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 don't think the leman Russ is as bad a design as most people make it out because they are comparing it to modern war, and not 40k warfare.

So firstly the tracks aren't skinny they are actually some of the best track width to tank width of any tank real, or fictional the tank being 5 times wider then 0ne track, with most WWII being 7x wider, and the best ratio of any tank only being 4x wider.

The track layout, is for trench warfare which the guard do A LOT. if you try crossing trenches the size of an average WWI trench with a modern MBT it fails.

Due to the track layout the sides have to be big and flat, which while a problem, any sloped sides tank in history has done worse than a flat one, either because of the ridiculously extra weight of it creates shot traps that are easier to penetrate than flat armour.

The turret is not actually that small because it uses an auto loader and all autoloader tanks have got tiny turrets in comparison to manual, why the imperial navy doesn't use autoloaders I will never know. Also the tank commander has all the equipment he needs to work effectively, and the smaller the turret the smaller the target.

Where they can they have actually sloped the armour like at the front or back.

Sponsoons are actually very good in trench warfare with in WWI sponsoon armed tanks doing better than turreted tanks, but with the leman russ sometimes being used in wide open fields, and cities it does need a turret.

And a final thing is people think that its top heavy, but it can actually go up to an angle of 75 degrees tilted to the side, which is actually very impressive, real life, or at least the models can, but the actuall tank would have more weight lower down, so even better than the model.

The Vanquisher and Battle Cannon would have to have an unusual breech and no recoil to keep from castrating the commander in the cupola.

It’s probably also not a very fast tank, as it appears to lack any visible suspension- unless it has some sort of floating, retractable suspension that is only engaged when moving cross-county.

It’s definately a different beast from our modern designs, and whether it works or not in the real world, I don’t care. It’s a damn sexy model.

 Stormonu wrote:
The Vanquisher and Battle Cannon would have to have an unusual breech and no recoil to keep from castrating the commander in the cupola.

It’s probably also not a very fast tank, as it appears to lack any visible suspension- unless it has some sort of floating, retractable suspension that is only engaged when moving cross-county.

It’s definately a different beast from our modern designs, and whether it works or not in the real world, I don’t care. It’s a damn sexy model.

Well the tiger tank could remove 80% recoil modern tanks 90% so who knows maybe they can remove it all, but it actuall can go 70KMP which for normal people is around 35MPH faster than most MBT's now, but still not close to Russia's WWII t-50 that could go 50MPH and DRIFT, man that thing was so funny in the videos of it in combat. I mean it has only got a 45mm gun but who care.

An Abrams tank can do 45 mph, so there’s that.

Honestly, I think if the Leman Russ were to exist now, it could easily best 2nd world county tanks, and in the numbers they would be deployed, could be a problem for 1st world tanks - as in WW2, Sherman’s vs. tigers.

Err, no.

The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.

The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.

 Peregrine wrote:
Err, no.

The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.

The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.

So this is fake news to you?

 Peregrine wrote:
Err, no.

The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.

The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.

I often disagree with Peregrine, but he's right in this situation. Lemans have excellent fluff and their models in EPIC are more size appropriate.

Flatten the model, flatten the turret, put on wider tracks, put on a track suspension, move the hatches to more realistic positions for the commander et all, make the side sponsons go away or smaller, remote operated weaponry, then you have a better design.

The model design is crap, but it does look cool.

 Stormonu wrote:
An Abrams tank can do 45 mph, so there’s that.

Honestly, I think if the Leman Russ were to exist now, it could easily best 2nd world county tanks, and in the numbers they would be deployed, could be a problem for 1st world tanks - as in WW2, Sherman’s vs. tigers.

This is true. Tank warfare doesn't so much come down to the quality of the tanks as it does to the ease of maintainence of the tanks. Of course, given the state the Imperium is in, I doubt Leman Russes are easy to maintain, either. Praying to tanks has historically accomplished very little.

Welllll, the tanks are designed by people who have to chant and rub oil on things before they even turn the keys, so we have to take that into consideration. Additionally from what I remember the Russ started out as something entirely different, a crane or a tractor of some kind. They have simply modified an extremely hardy design that is presumably super cheap to build. Nothing in the guard is elegant or makes sense. Its cheap and its functional. Most importantly it does its job, and if it doesn't, the other 10 rolling in behind it will.

