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.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

So one of you is talking about the space from the belly and down, while another is talking about the space from the edge of those side skirts and down. now please don't take up more forum space with one of you telling the other how he misunderstands he problem completely and instead get to some real points.

When people look at the Leman Russ they take the model as sacrosanct in assessing it as a tank. In doing this the problems of Heroic scale creep in... the cannon, if the Leman Russ model's scale was real world accurate, that cannon is the size of a Battleship's. What few numbers there are floating around on the Leman Russ they seem to have been lifted from an Abrams tank and without making any adjustments. Just going by other weapons in the setting, the Battlecannon doesn't even have to be as big as it is on the model.

To that end I think we should treat the cannon as half the size as it is on the model.

The biggest issue with the Leman Russ, more than its antiquated track assemblies is its height. Modern battle tanks are no where near as tall as the Leman Russ. Its height would make its mass such a liability; with the very real issues of tipping when it tries to clear a trench. A Leman Russ tank is 15ft+ tall, a modern battle tank is less than 8ft. Overall mass doesn't change this issue, heavier or lighter, its a weight distribution problem. It wouldn't just sink in the mud the ground pressure could sink it into the concrete (hyperbole). For as armored and as heavy as the Leman Russ its turret, top armor and rear armor would need to be really thin, for it not to have issues.

Most people will liken the Leman Russ to British Mark 1 tank but with a turret. It is however a mishmash that tries to capture the spirit of early tanks and not analogous to any single tank. I think the Leman Russ in terms of how its operated is more in line with a Char B1 and I think with very minor tweeks the Leman Russ design can be as viable a tank design.

For example, with how the tracks are designed, they are narrower to than the side assemblies. Maybe they're just road wheels. If the tracks were instead as wide as the side assembly riding ending up at an offset on just over the the current tracks a hidden suspension with minimal clearance around the side panels... it contributes to a believable functionality. The Char B1 despite large side panels had more issues with fuel than mobility. Rough ride, but it didn't move that fast so clearance for suspension wasn't as demanding.

The Leman Russ needs to be shortened from 15ft to between 9ft and 10ft. Believe it or not, contributing to the height issues is the excessive ground clearance beneath its main hull, scaling to almost 2 ft more ground clearance than an Abrams. The drive sprocket at the rear should be elevated... unless not being able to easily back up is intentional.

I generally feel the Leman Russ has a profile similar to an M4 Sherman, actually, more than a CharB1

The turret is more central, and it's got the same sort of shape with large flat sides, a high profile, an sloped glacis and back-down sloped engine bay. The turret of the Leman Russ is also similar in lines to the late variant Sherman turret, though it's more angular where the sherman has more rounded edges.

The Char B1 has a very forward turret, which is also differently shaped.



I unfortunately have neither a 1:56 scale Sherman nor any model of a Char B1 to put it up with, but I do have a 1:100 [Flames of War] Sherman. The lines are very aesthetically similar, and the Leman Russ seems generally Sherman-inspired in lore as well. The only thing it's really got going with the B1 is all-around exposed tracks, but a lot of tanks had all-around tracks during the war [most that did just had it covered].

 Vaktathi wrote:

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.

In Honour Guard, I believe the tanks had auto-loaders or at least loader assist when they attacked the last city before moving on to the mountains, but it has been a long time since I read it.

Sherman tank schematic. There are some similarities to the schematic earlier for the LR. Spoiled for size.


EDIT: looking at that, other than being a whiz bang easy to replace, why the heck did they run the transmission to the front like that? They could have dropped two feet off that puppy.

We can't help it if you built your model wrong, Peregrine.

torblind wrote:
So one of you is talking about the space from the belly and down, while another is talking about the space from the edge of those side skirts and down. now please don't take up more forum space with one of you telling the other how he misunderstands he problem completely and instead get to some real points.

Correct. One of us is talking about ground clearance, the distance between the tracks and the lowest part of the body that will be the first thing to scrape the ground, one of us is talking about some random distance like measuring from the hull gun to the top of the turret and calling it "ground clearance". And it's 100% a real point. When you measure the actual ground clearance on a LRBT it's effectively nonexistent and the LRBT would be immobilized on anything but a perfectly flat paved road.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 EnTyme wrote:
We can't help it if you built your model wrong, Peregrine.

