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.

He's probably measuring to the bottom of the hull, not the bottle of the armored side panels.

 EnTyme wrote:
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.

Yes. It lowers the psi of the vehicle by increasing the surface area of the ground.

Peregrine is absolutely correct, but mud is a bad example. The russ will have more problems with uneven terrain than it will with mud. It would either grind those idiotic side skirts right off or get stuck as soon as it left an absolutely flat road.

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
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.

If you'd like to offer an example of that I'll explain why it's different to the Russ.

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
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.

If you'd like to offer an example of that I'll explain why it's different to the Russ.

Closest I know of is the Indy tank from last crusade. It's apparently a Mark VII with a turret bolted on. But for some of the scenes, it was under its own motive force. Not moving fast enough to outrun a horse, but it looked decent enough in speed. And it crushes a jeep (assuming that isn't hollywood tricks), so it has some sort of suspension to absorb a bit of a rough ride.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Scott-S6 wrote:

 Inquisitor Lord Katherine wrote:
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.

If you'd like to offer an example of that I'll explain why it's different to the Russ.

Closest I know of is the Indy tank from last crusade. It's apparently a Mark VII with a turret bolted on. But for some of the scenes, it was under its own motive force. Not moving fast enough to outrun a horse, but it looked decent enough in speed. And it crushes a jeep (assuming that isn't hollywood tricks), so it has some sort of suspension to absorb a bit of a rough ride.

Notice that the tracks protrude beyond the side plates so the side plates cannot hit an obstacle and take pressure off the tracks? That's the key difference between the Russ and the designs it's trying it imitate.

See, peeps need to understand the 40k background more.

Is the Leman Russ particularly practical? Probably not.

Are better designs possible? More than likely.

but.....

When fielded in numbers to boggle our minds, does it get the job done with aplomb? Evidentially.

Is it somehow robust enough to baffle and dent most enemy weapons? Evidence suggests yes, so far as the Adeptus Munitorum are concerned.

Is it a pattern easily replicated, in the hundreds of thousands on Forgeworlds which might be half or more a Galaxy apart, making rearming a cinch? Undoubtedly.

It’s the same reason the humble Lasgun is the weapon of choice in the 41st Milennium. It’s simple.. It’s straight forward. It’s robust. You can take any crewman of a previous tank, and give them a new Leman Russ, and they’ll know what to do.

Standardisation. It counts.

It looks terrible, the Mars pattern ones from FW look amazing, I only buy them.

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
It looks terrible, the Mars pattern ones from FW look amazing, I only buy them.

I must be missing something, they look the same to me.

 Stormonu wrote:

 Delvarus Centurion wrote:
It looks terrible, the Mars pattern ones from FW look amazing, I only buy them.

I must be missing something, they look the same to me.

Longer hull (the back engine area is extended significantly), better mount for the hull gun, larger turrets that look like they might have enough space to fit the entire gun.

Just adding some fuel for thought given the nature of 40K models. Anyone who has, as an adult, or a child, built a decently detailed Tamiya or otherwise tank kit...will be glad that GW had gone to great efforts to simplify the kits. This is a bonus of the way the Leman Russ tracks are done, the Land Raider etc.

Ever tried assembling full suspension, road wheels and track links on a real tank kit? That is the way of madness.

Hasn't questionable design always been a thing in miniature gaming though?

I mean, how does 10 marines fit in a Rhino? Or 20 Boyz in a Battlewagon? Or 13 Bullgryns and a priest in a Stormlord? Etc.

Suspension of disbelief guys.

Actually, very little can be done to fix the Leman Russ tank, to make it look less than a silly toy and more like an actual tank.



Sorry for the extremely low quality, I have no other means of image editing atm.

 Elbows wrote:
Just adding some fuel for thought given the nature of 40K models. Anyone who has, as an adult, or a child, built a decently detailed Tamiya or otherwise tank kit...will be glad that GW had gone to great efforts to simplify the kits. This is a bonus of the way the Leman Russ tracks are done, the Land Raider etc.

