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.

I believe the whole reason the Leman Russ was designed to look like an interwar period tank, has more to do with playing with our expectations of what a tank should look like, than any serious attempt at designing a credible sci-fi vehicle. The Leman Russ is supposed to be an ancient, outdated design, and the models and imagery communicates that by presenting us with a vehicle that already looks old.

You might view the Leman Russ design as the placeholder for a tank which would look futuristic to us, but at the same time would be no less archaic in the 41st millennium.

There's a possible parallel here with the Gothic language of 40k, which is presented to us as a form of Latin, even though we're told it's supposed to have evolved from from English, Chinese and so on. But to us, the audience, Latin does a better job of portraying tradition, pseudo-religious bureaucracy and extreme age. The Latin used in 40k is perhaps another placeholder for a different, futuristic language, which isn't really used except in names and certain words, such as "melta".

Another thing to consider when talking about the Russ and it'S design is Imperial Guard tactics. The Leman Russ isn't just a cheap vehicle to throw at the enemy in hordes (even though that works for the most part). Nor is it a "main battle tank" in the purest sense. The vanilla Leman Russ Battle Tank is basically an old fashioned "infantry tank". The main offensive arms of the Guard are the infantry and artillery. Tanks like the basic Russ are there to support the infantry. In that vein, it's more closely related to the Matilda Mark II than the Sherman or T-34.


For the most part, outside of armored fist companies, and units like the Steel Legion, mechanized warfare as we know it isn't the norm.

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The vanilla Leman Russ Battle Tank is basically an old fashioned "infantry tank". The main offensive arms of the Guard are the infantry and artillery. Tanks like the basic Russ are there to support the infantry. In that vein, it's more closely related to the Matilda Mark II than the Sherman or T-34

It is faster then a Matilda and also boasts armament fit for anti-tank, anti-infantry and anti-fortification tasks. It's a multipurpose vehicle. Like i said, it's in the same speed range as german 1940 tanks. Therefore all the tactics they used during that time regarding battletanks should be perfectly possible. It can operate as "infantry tank" (due to heavy front armor), but also in full tank companies.

If there is one thing i find illogical in relation, then it has to be the chimera's speed. It weighs 2/3 of the Leman Russ (~40t) but has double the speed without significantly larger engine-compartments.

Engine size alone doesn't determine output. The efficiency of the drive wheels and tread layout play a big factor.

 Keep wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
The vanilla Leman Russ Battle Tank is basically an old fashioned "infantry tank". The main offensive arms of the Guard are the infantry and artillery. Tanks like the basic Russ are there to support the infantry. In that vein, it's more closely related to the Matilda Mark II than the Sherman or T-34

It is faster then a Matilda and also boasts armament fit for anti-tank, anti-infantry and anti-fortification tasks. It's a multipurpose vehicle. Like i said, it's in the same speed range as german 1940 tanks. Therefore all the tactics they used during that time regarding battletanks should be perfectly possible. It can operate as "infantry tank" (due to heavy front armor), but also in full tank companies.

If there is one thing i find illogical in relation, then it has to be the chimera's speed. It weighs 2/3 of the Leman Russ (~40t) but has double the speed without significantly larger engine-compartments.

Speed really doesn't factor into whether or not a tank is classified as an "infantry tank". And the Matilda was also effective against armor and fortified positions during the peak years of it's service history. An infantry tank has to be something of a multipurpose vehicle to properly support the boots against various threats. That's all it has to be. "A jack of all trades, master of none" is good enough to back up the grunts taking real estate.


But as a line battle tank, in a setting with uber-powerful anti-armor weapons, the Russ is hurt by it's subpar defensive systems. Armor coverage in critical areas, in particular.


The Russ also suffers from the same issues plaguing the earlier marks of Sherman. In other words, "good enough" isn't always enough. That's why you have the variants to meet tactical needs that the base model just doesn't sufficiently cover. Fortunately. the Leman Russ chassis is versatile to allow that.