I built my model correctly. GW designed it wrong.

 Peregrine wrote:

 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.

Peregrine that if that is what you think ground clearance is then no tank has ground clearance because the tracks touch the ground. ground clearance is the HULL or in case you misunderstand the PART OF THE TANK THAT ISN'T CASING THE TRACKS is where you measure ground clearance from.

You are both right.

If one is looking at clearance from the bottom of the main body hull then there is substantial clearance, and more than current US / British tanks.

However, if judging clearance from the side portion of the hull, then like the B1 there is almost no clearance.

 deotrims 16th wrote:
Peregrine that if that is what you think ground clearance is then no tank has ground clearance because the tracks touch the ground. ground clearance is the HULL or in case you misunderstand the PART OF THE TANK THAT ISN'T CASING THE TRACKS is where you measure ground clearance from.

That's because most tanks are sensibly designed and don't have giant metal plates extending to an inch above ground level. The tracks are wider than the section of the tank enclosing the wheels/suspension/etc, such that no part of that side area can touch the ground. If you imagine the tank sinking straight down into mud the first non-track surface that will touch the mud is the bottom of the main hull, a significant distance from the tracks. If you do the same with the LRBT you will find that, because the tracks are narrower than side sections, even the slightest downward movement into the mud results in the side armor plates touching the ground. Yes, it's stupid, because just like you GW doesn't understand how tanks work.

 Peregrine wrote:

 deotrims 16th wrote:
Peregrine that if that is what you think ground clearance is then no tank has ground clearance because the tracks touch the ground. ground clearance is the HULL or in case you misunderstand the PART OF THE TANK THAT ISN'T CASING THE TRACKS is where you measure ground clearance from.

That's because most tanks are sensibly designed and don't have giant metal plates extending to an inch above ground level. The tracks are wider than the section of the tank enclosing the wheels/suspension/etc, such that no part of that side area can touch the ground. If you imagine the tank sinking straight down into mud the first non-track surface that will touch the mud is the bottom of the main hull, a significant distance from the tracks. If you do the same with the LRBT you will find that, because the tracks are narrower than side sections, even the slightest downward movement into the mud results in the side armor plates touching the ground. Yes, it's stupid, because just like you GW doesn't understand how tanks work.

Yes I know the sides are a little lower to the ground than the hull that but the armoured skirts protecting tracks on modern tanks extend further down than the hull but aren't counted as ground clearance its from the hull as I said. Also you are using the heroic scale mini. the real LRBT has a 122mm gun instead of a 500mm gun like the model, and probably has working suspension. Also in the interwar periods the were tanks that used moving side skirts to protect the wheels much better, but were scraped due to weight so the LRBT could use that.

Keep in mind that the Leman Russ and most of the Forgeworld line were designed by a lot of British guys who had been in the service or were acquainted with it in some regard. These tanks are just comical "love letters" to various historical elements of tanks they thought would look cool.

Rule of cool presides over most design decisions (particularly the 350mm main gun which is so large they couldn't even store an actual shell for it inside the tank...)

There are some nice nods to British armored warfare in 40K (the Forgeworld Russ which ranges its targets with the co-axial heavy stubber for instance, a prominent feature of the Chieftain/Challenger?) You don't really need to over-analyze this stuff.

 Frazzled wrote:
You are both right.

If one is looking at clearance from the bottom of the main body hull then there is substantial clearance, and more than current US / British tanks.

However, if judging clearance from the side portion of the hull, then like the B1 there is almost no clearance.

Yes except peregrine isn't due to the fact ground clearance is and always has been measured from the hull and not armoured sides.

 deotrims 16th wrote:

 Peregrine wrote:

 deotrims 16th wrote:
Peregrine that if that is what you think ground clearance is then no tank has ground clearance because the tracks touch the ground. ground clearance is the HULL or in case you misunderstand the PART OF THE TANK THAT ISN'T CASING THE TRACKS is where you measure ground clearance from.

