The Mechanics of the Leman Russ

[Just_Me]

!!CAUTION, LONG RAMBLING POST AHEAD. BEWARE RUN-ON SENTENCES!!

I've recently revamped my Imperial Guard army including 3 Leman Russes and a Demolisher. As a result i've been giving some thought of late to the actual mechanics of the Leman Russ tank and it has left me a bit conflicted about the vehicle from a purely practical standpoint. First of all we can all admit that practically speaking the Leman Russ tank has issues, it was created as a game piece rather than a study in engineering and adheres to aesthetic rather than functional rules. It has been mentioned many times before but simply put the turret is too small (although the new one is a bit better), the hull too tall and short, glacis a shot trap, and the tracks archaic to say the least. Practically speaking it probably WOULD all work but it would be profoundly uncomfortable, ineffective, and inefficient to the point where it wouldn't really be an effective weapon of way (even for the Imperium).

Personally I have replaced all of my Russ hulls with Mars Pattern Alpha hulls and turrets with Modified Ryza pattern turrets. The Mars Pattern is longer and has what would be more effective front armor while the turrets actually look large enough for to fit people. The end result is pretty similar in overall form to the practical historical tank designes of the World Wars. This leaves only the tracks as an issue for me.

The Leman Russ tracks (and in fact all IG vehicles) are pretty clearly intended to evoke images on the MKI through V tanks of WWI and feature fixed tracks with no suspension system. While I can get behind the messed up and inconsistent nature of technology in the setting (it's part of the charm) the lack of a suspension system just seems so painfully obvious and inconsistent because tracks with a suspension are available on Baneblades and Astartes vehicles and represent pretty basic engineering that apparently even Orks can figure out.

The easist answer is just because the imperium is dogmatic and stagnant they keep building them like this becuase thats just how it is, the STC says that's how they are built so that's how we build them even if it makes little sense. That answers is unsatisfying to me becuase all it does is push the issue back up the ladder and changes the question from "why do they make them like this like this?" to "why was it designed that way in the first place?" As the Russ has its basis in STC technology I have to assume that, even if it has long since been lost, there was an actual reason for the tracks to be the way they are.

I can come up with a handful of possible reasons, the most obvious of with is ease of construction (which is supposedly the dominant feature of all IG vehicles), but would eliminating the suspension really streamline construction to the extent that it outweighs the impact to performance? The next possibility is durability; tracks are the most vulnerable part of any tank and a suspension system must, by its very nature, remain partially exposed. Again however, I have to wonder if this would outweigh the performance benefits (especially since in modern AFVs the answer is universally "no")? Finally, as is the case with a surprising amount of Imperial tech the superficial primitive-ness conceals surprisingly high-tech but unobtrusive underlying systems, in this case something like artificial gravity or inertial stabilizers, or even something as simple as some sort of concealed retractable suspension. The issue here is that the fluff dictates against this (IG military tech is a functionally simple as the Imperium can make) and it is hard to see how such a system would offer an advantage over a simpler well tested mechanical system.

The best conclusion I have come to is that the most likely answer is a combination of factors along with doctrinal considerations. If, for example, the military doctrine which informed the design of the Russ called for them to be mobile bunkers and/or operate in level urban terrain then I could imagine that the benefits of durability and simplicity might conceivably outweigh the impact on performance. Of course, this doesn't really explain what's going on with Chimera chassis vehicles (especially Salamander scouts) but that's a whole other issue... The fact that they are forced into off-road and aggressive mobile attack operations is an example of "when I have a hammer everything looks like a nail" syndrome.

All of this is of course the speculation of a mechanically uninitiated layman so I appeal to those of you with a better grasp of the technical issues involved to weigh in with thoughts and ideas. Perhaps there is a very simple or obvious answer that I'm missing. Or perhaps the "problems" I perceive are not a debilitating as I'm making them out to be.

[DWest]

I could see the Leman Russ having a Christie-style suspension, as most of the works of that system are hidden up inside the hull of the vehicle in question; alternately, playing off the "schizo tech" aspect of much Imperial gear, they could be using some sort of maglev suspension, with the grilles that sit below the sponsons on the bottom of the hull being radiators for the maglev system. Either way, I'm inclined to believe there's some kind of suspension at work there, because the Leman Russ continually gets mentioned as being "rugged and reliable", so it must be doing something well.

[Nabterayl]

Another possibility is that it wasn't designed without suspension. Imperial Armour Volume I is clear that the even the most learned magi of Mars are no longer able to tell what is actually STC and what is a mutation of an STC design. So it could be that the Leman Russ originally did have suspension, and over the millennia as people understood the design less and less, the suspension got left out of some blueprints. Now, in the 41st millennium, the only blueprints that are still extant are those without suspension, and the tech-magi simply don't understand that what they're looking at is not the original STC design, but a debased copy of an STC design that accidentally incorporates design flaws.

[Denzark]

Some of the GG seems to make Russ tech out to be better than manythings out there. I know for me GW ergonomics has always rankled, but the IA1 (at least 1st ed) had some good internal shots of LR that at least try and explain how the breech of the gun fits in there.