 Grey Templar wrote:
Basically yes. T34, Shermans, etc...

Superior armor and armament is good, but you also need numbers. The Germans would have been best served by flooding the field with Panthers, which they could produce in large quantities.

Or plain old Panzer IVs (which IIRC were the real workhorses of the Panzer divisions in any case). These somewhat weaker-armored tanks could mount the same gun as the Panther while maintaining mobility and having the largest pool of spare parts available. As a somewhat irritated Ferdinand Porsche said, the Führer demanded Tigers and Panthers when he could have had four or two reasonably powerful Panzer IVs for every one of the shinier models.

The IoM is in a similar bind as the great powers of WW2. It needs a lot of stuff, it needs it now and everything should be common enough that it can be repaired in the field by cannibalizing parts from units that can't be repaired. Kind of like the Nazis tried to do with the different PZ III and IV Stug/Jagd versions, cheaper fixed-gun variants based on the most common chassis they had available. They just didn't streamline production enough, not that they had the means to win anyway but it would have taken longer for them to fall.

Yes, in real life people tend to not want to use nukes on enemy armies for many reasons. I question whether those motivations apply to the 40K Imperium, since they are willing to and DO exterminate all life on entire planets.

Zingraff wrote:
I believe the whole reason the Leman Russ was designed to look like an interwar period tank, has more to do with playing with our expectations of what a tank should look like, than any serious attempt at designing a credible sci-fi vehicle. The Leman Russ is supposed to be an ancient, outdated design, and the models and imagery communicates that by presenting us with a vehicle that already looks old.

You might view the Leman Russ design as the placeholder for a tank which would look futuristic to us, but at the same time would be no less archaic in the 41st millennium.

There's a possible parallel here with the Gothic language of 40k, which is presented to us as a form of Latin, even though we're told it's supposed to have evolved from from English, Chinese and so on. But to us, the audience, Latin does a better job of portraying tradition, pseudo-religious bureaucracy and extreme age. The Latin used in 40k is perhaps another placeholder for a different, futuristic language, which isn't really used except in names and certain words, such as "melta".

Yes, I agree with this very much.

 TheWaspinator wrote:
Yes, in real life people tend to not want to use nukes on enemy armies for many reasons. I question whether those motivations apply to the 40K Imperium, since they are willing to and DO exterminate all life on entire planets.

The Imperium has no moral qualms about any WMDs, but they are extremely pragmatic and big picture orientated.

Their most abundant resource is human lives. So if you can buy anything with human lives it will be bought, because that can save you more valuable assets.

Exterminatus is a move of last resort. Its only done when there is no other option. Something so dangerous it needs to be utterly destroyed to save something more valuable. The Imperium will exterminates a dozen worlds in the path of a tyranid hive fleet to starve it and prevent its further advance across a sector. They'll destroy a Forge World about to fall to an Ork Waaagh to prevent the greenskins from turning its technology against them.

 Keep wrote:
If there is one thing i find illogical in relation, then it has to be the chimera's speed. It weighs 2/3 of the Leman Russ (~40t) but has double the speed without significantly larger engine-compartments.

Never heard of Flintstoneing?

Never heard of Flintstoneing?

Never in the context of an amphibious tracked vehicle


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Speed really doesn't factor into whether or not a tank is classified as an "infantry tank". And the Matilda was also effective against armor and fortified positions during the peak years of it's service history. An infantry tank has to be something of a multipurpose vehicle to properly support the boots against various threats. That's all it has to be. "A jack of all trades, master of none" is good enough to back up the grunts taking real estate.

Mid to late WW2 medium and heavy tanks, apart from certain silly designs, are all almost always effective against basically everything on the ground, unless there is a "bigger something" that is pitted against them. So "jack of all trades, master of none" can not be a definition for infantry tank, otherwise the majority of WW2 tanks would have to be categorized as "infantry tanks".

But as a line battle tank, in a setting with uber-powerful anti-armor weapons, the Russ is hurt by it's subpar defensive systems. Armor coverage in critical areas, in particular.