So yes, I agree that the design isn't bad. Its not good by any measurable standard, but for what the Imperium needs it to do its perfect. A society that wastes effort to make giant stone cathedrals on spaceships cares very little for "efficient" design.

Now this is a real WWII tank. Its a B1 French tank. It actually has many of the problems a Leman would have. However, add some sponsons, switch the guns and there you go. It does have a suspension system, just a sucky one based on WWI designs.

Here is a better of what a Leman could look like, based on what I think is a PZ III chassis. Forgive the German iconography. It has a FW turret on it.

SirGunslinger wrote:

 Stormonu wrote:
An Abrams tank can do 45 mph, so there’s that.

Honestly, I think if the Leman Russ were to exist now, it could easily best 2nd world county tanks, and in the numbers they would be deployed, could be a problem for 1st world tanks - as in WW2, Sherman’s vs. tigers.

This is true. Tank warfare doesn't so much come down to the quality of the tanks as it does to the ease of maintainence of the tanks. Of course, given the state the Imperium is in, I doubt Leman Russes are easy to maintain, either. Praying to tanks has historically accomplished very little.

True, but at this point in the lore I think we can be fairly certain that machine spirits are a real thing. At least in some instances. So in the 40k setting, it may genuinely make a difference!

Reemule wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:
Err, no.

The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.

The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.

So this is fake news to you?

Not sure what your point is, since that tank doesn't have the LRBT's idiotic track design.

 Peregrine wrote:
Err, no.

The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.

The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.

The ground clearance is better than modern MBT's. but yes the suspension is a BIG problem, but if you look at WWI tanks just like the leman Russ you would say it has no suspension, but they do, but because they are a TRENCH WARFARE tank its essentially a field of mud and so suspension, isn't needed.

Also I'm not saying the russ is perfect just better than most people think, particularly when used as a trench warfare tank. I do think the imperium needs a true MBT though, and I think the perfect tank to model it of is either the German panther, or the British Chieftain, preferably the Chieftain because it looks like it belongs 40k its a good design, and it is a MEAN looking tank, a REALLY MEAN looking tank.

The B1 turret may look to be a similar proportion to the Russ turret, but the B1 gun is super tiny by comparison and hence there is room for a person up there too.

Assuming a Cadian is 6 feet tall, the bore of the Battle Cannon is around 12". Surely it could not fire a conventional cannon shell of that size. I don't really read the novels, is it supposed to be firing rockets or something?

It's not that bad, but it's not that great either

If it was a little longer, the turret a little sleeker (or a set back a little, it's a bit cartoonishly perky) and that main gun a little less of a mortar...

Still, could have been worse!

 Peregrine wrote:
The tracks have no suspension, essentially zero ground clearance, and would result in the LRBT getting bogged down and immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road. Even a parking lot speed bump is probably an impassable obstacle.

The turret has no room for the commander. Not cramped space, no room. The body intersects with the gun.

Uh, what? You can see elements of suspension right there on the sides (plus, there are compromises in detail shown especially on the side of model that is rarely looked at), it has larger clearance than say Abrams, it's just not obvious due to the proportions, and I can name at least half a dozen tanks with similar track system that drove just fine. Maybe it wouldn't be the fastest thing ever, but it's silly to call historical, proven examples that actually won several wars to be wrong.

 Frazzled wrote:
Here is a better of what a Leman could look like, based on what I think is a PZ III chassis. Forgive the German iconography. It has a FW turret on it.

That is actually StuG III, and putting a turret on that is kinda funny

Also, on the gun complaint above. StuG had 75 mm gun (it's the thing below turret). LR has 152 mm, so it should be about twice the width of the StuG one. It isn't, due to dumb heroic scale, but if you shrink if down to 'real' proportions (especially seeing LR stores main gun ammo in the rear of the turret, and something meant for the pipe model has would never fit) all the nitpicks about gun size and placement suddenly disappear...

 Frazzled wrote:
Flatten the model, flatten the turret, put on wider tracks, put on a track suspension, move the hatches to more realistic positions for the commander et all, make the side sponsons go away or smaller, remote operated weaponry, then you have a better design.

