blow up poor people in poor countries, but in a conventional war aircraft, like in previous wars, will drop like flies until one side wins the attrition war and claims the airspace and even then, losses are still an issue.

So what if losses are an issue? It's not like trench warfare is free of losses either. Remember, this whole discussion came up as an explanation for why WWI/Vraks-style trench warfare makes no sense outside of a WWI-era setting. If you're suggesting years of attrition warfare in the trenches as an alternative to sacrificing aircraft in a brief battle for air superiority then I really don't see how that's supposed to be a better alternative.

So if your mauruder bomber somehow makes it through enemy defense, they then have target, they only have a few tries at this (as apposed to artillery which can correct rounds through the use of spotters etc) before it has to spend hundreds of thousands + flying home to try again. If it survives this is.

Why do you need multiple tries at a target when you have guided bombs, computer bomb sights for your "dumb" bombs, and enough payload to massively overkill anything near the target? Remember how a single B-52 carries the equivalent of ~700 155mm artillery shells?

Also, no, you aren't correcting your aim with a spotter unless you're willing to sacrifice your artillery guns to do it. If you aren't moving away from your initial firing position by the time your first shots hit and give the spotter anything to spot then you've just lost all of your guns to counter-battery fire. The only way you can spot artillery is if the other side is fighting with WWI-era technology and don't have radar-aimed counter-batter fire, but then they probably also don't have anything that can stop the air strikes.



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Keep wrote:
They get shipped to another location if they can't conduct any effective work. Yes IoM is like that. Human lives dont matter.

If lives don't matter then why are you so concerned about losing pilots? What you're suggesting is the exact opposite of the Imperium's "win at all costs" approach to war.

I'm stubbornly opposed to surrendering to a technical challenge and thinking how to actually make work what it is supposed to do/be instead of claiming it doesnt work without even trying.

But why should we assume that it works? Why not just state the obvious, that it's a completely broken design that only functions by ork-like faith in the machine god and/or act of plot and leave it at that?

No suspension is as stiff has having none at all. Even slight suspension reduces parts from breaking quickly.

But we're literally talking about an inch of movement at most before the hull of the tank hits the ground. I really don't see how that's supposed to be useful, especially since the weight and complexity wasted on a barely-functioning suspension could have been spent on making more durable components.

But why should we assume that it works?

Duh? Because it somehow does in 40k?

especially since the weight and complexity wasted on a barely-functioning suspension could have been spent on making more durable components.

Make something thicker and it will be stiffer, therefore even more prone to fatigue through shocks. Gains weight, achieves basically nothing. You NEED elasticity, even if it's not much.

lives don't matter then why are you so concerned about losing pilots? What you're suggesting is the exact opposite of the Imperium's "win at all costs" approach to war.

It's not about the pilots. Its about the machines. Besides, training pilots to fly and combat in a jet aircraft takes alot more ressources/time then grunt training. Navy aircraft can have ejector seats, so obviously they are valuable as well.

Remember how a single B-52

Which does not exist, and would be shot down on approach if it did in the situation we talk about.

years of attrition warfare in the trenches as an alternative to sacrificing aircraft in a brief battle for air superiority then I really don't see how that's supposed to be a better alternative.

As if you can achieve a brief battle of air supremancy against a foe of similar strength.

If magic missiles can blow up artillery in less than 30 seconds... then why can't magic AAA blow up aircraft hours before they get near the target?

I think someone just loves aircraft a bit too much.

Also you dont need to dismantle guns to move them, merely limber them up and move... have you seen artillery being transported by trucks? Or artillery that has been built into trucks?

Even with computers firing artillery/bombs they still miss. There are many factors involved, meaning eyes on the ground are needed for it all. I mean, why do aircraft in your odd world have magic bombs that hit everything without dying... but not artillery?

Makes no sense why you pick and choose.

One more point... in the fluff the Leman Russ is a great battle tank which you refute... but then use the fluff to defend your artillery sucks idea as well. Again picking and choosing.

 Swastakowey wrote:
If magic missiles can blow up artillery in less than 30 seconds... then why can't magic AAA blow up aircraft hours before they get near the target?

Because hitting a 700mph target flying at treetop level that can make high-g turns to evade an incoming missile or a bomber at 50,000' is much more difficult than tracking a high-arc ballistic projectile back to its source and firing a similar shot back to that location. Flight time for a Basilisk shot is ~20 seconds at maximum range, and as soon as the shell comes over the horizon the exact location of the Basilisk is known. So the delay before counter-battery fire hits, assuming the guns/rockets/whatever are committed to the counter-battery role and ready to fire, is the time it takes to aim plus ~20 seconds flight time. And because a Basilisk can't run away at 500mph it's much easier to catch it in the area of, for example, a Manticore salvo.

As for why they can't do it hours before reaching the target, because range matters? A Basilisk has ~15km range. A plane flying at just under mach 1 will cross that distance in ~2 minutes, and will cover over a hundred times the Basilisk's maximum range in two hours. I think it should be obvious why counter-battery fire at 15km range is much easier than hitting a target from 1500km away.

Also you dont need to dismantle guns to move them, merely limber them up and move... have you seen artillery being transported by trucks? Or artillery that has been built into trucks?

Dismantling, packing, whatever you want to call it the concept is the same. You have to take the gun out of its firing position, pack it up for towing, get it attached to the towing vehicle, and start moving. And you have to do it very quickly or you're dead.

Even with computers firing artillery/bombs they still miss. There are many factors involved, meaning eyes on the ground are needed for it all. I mean, why do aircraft in your odd world have magic bombs that hit everything without dying... but not artillery?

Again, the difference is quantity. A bomber formation is delivering the equivalent of thousands of artillery shells within a few seconds, up to tens of thousands if you want to use WWII-style swarms of bombers. It doesn't matter if one B-52 misses the target with some of its bombs, the formation as a whole just covered the entire area. And remember, we're talking about area targets like a trench network, not dropping a 500lb bomb on a specific enemy commander's head from 50,000'.

And sure, once you start talking about guided weapons artillery can match the precision of aircraft. A modern artillery tank armed with GPS-guided shells would be able to fire a salvo of shells perfectly aimed at, say, an enemy gun emplacement without a spotter as long as the target location is known. But IG artillery doesn't have those, especially when we're talking about Vraks-style trench warfare. If they somehow did the end result would be effectively the same: static defenses (as you have to have in trench warfare) become obsolete.

One more point... in the fluff the Leman Russ is a great battle tank

Except it isn't. The fluff is that the Imperium believes that the LRBT is a great tank. From an outside observer's position the fluff presents a truly awful design that only "works" because most of the Imperium's wars are against equally incompetent enemies.