That's because most tanks are sensibly designed and don't have giant metal plates extending to an inch above ground level. The tracks are wider than the section of the tank enclosing the wheels/suspension/etc, such that no part of that side area can touch the ground. If you imagine the tank sinking straight down into mud the first non-track surface that will touch the mud is the bottom of the main hull, a significant distance from the tracks. If you do the same with the LRBT you will find that, because the tracks are narrower than side sections, even the slightest downward movement into the mud results in the side armor plates touching the ground. Yes, it's stupid, because just like you GW doesn't understand how tanks work.

Yes I know the sides are a little lower to the ground than the hull that but the armoured skirts protecting tracks on modern tanks extend further down than the hull but aren't counted as ground clearance its from the hull as I said

Yea but not like an LR. An LR is less than a handwidth in height. Even the Challenger II with extended plates has about 18 inches.

I perfectly understand what Peregrine means and it is true that the design would make much more sense if the tracks were wider and would extend over the side armour. Then again, I really don't exactly expect that level of technical plausibility from my 40K models. Personally I modelled the spokes on my LR tanks like 2mm lower than they actually go, so there's a bit more clearance.

 deotrims 16th wrote:
Yes I know the sides are a little lower to the ground than the hull that but the armoured skirts protecting tracks on modern tanks extend further down than the hull but aren't counted as ground clearance its from the hull as I said.

Again, that's because the tracks are wider than the armored skirts and are shielded from scraping the ground. A LRBT has armored skirts that are wider than the tracks and also an inch off the ground. Therefore the distance that a LRBT can sink into soft ground before being immobilized is maybe an inch or two at most, even if the main hull is still above ground at that point.

Also you are using the heroic scale mini. the real LRBT has a 122mm gun instead of a 500mm gun like the model, and probably has working suspension. Also in the interwar periods the were tanks that used moving side skirts to protect the wheels much better, but were scraped due to weight so the LRBT could use that.

IOW, "the LRBT isn't what GW shows, it's this hypothetical LRBT that I imagined that fixes all of the problems of the official design". That's nice if that's your headcanon, but it doesn't have anything to do with real 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deotrims 16th wrote:
Yes except peregrine isn't due to the fact ground clearance is and always has been measured from the hull and not armoured sides.

No, ground clearance is measured from the bottom of the tracks to the first point that will hit the ground, wherever that point happens to be. You're measuring the room you have before something hits the ground and the tank gets stuck, so you measure to the first potential threat not some arbitrary point elsewhere on the tank. On a sensibly designed tank it's the main hull, or at least a point on the side well off the ground. On a LRBT it's the side skirts which are an inch off the ground at best. The only reason you see ground clearance consistently measured to the bottom of the hull IRL is that IRL tank designers aren't idiots.

 Crimson wrote:
I perfectly understand what Peregrine means and it is true that the design would make much more sense if the tracks were wider and would extend over the side armour. Then again, I really don't exactly expect that level of technical plausibility from my 40K models. Personally I modelled the spokes on my LR tanks like 2mm lower than they actually go, so there's a bit more clearance.

I hear you. I didn't do it to my LR's but for my chimeras I cut the bottom portion to show a portion of the wheels. They look rather nice like that.

On the issue of ground clearance and suspension that I was reminded of, assuming I'm remembering correctly, I think Dawn of War 1 addressed this by treating the Russ model as 3 parts, with the hull and each track section being different objects, and showing the side track sections moving independently up and down as a whole package when moving over rough ground. Ill have to replay it to confirm, but at least there was a nod to the issue in that game.

Otherwise yeah, the tracks have like 0 ground clearance.

 Vaktathi wrote:
On the issue of ground clearance and suspension that I was reminded of, assuming I'm remembering correctly, I think Dawn of War 1 addressed this by treating the Russ model as 3 parts, with the hull and each track section being different objects, and showing the side track sections moving independently up and down as a whole package when moving over rough ground. Ill have to replay it to confirm, but at least there was a nod to the issue in that game.

Otherwise yeah, the tracks have like 0 ground clearance.