By that definition the only tank not beeing supbar in the setting would be the land raider... It's the quantity of everything on the field that matters.
Also, it has better "defensive systems" then other tanks, simply because it can cover 180° field of fire with sponson weapons.

 Keep wrote:

 oldravenman3025 wrote:
Speed really doesn't factor into whether or not a tank is classified as an "infantry tank". And the Matilda was also effective against armor and fortified positions during the peak years of it's service history. An infantry tank has to be something of a multipurpose vehicle to properly support the boots against various threats. That's all it has to be. "A jack of all trades, master of none" is good enough to back up the grunts taking real estate.

Mid to late WW2 medium and heavy tanks, apart from certain silly designs, are all almost always effective against basically everything on the ground, unless there is a "bigger something" that is pitted against them. So "jack of all trades, master of none" can not be a definition for infantry tank, otherwise the majority of WW2 tanks would have to be categorized as "infantry tanks".

That wouldn't be all that incorrect of a definition for a lot of them.

Early tank doctrine had been the "Land Ship" strategies where tanks were treated and moved much like naval warships. But Blitzkrieg quickly showed that tanks were best when used in support of infantry. That was actually almost the entirety of US tank doctrine, which resulted in a somewhat panicked rush to get 76mm guns onto Shermans because the Germans had rolled out Panthers and the 75mm shermans couldn't handle them.

 Grey Templar wrote:
That wouldn't be all that incorrect of a definition for a lot of them.

Early tank doctrine had been the "Land Ship" strategies where tanks were treated and moved much like naval warships. But Blitzkrieg quickly showed that tanks were best when used in support of infantry. That was actually almost the entirety of US tank doctrine, which resulted in a somewhat panicked rush to get 76mm guns onto Shermans because the Germans had rolled out Panthers and the 75mm shermans couldn't handle them.

Actually, quite the opposite is true. As of United States Field Manual 100-5, the M4 Sherman was initially intended to fulfill roughly the same role as the British termed a 'Cruiser' tank, in that it would be utilised as part of a highly mobile striking force intended to strike into and operate within the enemy rear ala Blitzkrieg tactics, with the infantry supporting the armour rather than the opposite. It was only with America's entry into the North African and Italian theatres that they learnt that in fact instances of armour vs armour warfare and infantry support far outweighed the intended breakthrough actions they had foreseen. Accordingly, the emphasis was only switched later on to the infantry support and AT roles.

I'd also argue that the rush to arm US Shermans with 76mm guns wasn't actually all that great. Whilst the British rapidly ramped up production of the Firefly armed with the Ordnance QF 17 pdr, to such a point that by the War's conclusion at least 50% of all British Sherman's were Fireflys, in comparison the US M1 76mm, although being superior to the 75mm M3 in terms of AT capabilities, wasn't produced nearly as much due to it's inferior HE round. Combined with the fact that the US rejected the British 17pdr (a gun with vastly superior AT properties), this is indicative of the nature of the enemy that the US faced. In the north of France, the British contended with 6 1/2 Panzer Divisions, of which one was the premier Panzer Lehr division and there were at least two heavy tank battalions including Tiger II's present. In comparison, in the south and west, the US Army faced only 1 1/2 Panzer Divisions. Hence, the US Army actually had a far smaller need for AT guns than the British as the majority of the force that they engaged was infantry based. As such, the need for the HE 75mm becomes evident as it proved more useful in the average style of infantry based combat than the 76mm M1.

Zingraff wrote:
I believe the whole reason the Leman Russ was designed to look like an interwar period tank, has more to do with playing with our expectations of what a tank should look like, than any serious attempt at designing a credible sci-fi vehicle. The Leman Russ is supposed to be an ancient, outdated design, and the models and imagery communicates that by presenting us with a vehicle that already looks old.
.