Ever tried assembling full suspension, road wheels and track links on a real tank kit? That is the way of madness.

Allow me to say that your statement is a matter of opinion and that I disagree with it. To be specific, this sentence.

...will be glad that GW had gone to great efforts to simplify the kits.

Someone made a video about the development of the Leman Russ

https://youtu.be/aXQ2lO3ieBA

When look at the track skirting plates, I like to imagine the model is displayed with its suspension fully depressed, as if it just landed an awesome jump/drop and is pulling the tank equivalent of the super hero landing pose.

Or maybe it has adjustable suspension and is on roadrolling mode.

Or perhaps, again with adjustable suspension, it is able to hunker down for a firefight mode to protect otherwise exposes and vulnerable wheels,track links and suspension components from enemy fire.

It probably just raises itself up when it is moving through terrain where the extra height and absorption is needed.

 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.

Negative - our abrams armor core rolled up and destroyed about 2000 Iraqi tanks n about 6 hours in desert storm. We lost like 3 tanks in the engagement - 2 to friendly fire and 1 to scuttling. It was actually the first time the abrams had seen combat and were going up against entrenched Iraqi veterans. It really does to show how important technological advance is in modern warfare.

Don't forget, a Sherman could kill a tiger.

Sherman was a great tank but utterly worthless vs tigers. I believe in order to get a kill it had to be shooting side flat profile at 500 feet or less and even more with angling and was very unlikely to penetrate anywhere at any range on the front profile. A tiger could kill a sherman at 8000 feet at any angle. The sherman tankers must have feared an encounter with a tiger almost as much as tiger tankers feared our airforce.

Depends on the Sherman. A basic 75mm sherman could pierce a tiger's front armor at 500 yards (the tiger could do the same a closer to a 1000). A firefly, 76mm, or easy eight however had the same kill range capability against a tiger that a tiger had against them.

Armor wise, the Sherman's 2" of sloped armor gave it nearly the same protection as the tiger's 4" of flat armor. (For the Sherman front only).

In North Africa, the Germans and Italians hated fighting shermans, because their tanks had difficulty peircing a Sherman's (and Lee's) armor, and because the sherman's 75mm gun could one shot a Panther or canoe a Panzer 4 or smaller.

Edit: this gentleman goes into detail about many of the sherman myths. It's a long watch, but entertaining if you like the topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

Unless you were in a Sherman Firefly (or even a Sherman 76mm) - then Tigers were in trouble. Wittman lost his whole force in one go to Sherman Fireflies (we can argue about who did it elsewhere). Side bar...

The Leman Russ is a wonderfully ridiculous design. I have several and I love them. While it fails as a tank design for the real world (that turret - OMG), it succeeds at building the setting for 40K. Combining a WW1 Mark IV with a Grant along with Lascannons and Sponson Multi-Meltas establishes that you are in a strange backwards/forwards technological setting. Just don't think about what is going on in the turret (if they put a laser there I could buy it) and don't mind the bizarro sides/tracks design. If they updated it to be realistic (aka possible for internal layout) I might actually be sad...

If I want to play a game with real tanks I can play Flames of War, Team Yankee or Bolt Action.

I believe the older Imperial Armor books had a cut out of a Leman Russ.

Found this online:



And this:

Now put yourself in the commander's seat when the cannon fires, or stand in the hatch. We have cages and screens in our tanks for a reason. We like our appendages.

Oh, I'm not saying it's a good design. I just found a cut away picture.

Personally I'd not want to be a tank commander in a vehicle that slams a 230mm cannon into my crotch every time it fires.

Also, I did notice in the picture that the space between the gun's breech and the back of the turret are less then half the length of the shells.

Trying to figure out how they load the damn thing.

That is an awesome model...
Have you seen the fully modeled Shadowsword interior? Not the FW one but the scratchbuilt one...

Plus this attempt at drawing a cutaway baneblade.

I do love cut-aways, and that Leman Russ mock-up is way above my own modeling skills!