This would only partially solve the problem. It would allow for a smoother ride than having no suspension at all, but it wouldn't at all fix the issue of inadequate ground clearance because the issue is the tracks relative to the side section not the tracks relative to the main hull. If the tracks sink down an inch into soft ground then the tank is immobilized even if the center section can bounce independently.

Agreed, as I said it was a nod to the issue, and about the only one I've ever seen, but not much more than that.

IMO the best solution would be to build a Malcador and proxy it as a LRBT. Still has the same design flaws that keep the "WWI in space" theme, but at least it has non-zero ground clearance and enough space in the turret to hold its gun.

The Mortian battle tank basically did that, ive loved em

It is a bit better.

 Frazzled wrote:

Yea but not like an LR. An LR is less than a handwidth in height. Even the Challenger II with extended plates has about 18 inches.

That's a great example picture - note that the side armour does not extend lower than the hull because if it did then it would reduce ground clearance.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deotrims 16th wrote:

Yes except peregrine isn't due to the fact ground clearance is and always has been measured from the hull and not armoured sides.

No. Ground clearance is tracks to whatever structural part will contact the ground first. On a sensibly designed tank that is the underside of the hull. That is not the case on the Russ.

 Peregrine wrote:

 deotrims 16th wrote:
Yes I know the sides are a little lower to the ground than the hull that but the armoured skirts protecting tracks on modern tanks extend further down than the hull but aren't counted as ground clearance its from the hull as I said.

Again, that's because the tracks are wider than the armored skirts and are shielded from scraping the ground. A LRBT has armored skirts that are wider than the tracks and also an inch off the ground. Therefore the distance that a LRBT can sink into soft ground before being immobilized is maybe an inch or two at most, even if the main hull is still above ground at that point.

Also you are using the heroic scale mini. the real LRBT has a 122mm gun instead of a 500mm gun like the model, and probably has working suspension. Also in the interwar periods the were tanks that used moving side skirts to protect the wheels much better, but were scraped due to weight so the LRBT could use that.

IOW, "the LRBT isn't what GW shows, it's this hypothetical LRBT that I imagined that fixes all of the problems of the official design". That's nice if that's your headcanon, but it doesn't have anything to do with real 40k.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deotrims 16th wrote:
Yes except peregrine isn't due to the fact ground clearance is and always has been measured from the hull and not armoured sides.

No, ground clearance is measured from the bottom of the tracks to the first point that will hit the ground, wherever that point happens to be. You're measuring the room you have before something hits the ground and the tank gets stuck, so you measure to the first potential threat not some arbitrary point elsewhere on the tank. On a sensibly designed tank it's the main hull, or at least a point on the side well off the ground. On a LRBT it's the side skirts which are an inch off the ground at best. The only reason you see ground clearance consistently measured to the bottom of the hull IRL is that IRL tank designers aren't idiots.

So firstly look at the Challanger picture above your comment the tracks aren't wider than the skirts otherwise THEY DON'T FIT at the top where the skirt connects to the hull.

Heroic scale is different and I'm not making stats different to heroic scale up, it's all over the place, unless you are saying all real guardsmen heads are about the size of their torso. Literally everyone knows actual things and heroic scale is different apart from you, and there are still big problems even in real scale, just not to the extent of heroic scale.

Also about ground clearance its measured to the point where the threat will cause damage, so because the tracks are out of the question its measured to the hull, not skirts. Also look at the Challanger above the skirts go lower than the main hull, but aren't counted unless you are saying the designers of the toughest to damage tank ever made are idiots. Finally its measured to the hull because that's where you can cause damage that effects the tank, the skirts being chipped won't effect the tank apart from a reduction in armour, but no systems will be damaged.


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Please stop trying to make it out like I'm saying that its the best tank every created as well, I have acknowledged the problems, I think the German WWII Panther or British chieftain would be much better tanks while still looking like they belong in 40k and the chieftain is a very mean looking tank as well, so even more benefits.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:

Yea but not like an LR. An LR is less than a handwidth in height. Even the Challenger II with extended plates has about 18 inches.

That's a great example picture - note that the side armour does not extend lower than the hull because if it did then it would reduce ground clearance.




Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deotrims 16th wrote:

Yes except peregrine isn't due to the fact ground clearance is and always has been measured from the hull and not armoured sides.