You do realise that is quite literally what I posted earlier in this thread with a quote from one of GW's oldest designers, right?

 angelofvengeance wrote:

 Boggy Man wrote:
OP, you forgot adding the weapons sponsons in back of the landraider transport exits. Because why provide covering fire for disembarking troops when you can give them friendly fire instead.

Which is precisely why I model them with the sponsons to the fore, and exit hatches to the rear.

Deviant! Obviously you need more time studying the works of our spiritual liege!

It didn't always used to be like this.

40K tanks used to have sass.

40K tanks used to have curves.

40K tanks used to be.... shampoo bottles

And with that i have nothing more to say about the elegant, fresh and above all incredibly functional design that is the Leman Russ Battle Tank. You sir, win this thread, I consider myself beaten.

 Grimtuff wrote:

Zingraff wrote:
I believe the whole reason the Leman Russ was designed to look like an interwar period tank, has more to do with playing with our expectations of what a tank should look like, than any serious attempt at designing a credible sci-fi vehicle. The Leman Russ is supposed to be an ancient, outdated design, and the models and imagery communicates that by presenting us with a vehicle that already looks old.
.

You do realise that is quite literally what I posted earlier in this thread with a quote from one of GW's oldest designers, right?

Not entirely and you're missing my point.

The idea that I'm trying to put forward is that the Leman Russ probably should look very different, but in order for the design to appear ancient to us, they've "replaced" the "real" Leman Russ with the design we've now got. In that way the Leman Russ will look as outdated to us, the 21st century audience, as the theoretical "real" Leman Russ would appear to someone from the 41st millennium. If the "real" Leman Russ was to exist, it would boggle our 21st century minds.

WW2 churchill built with steel. Leman Russ with plasteel, aka, fictional material that has X endurance, where X is whatever it needs to be. In comparison, the front armour of a leman russ is as tough comparatively as a Land Raider which is Adamantium, a near-indestructable supermetal by our standards.

This is also the realm where you use non-conventional weaponry for anti-tank purposes. Melta, Lance, Haywire, Destroyer weapons, its irrelevant for the most part if you have 150mm or 200m. For these tanks the lighter armour and profiles must be the most conveniant to make using processes and materials they have access to, while it's still sufficient to cover conventional AT weapons like Autocannons and Krak Missiles. Plus the materials are different and density is different. Plus the game and model designers are not mechanics or engineers and make models that easily fit into sprues and look cool.

I heard that Leman Russ Battle Tanks looked like that because the IOM found a complete STC for tractors and modified it with weapons....

 Deadshot wrote:
as a Land Raider which is Adamantium, a near-indestructable supermetal by our standards.

Near-inderstructable my ass, you saw the comparision picture on the last page? 98mm of Adamantium is worth about 300mm of steel. That's not even a quarter to a third of the protection afforded by the M1 Abrams (depending on the round being fired at the armor)

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
as a Land Raider which is Adamantium, a near-indestructable supermetal by our standards.

Near-inderstructable my ass, you saw the comparision picture on the last page? 98mm of Adamantium is worth about 300mm of steel. That's not even a quarter to a third of the protection afforded by the M1 Abrams (depending on the round being fired at the armor)

The Landraider is not the main battle tank of the space marines, that's the Predator's job.

And is even less armored...

 Exalted Pariah wrote:
I heard that Leman Russ Battle Tanks looked like that because the IOM found a complete STC for tractors and modified it with weapons....

That sounds really familiar, I think that this might actually be true. Where did I read this before? I swear, it's right there, the words just escape me.

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
as a Land Raider which is Adamantium, a near-indestructable supermetal by our standards.

Near-inderstructable my ass, you saw the comparision picture on the last page? 98mm of Adamantium is worth about 300mm of steel. That's not even a quarter to a third of the protection afforded by the M1 Abrams (depending on the round being fired at the armor)

Different metals. Let's have a look at another example of Adamantium within fiction, which is not only the most common and popular example of the stuff but also likely the origin of the idea in 40k, which is Marvel's Wolverine. Given that 40k was originally a parody of popular culture, its not unreasonable to assume that the writrrs ripped Adamantium from Marvel. And in Marvel, Wolverine's adamantium is practically indestructable to 21st century processes and weapons.