But why?

Modern tanks are flattened and angled because biggest threat for them is kinetic weapons. If the threat was, say, energy weapons of the M42, straight, big plate might withstand impacts better and disperse it over larger surfaces. Ignoring the context the tank is supposed to fight in and just copy-pasting current tank look because it's "realistic" is kind of wrong. Also, the more room inside, the larger comfort for the crew and the more supplies they can carry. In fact, I'd say it's too small in places.

 Flinty wrote:
The B1 turret may look to be a similar proportion to the Russ turret, but the B1 gun is super tiny by comparison and hence there is room for a person up there too.

Yes, the LR's battlecannon is absurdly large, like storm drain sized. In the real world B1 they had to put the 75mm in the hull. I think the turret had a 37.5mm but I could be wrong.

 deotrims 16th wrote:
I don't think the leman Russ is as bad a design as most people make it out because they are comparing it to modern war, and not 40k warfare.

So firstly the tracks aren't skinny they are actually some of the best track width to tank width of any tank real, or fictional the tank being 5 times wider then 0ne track, with most WWII being 7x wider, and the best ratio of any tank only being 4x wider.

The track layout, is for trench warfare which the guard do A LOT. if you try crossing trenches the size of an average WWI trench with a modern MBT it fails.

This is because those WW1 heavy tanks that the Russ is designed after were humongously long, the Russ however is rather short. There far more expedient ways to cross big trenches (bridgelayer vehicles, infilling, etc) than to have to deal with big long bus length tanks.

A bigger issue is the fact that there's no suspension on the tank with the way its tracks are

Due to the track layout the sides have to be big and flat, which while a problem, any sloped sides tank in history has done worse than a flat one, either because of the ridiculously extra weight of it creates shot traps that are easier to penetrate than flat armour.

With respect to the sides of a Russ, the issue with sloped sides isn't weight or shot traps, its reduction of internal volume. On the Russ, the lack of sloping side armor isnt the issue in and of itself, most tanks have relatively flat sides, it's that the Russ tank has great big tall sides making it a huge flat target.

The turret is not actually that small because it uses an auto loader and all autoloader tanks have got tiny turrets in comparison to manual, why the imperial navy doesn't use autoloaders I will never know. Also the tank commander has all the equipment he needs to work effectively, and the smaller the turret the smaller the target.

I have never heard of a Russ tank described with an autoloader off the top of my head, but multiple Imperial Armour and fluff books have talked about Russ tank loaders as normal crew.

More to the point however the turret is too small to fit *anyone*, the gun breach occupies most of the hatch (even in cutaway drawings) and has no room for other vital tank equipment much less ammo and loader/gunner/commander.

Sponsoons are actually very good in trench warfare with in WWI sponsoon armed tanks doing better than turreted tanks, but with the leman russ sometimes being used in wide open fields, and cities it does need a turret.

In reality, sadly, they're not so good , there is a reason sponson guns got dumped on real tanks. They're a huge structural weakness, they have extremely limited arcs of fire, it's basically impossible to hit anything from them, and they make the vehicle bulkier and heavier. They look cool, but are far more trouble than they are worth.

Trench warfare is also only a small part of what the IG does.

And a final thing is people think that its top heavy, but it can actually go up to an angle of 75 degrees tilted to the side, which is actually very impressive, real life, or at least the models can, but the actuall tank would have more weight lower down, so even better than the model.

Unfortunately we have no idea of weight distribution of an actual Russ nor its torque potential or a number of other things, what the plastic box and what a real vehicle would do are very different things.

Much like the Chainsword or Bolter, the Leman Russ tank was designed to fit an aesthetic concept, not so much reflect reality.

Of note, the Leman Russ is drawn with an internal vertical coil-spring suspension in the Imperial Armor books. How it works with the external armor running along the ground, good question, I don't know, but supposedly there's also a suspension in there. Also, it's supposedly about 60 tons, which is pretty heavy.

In addition, it's worth observation that most modern tanks don't have angled side armor. It doesn't actually have a significant enough benefit, and comes with a severe volumetric penalty.

None of mine are modeled with sponsons.