No. Ground clearance is tracks to whatever structural part will contact the ground first. On a sensibly designed tank that is the underside of the hull. That is not the case on the Russ.

Actually that is a slightly modded Challenger 2 for heavy fighting as it has an extra layer of Dorchester armour which is 2 times as good as the challenger 1 or modern Abram's Cobham armour and DU depleted Uranium outer casing for extra density to stop high velocity shells , and the skirts do actually go below the hull due to this, but still isn't counted as a reduction in ground clearance, its just not really noticeable, you can tell its modded because the standard has a zigzag bottom to the skirts and the skirt is the thickness of tin foil in comparison to the picture.

 deotrims 16th wrote:
the skirts being chipped won't effect the tank apart from a reduction in armour, but no systems will be damaged.

...

You are missing the point entirely. The issue with ground clearance on the LRBT is not that the skirts might get damaged, it's that once the tank sinks an inch into soft ground the skirts will be dragging on the ground and the tank will be unable to move. Because the designer of the LRBT is an idiot this is what will happen:

http://digg.com/video/lowrider-speed-bump


Automatically Appended Next Post:

 deotrims 16th wrote:
Also look at the Challanger above the skirts go lower than the main hull, but aren't counted unless you are saying the designers of the toughest to damage tank ever made are idiots.

No, of course they aren't idiots, because even though the skirts reduce ground clearance a bit the tank still has plenty of clearance before those skirts hit the ground.

 Peregrine wrote:

Also you are using the heroic scale mini. the real LRBT has a 122mm gun instead of a 500mm gun like the model, and probably has working suspension. Also in the interwar periods the were tanks that used moving side skirts to protect the wheels much better, but were scraped due to weight so the LRBT could use that.

IOW, "the LRBT isn't what GW shows, it's this hypothetical LRBT that I imagined that fixes all of the problems of the official design". That's nice if that's your headcanon, but it doesn't have anything to do with real 40k.

I don't think you can so easily dismiss the fact the model is in an unrealistic scale. Further if we go solely by the model we have to ignore the fact that even as nice as the model is, its not so detailed. Going solely by the models, the human race has devolved into Gorillas with monstrous proportions, driving tanks that are completely empty.

There have been stated, albeit inconsistent numbers for some of the Leman Russ dimensions. I don't think the model overrides that. It has been stated that the cannon is suppose to be 120mm... but the model clearly represents something bigger than that. Given all the places GW's models are inconsistent in scale, its easier to believe the model is inaccurate.

Given the scale and quality of the models many of the details are simply the impression of a detail, rather than anything true to life.

Heroic scale model kit designed for ease of assembly and production in “not being life-accurate” shocker.

I mean, really peeps. If you pick apart most 40K it doesn’t work. It’s just designed to look cool. Don’t get your Phobos undersuit in a twist...

Real life armored vehicles had architchture like the Leman Russ's running gear. The side panels won't cause it to bog down because they caught on the mud.

It was determined that not having a sprung suspension was "not good" because it made the ride far to rough to be safe, and couldn't traverse obstacles as large or as quickly, because of the bump.

However, the part that puzzles me is that, if I remember correctly, the Imperial Armour book featured an official diagram showing the Leman Russ tank as having individually sprung vertical coil spring suspension. How the road wheels travel is beyond me.


As a side note, the Leman Russ does have thought given on how to tension the track. There's a track tensioning device at the front on each side. So does the chimera. That's something I would have totally expected them to completely forget that tanks need. Notably, the Rhino lacks visible track tensioning gear [and probably completely lacks it, given it's architecture].


Also, it has 0 degrees of gun depression. Like it is literally incapable of firing downwards at all, which would be detrimental at it's height. However I can understand this, because as a kid I was frequently irritated by the fact that one of my toy tank guns always drooped downwards because it's trunions weren't tightly fit, so having a block preventing it from depressing is definitely an better aesthetic decision for the model.

Isn't one of the purposes of tracks on a tank to help distribute the weight so it doesn't sink into the mud/loose dirt in the first place? The tank in the above image looks to be driving on mud, yet it isn't sinking below the tracks.