The Baneblade is a tank I can get behind, and that cut-away is also awesome. Brings out the kid in me. The Russians tried out "land battleships" with multiple turrets in the 1930s. The T35 was a monster for its time, weighing in at 45 tonnes. It had a main turret with a 76mm gun (albeit a short one) and four other turrets on the hull. Two of those turrets had 45mm guns and the other two had machineguns. It had a crew of 11! It must have been a nightmare to crew command, and multiple turrets fell out favour. Still, I see a little bit of the "land battleship" in the Baneblade, and it works wonderfully for the Imperium setting.

 Mmmpi wrote:
Depends on the Sherman. A basic 75mm sherman could pierce a tiger's front armor at 500 yards (the tiger could do the same a closer to a 1000). A firefly, 76mm, or easy eight however had the same kill range capability against a tiger that a tiger had against them.

Armor wise, the Sherman's 2" of sloped armor gave it nearly the same protection as the tiger's 4" of flat armor. (For the Sherman front only).

In North Africa, the Germans and Italians hated fighting shermans, because their tanks had difficulty peircing a Sherman's (and Lee's) armor, and because the sherman's 75mm gun could one shot a Panther or canoe a Panzer 4 or smaller.

Edit: this gentleman goes into detail about many of the sherman myths. It's a long watch, but entertaining if you like the topic. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bNjp_4jY8pY

Will watch for sure. From my understanding the Firefly was quite rare and only fielded in great number by the Brits. US forces relied on artillery and air support to bring down Tigers. There really weren't a lot of tigers in germany at this point in the war so the horror stories are limited.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

TangoTwoBravo wrote:
Unless you were in a Sherman Firefly (or even a Sherman 76mm) - then Tigers were in trouble. Wittman lost his whole force in one go to Sherman Fireflies (we can argue about who did it elsewhere). Side bar...

The Leman Russ is a wonderfully ridiculous design. I have several and I love them. While it fails as a tank design for the real world (that turret - OMG), it succeeds at building the setting for 40K. Combining a WW1 Mark IV with a Grant along with Lascannons and Sponson Multi-Meltas establishes that you are in a strange backwards/forwards technological setting. Just don't think about what is going on in the turret (if they put a laser there I could buy it) and don't mind the bizarro sides/tracks design. If they updated it to be realistic (aka possible for internal layout) I might actually be sad...

If I want to play a game with real tanks I can play Flames of War, Team Yankee or Bolt Action.

This is why I like the Punisher russ the most.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Will watch for sure. From my understanding the Firefly was quite rare and only fielded in great number by the Brits. US forces relied on artillery and air support to bring down Tigers. There really weren't a lot of tigers in germany at this point in the war so the horror stories are limited.

The USA also fielded the M10 3" GMC that could wreck Tigers.

The 75mm Sherman wasn't entirely adequately armed, but it was killing every German tank it was asked to in North Africa and Italy [which included Tigers], and we delayed deploying the 76mm Shermans because the need wasn't felt when all of the tanks that actually comprised the core of the German armored force [Pzkpfw III and IV] were easily inferior.

Of some note, the Tiger is a heavy tank and the Sherman is a medium tank. It's supposed to be more threatening to medium tanks than they are to it. While the Americans didn't field an equivalent heavy tank, the Soviet heavies had a similar effect on their contemporary German counterparts. Also, I think it's kind of unfair to compare the Tiger 1 [Pzkpfw VI Ausf. H/E] to the later US 76mm Shermans and the M36 90mm GMC, since the Tiger 1 was introduced in fall '42, contemporary with the 75mm M4's. The Tiger 2 made it's debut in summer '44, and while the Tiger 1 served through to the end of the war, it's past it's prime by the time the M36 and M4 (76) made their debut [in late '44]. While there were 76mm Shermans ready in 1943, they were rejected by the Armored Board due to not being sufficiently reliable and the 75mm Shermans being considered entirely adequate. Testing [read: putting a captured Tiger in the field and shooting at it] reinforced the idea that more powerful guns weren't immediately required.