[White Tiger88]

A Leman Russ is a total mix of the Panzer 4 and Sherman tanks............With some Tiger 1 thrown in for good measure.

[Denzark]

I don't see that Herr Tiger - the trapezoidal shape harks to WWI Brit tanks, as does the sponsons. Maybe you see tiger in the turret angles but I definitely can't pluck Sherman out of that - unless you are talking about battlefield role of course.

[Millenium_King]

The Leman Russ does have suspension - if you look on the model, you can see the exposed shocks towards the front on the side (double coil-looking things). I've even seen drawings from Imperial Armour that specifically point out that those are shocks.

[Just_Me]

The Leman Russ does have suspension - if you look on the model, you can see the exposed shocks towards the front on the side (double coil-looking things). I've even seen drawings from Imperial Armour that specifically point out that those are shocks.

Technically correct, I went back to Imperial Armour Volume One and looked at the schematics. The problem is they can't possibly work. The Leman Russ side skirt armor comes almost all the way down to the ground and there is no room for there to be any "play" in the suspension. If the tracks looked more like those on the Malcador with enough of the road wheels peeking out for there to be at least a bit of play to accommodate a suspension. In fact, perhaps the best explanation is that actually is how the Leman Russ tracks are laid out but either a). the model just doesn't show it, or b). the suspension of a fully armored/loaded Russ is inadequate to it's task and the Russ is almost always riding too low. The latter possibility actually makes a fair amount of sense and would be accounted for by the Russ's "Lumbering Behemoth" rule, although again this still wouldn't explain the tracks of Chimera chassis vehicles (particularly the fast ones) and the like or Russ variants like Conquerors that are not treated as "Heavy."

I don't see that Herr Tiger - the trapezoidal shape harks to WWI Brit tanks, as does the sponsons. Maybe you see tiger in the turret angles but I definitely can't pluck Sherman out of that - unless you are talking about battlefield role of course.

I actually see the Sherman more than I can see either the Tiger or Panzer IV. While the details are very different the Russ and Sherman share a very tall upright profile while both the Tiger ad Panzer IV are fairly low profile vehicles. As I've already mentioned I really like the Mars Pattern Alpha hulls from Forge World because they are more mechanically/functionally sound and they give the Russ something of the general look of a T-34 or Panther tank. Of all real world tank designs I feel like the Russ most resembles some of the unsuccessful French designs from the interwar and immediate post war years like the Char B1 or ARL 44, both of which were noted to have design elements considered outdated even during their service and while functional enough were not overwhelmingly successful.

[GrauGeist]

I have converted my Leman Russes from Tanks to Self-Propelled Guns.

My Demolishers are styled after the FW Leman Russ Thunderer
My basic Russes are styled after the FW Leman Russ Hunter

I reverse the lower body plate in my conversions, so there is no shot trap at the base of the tank.

I see the Leman Russ as basically a large Hetzer-type vehicle, complementing the MBT-like Baneblade.

[Katharon]

As a former LT in the US Army, I can give my impressions of it based on my experience.

Firstly, all tanks are designed with a specific mission in mind. That informs the process entirely. For the First World War you had the Mk. 1, which was meant to provide a literal rolling bunker that infantry could follow behind easily. These "Infantry Tanks" were designed to defend against light arms fire and provide cover, a roll that they did well. This doctrinal success carried on into the Second World War in Britain and France -- an under-sight on their part since the later evolution editions of the Infantry Tanks would be outdated and outclassed by German designs that were made with the specific mission of killing other tanks and acting independently of infantry. The modern Abrams that I drove carries the lineage of the Cold War, where tanks had to be given not only better armor (made from unique material) but also better mobility and firepower. Dominance of armored warfare by defeating the enemy at long range and mobility is the current doctrinal outset for the modern US tank corp.

Secondly, who is meant to be building the tank and why? Lore for WH40K tells us that Leman Russ were STC designs that had been put into the STC machines for two reasons: durability of design and ease of production. Say what you like about the M4 Sherman or the T-34 (they were not as well engineered as most late war German tanks such as the Tiger, Panther, etc), they were durable tanks and could be easily mass produced. As such the Leman Russ is designed to be rugged (has 150mm of armor in the hull) and mobile (it is faster than the M4 Sherman and weighs twice that of the M4 Sherman...yeah, let that sink in) for operations in any conditions. Ease of production: its parts are interchangeable with practically every other Leman Russ in the galaxy -- that's a hell of an advantage for any military.

Thirdly, the modularity of the Leman Russ is where it shines. You literally have over half a dozen variants for the Leman Russ -- its hull able to mount not only main battle tank weaponry, but also act as a carriage for artillery and heavy siege weaponry. That is, again, where the ease of production comes into play.

By it's overall specs the Leman Russ is not a heavy tank. It's weight would place it in the medium tank category. But by the 40th millennium maybe that is the only real option that they have. I personally wouldn't be caught commanding one of those in real life combat (that side hull is just begging for it), but for what its suppose to "realistically" offer, it's a perfect tank.

1) Easily mass produced.
2) Strong design.
3) Modularity overload.