The turret layout is what generally puzzles me most, since the breech clearly intersects with the commander's legs.

 Frazzled wrote:
Flatten the model, flatten the turret, put on wider tracks, put on a track suspension, move the hatches to more realistic positions for the commander et all, make the side sponsons go away or smaller, remote operated weaponry, then you have a better design.

But why?

Modern tanks are flattened and angled because biggest threat for them is kinetic weapons. If the threat was, say, energy weapons of the M42, straight, big plate might withstand impacts better and disperse it over larger surfaces. Ignoring the context the tank is supposed to fight in and just copy-pasting current tank look because it's "realistic" is kind of wrong. Also, the more room inside, the larger comfort for the crew and the more supplies they can carry. In fact, I'd say it's too small in places.

It needs to be longer and wider frankly. It has no room for shells or crew given the barrel. Again, compare it to the B1. The B1's proportions are longer but just as tall and narrow. This allows and actual engine and stowage.

To show a suspension, one could cut the bottom 18 inches off the chassis. I did that with my chimeras to show the bottom half of the wheels. Put a FW Vanquisher turret on it and it looks more proportioned. Frankly, I love the look of a Vanquisher turret on a chimera.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
Of note, the Leman Russ is drawn with an internal vertical coil-spring suspension in the Imperial Armor books. How it works with the external armor running along the ground, good question, I don't know, but supposedly there's also a suspension in there.

In addition, it's worth observation that most modern tanks don't have angled side armor. It doesn't actually have a significant enough benefit, and comes with a severe volumetric penalty.


The turret layout is what generally puzzles me most, since the breech clearly intersects with the commander's legs.

This is 40K. They just cut those off and hardwire the commander into the vehicle.

Edit: Here is an interesting schematic. Everything almost fits if the battlecannon is scaled down to about 35% its size. Thats how I would think of it.

 Irbis wrote:
Uh, what? You can see elements of suspension right there on the sides (plus, there are compromises in detail shown especially on the side of model that is rarely looked at), it has larger clearance than say Abrams, it's just not obvious due to the proportions, and I can name at least half a dozen tanks with similar track system that drove just fine. Maybe it wouldn't be the fastest thing ever, but it's silly to call historical, proven examples that actually won several wars to be wrong.

It may have something that looks vaguely like a suspension detail, but the tracks have no room to move. Seriously, just look at the model. If you try to move the track upward even a tiny amount it pushes up into the hull and the sides of the armor plate next to the tracks touch the ground. Seriously, just look at the model and compare it to, say, a Rhino. Or even compare it to a Macharius, where the tracks have the same lack of vertical room to move but are at least wider than the adjacent hull so that if the tracks sink downward an inch into soft ground the tank is still only touching the ground with its tracks. It is barely possible for a LRBT to move, and only on a perfectly flat hard surface.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deotrims 16th wrote:
The ground clearance is better than modern MBT's.

Nope, not at all. The LRBT has maybe an inch of ground clearance at most. Trying to drive one would look like one of those videos where someone in a customized car with as little ground clearance as possible can't even get over a speed bump in a parking lot. And god help you if you get into any soft ground...

but if you look at WWI tanks just like the leman Russ you would say it has no suspension, but they do, but because they are a TRENCH WARFARE tank its essentially a field of mud and so suspension, isn't needed.

First of all, WWI tanks didn't lack a suspension because it was OMG TRENCH WARFARE, they just hadn't designed a proper system yet. Second, a LRBT would be instantly immobilized in mud because of its poor track design, so that's hardly a defense. Finally, only an idiot designs a tank for a single specialized role like that when LRBTs (like the IG in general) are used for way more than just trench warfare.

I like the Stug-Russ, May make one for myself (and doesn’t the Stug use a Panzer III hull anyway?).

If the raised armor skirt on the sides were “floating” (.i.e, hinged so they could raise and lower as the tank trundled on) it’d make more sense as having a concealed suspension.

I have an old 2E model of the Russ that actually models the wheels that exist hidden behind the treads. Pain to build, but it gave the impression it had a suspension.

 Stormonu wrote:
I like the Stug-Russ, May make one for myself (and doesn’t the Stug use a Panzer III hull anyway?).