Its a fictional metal with X protection, and X is fluid. A comparison is worthless because you don't know how dense or protective adamantium is compared to steel. For all you know, 1mm of Adamantium is worth 10000mm of steel in 2016. You are trying to find X when you don't know W, V, Y, Z or any of the other variables.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Bobthehero wrote:

 Deadshot wrote:
as a Land Raider which is Adamantium, a near-indestructable supermetal by our standards.

Near-inderstructable my ass, you saw the comparision picture on the last page? 98mm of Adamantium is worth about 300mm of steel. That's not even a quarter to a third of the protection afforded by the M1 Abrams (depending on the round being fired at the armor)

Different metals. Let's have a look at another example of Adamantium within fiction, which is not only the most common and popular example of the stuff but also likely the origin of the idea in 40k, which is Marvel's Wolverine. Given that 40k was originally a parody of popular culture, its not unreasonable to assume that the writrrs ripped Adamantium from Marvel. And in Marvel, Wolverine's adamantium is practically indestructable to 21st century processes and weapons.

Its a fictional metal with X protection, and X is fluid. A comparison is worthless because you don't know how dense or protective adamantium is compared to steel. For all you know, 1mm of Adamantium is worth 10000mm of steel in 2016. You are trying to find X when you don't know W, V, Y, Z or any of the other variables.

No, they literally say 98mm of Land Raider armor is the same as 300mm of steel, normal steel not plasteel or something made up, normal boring steel

85,000 T-34's + 50,000 M-4's vs 5000 Pz-IV's. You do the math.

A reason the Imperium has different vehicles in different organizations is to make it difficult for one organization to go rogue.

 Gobbla wrote:
85,000 T-34's + 50,000 M-4's vs 5000 Pz-IV's. You do the math.

A reason the Imperium has different vehicles in different organizations is to make it difficult for one organization to go rogue.

That's a big part of it.


But it hasn't entirely worked out that way, with the number of warships,Chapters, and Regiments that turned traitor (sometimes at the worst possible time) since Rawbutt's reforms. It's minimized the damage, to be sure. However, those policies have hurt the Imperium on occasion.

 Bobthehero wrote:
No, they literally say 98mm of Land Raider armor is the same as 300mm of steel, normal steel not plasteel or something made up, normal boring steel

What kid of steel though? Damascus steel, that is seemingly indestructable by medieval standards (and is only outperformed by the highest quality chemical steels that the modern world can produce), or the crap that you'll find in a 5$ pocket knife? The properties of these two steels differ immensely, even though both are just "boring old steel." The former will be capable of surviving battle after battle after battle in seemingly endless campaigns of sheer attrition, while the latter likely couldn't even survive a single scrap without breaking.

Exalted Pariah wrote:I heard that Leman Russ Battle Tanks looked like that because the IOM found a complete STC for tractors and modified it with weapons....

The only one i remember that of is the Rhino and the tiny Centaur. Doesn't make alot of sense in case of the Rhino however...

Bobthehero wrote:No, they literally say 98mm of Land Raider armor is the same as 300mm of steel, normal steel not plasteel or something made up, normal boring steel

Option 1) Everything in the imperium is made of plasteel - and they just use steel as a synonym
Option 2) It's a special steel with superior capabilities they use as standard for armor
Option 3) It's regular "armour steel" like we have now
Something to consider: Iirc this figure is very old. The stats of the vehicles (of Leman Russ, Chimera, etc) are also very old. FW did not invent them, they just added additional info. Those figures might be around since the days of the Inferno magazine.

Whatever the case may be - the amount of armor is clearly enough to be very resistant against the most common AT weapons fielded in 40k.
The amount of armor has to be measured relative to the power of anti tank weapons, instead of comparing it to the amount of armor in the realworld, presentday. If you think at WW2 technology level, 300mm armored steel would be almost impenetrable.