It's also worth mention that tankers commonly misidentified Panzer IV Ausf. H's as Tigers.

As for the Firefly, it was only fielded by the British because we tested it and didn't like it. The British really liked their 17pdr gun, but we had our own 90mm AT gun on the way and the Firefly had a bunch of ergonomic problems that made it less efficient to operate and generally poorer than our also upcoming 76mm Shermans.

 Xenomancers wrote:

Will watch for sure. From my understanding the Firefly was quite rare and only fielded in great number by the Brits. US forces relied on artillery and air support to bring down Tigers. There really weren't a lot of tigers in germany at this point in the war so the horror stories are limited.

It mostly had to do with how the build up of forces and the manufacturing of materiel was handled. It was mostly a case of delegating. While the US manufacturing was focused on higher volume massed production, many of Britain's factories were organized to produce the special need vehicles and variants. So they ended up having a good number of those available to their forces.

Good lord there is allot of nonsense being thrown around here and some really weak and dodgy defence of the Russ.

The simple fact is that the design in world is pure garbage.
You can throw around all the defence you want but that is pure fact.
And it's not as if the imperium hasn't got or know of better designs. They practically confirmed they know of tanks like Tigers and Shermans etc in the Guardsmen articles they do.
So they CAN make better.

Aaaaand before we throw in "oh but precious stc stc stc!"
That's gone out the door.
Look at all the garbage being created nowadays. It's no longer an existing factor.

It's poor design and lazy design.
And this whole rubbish of "its comic on purpose"...no...because why does the Predator look like a functional tank next to the same universe russ???

Just grab a bloody churchill and slap some eagles on it.
Boom 100% better.

I'll 2nd Lord Katherine, and add that the US didn't like the 17lb gun in the Sherman because the gun was really too big for the turret. It was hard to load, was cramped for the gunner and commander to work around, and when it fired (reportedly) it would spray burning powder through the vehicle. Enough to remove eyebrows, but not much else.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

ValentineGames wrote:
Good lord there is allot of nonsense being thrown around here and some really weak and dodgy defence of the Russ.

The simple fact is that the design in world is pure garbage.
You can throw around all the defence you want but that is pure fact.
And it's not as if the imperium hasn't got or know of better designs. They practically confirmed they know of tanks like Tigers and Shermans etc in the Guardsmen articles they do.
So they CAN make better.

Aaaaand before we throw in "oh but precious stc stc stc!"
That's gone out the door.
Look at all the garbage being created nowadays. It's no longer an existing factor.

It's poor design and lazy design.
And this whole rubbish of "its comic on purpose"...no...because why does the Predator look like a functional tank next to the same universe russ???

Just grab a bloody churchill and slap some eagles on it.
Boom 100% better.

My personal 'head cannon', is that the tank in universe doesn't have the flaws seen on the model.

ValentineGames wrote:
Good lord there is allot of nonsense being thrown around here and some really weak and dodgy defence of the Russ.

The simple fact is that the design in world is pure garbage.
You can throw around all the defence you want but that is pure fact.
And it's not as if the imperium hasn't got or know of better designs. They practically confirmed they know of tanks like Tigers and Shermans etc in the Guardsmen articles they do.
So they CAN make better.

Aaaaand before we throw in "oh but precious stc stc stc!"
That's gone out the door.
Look at all the garbage being created nowadays. It's no longer an existing factor.

It's poor design and lazy design.
And this whole rubbish of "its comic on purpose"...no...because why does the Predator look like a functional tank next to the same universe russ???

Just grab a bloody churchill and slap some eagles on it.
Boom 100% better.

You're completely missing what the design parameters were. They were not 'design a best possible functional tank' they were not even 'design a functional tank' they were 'design a tank that looks cool, but kinda ancient.' And they achieved that.

Also, why Preador looks different, it is because there is intentionally a different design language for these two factions, to make them more distinct. This is art, not engineering.