If the raised armor skirt on the sides were “floating” (.i.e, hinged so they could raise and lower as the tank trundled on) it’d make more sense as having a concealed suspension.

I have an old 2E model of the Russ that actually models the wheels that exist hidden behind the treads. Pain to build, but it gave the impression it had a suspension.

Yes the STG used a PZIII hull.

I think it uses bogie suspension.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Stormonu wrote:
An Abrams tank can do 45 mph, so there’s that.

Honestly, I think if the Leman Russ were to exist now, it could easily best 2nd world county tanks, and in the numbers they would be deployed, could be a problem for 1st world tanks - as in WW2, Sherman’s vs. tigers.

60 on a road apparently.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Frazzled wrote:

 Flinty wrote:
The B1 turret may look to be a similar proportion to the Russ turret, but the B1 gun is super tiny by comparison and hence there is room for a person up there too.

Yes, the LR's battlecannon is absurdly large, like storm drain sized. In the real world B1 they had to put the 75mm in the hull. I think the turret had a 37.5mm but I could be wrong.

47mm AT gun.

 Slowroll wrote:
Assuming a Cadian is 6 feet tall, the bore of the Battle Cannon is around 12". Surely it could not fire a conventional cannon shell of that size. I don't really read the novels, is it supposed to be firing rockets or something?

Heroic scale, the actual Russ has a 122mm gun.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Peregrine wrote:



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deotrims 16th wrote:
The ground clearance is better than modern MBT's.

Nope, not at all. The LRBT has maybe an inch of ground clearance at most. Trying to drive one would look like one of those videos where someone in a customized car with as little ground clearance as possible can't even get over a speed bump in a parking lot. And god help you if you get into any soft ground...

but if you look at WWI tanks just like the leman Russ you would say it has no suspension, but they do, but because they are a TRENCH WARFARE tank its essentially a field of mud and so suspension, isn't needed.

First of all, WWI tanks didn't lack a suspension because it was OMG TRENCH WARFARE, they just hadn't designed a proper system yet. Second, a LRBT would be instantly immobilized in mud because of its poor track design, so that's hardly a defense. Finally, only an idiot designs a tank for a single specialized role like that when LRBTs (like the IG in general) are used for way more than just trench warfare.

Firstly the model has 1/2 inch of ground clearance before being scaled up to real life, and if you could actually read I never said WWI tanks have no suspension I said that you can't see it.

Maybe the degree of Heroic scaling is leading to a distortion of what the Leman Russ is actually like. If we de-heroic it enough we will probably find it has suspension and a more reasonably sized gun.

The sponsons could be a developed to aid it in trench warfare. As tank turrets have difficulty shooting downwards. When the tank was first developed (IRL) they did consider giving it a turret, but it would make it too top heavy and the difficulty of shooting into trenches. That is why they went with sponsons, and the MG one was actually more useful.

When the Leman Russ was originally designed every design feature there must be reason for or what did the STC design it for.

Tygre wrote:
Maybe the degree of Heroic scaling is leading to a distortion of what the Leman Russ is actually like. If we de-heroic it enough we will probably find it has suspension and a more reasonably sized gun.

The sponsons could be a developed to aid it in trench warfare. As tank turrets have difficulty shooting downwards. When the tank was first developed (IRL) they did consider giving it a turret, but it would make it too top heavy and the difficulty of shooting into trenches. That is why they went with sponsons, and the MG one was actually more useful.

When the Leman Russ was originally designed every design feature there must be reason for or what did the STC design it for.

Indeed, the image I had was a more realistic tube. If its a 122mm its equivalent to this:


As for the sponsons, historically you always had the option of a nonsponson tank.

I like the sponsons, they add character. Having them is simply a different combat doctrine than we use. I could definately see the reasoning on strapping more guns onto a tank, especially if you have the space and engine power for it.

 deotrims 16th wrote:
Firstly the model has 1/2 inch of ground clearance before being scaled up to real life, and if you could actually read I never said WWI tanks have no suspension I said that you can't see it.

I have a LRBT model on my desk right now and just measured it. The model has just over 1mm of ground clearance, so I have no idea where you're getting half an inch from.