The Mechanics of the Leman Russ

[Denzark]

I don't think you can go on stats for either weight or thickness of armour from IA or other fluff - because I don't think GW 'get' it - if they did the turret would be bigger to accommodate the breech of the gun, and also the silhouette would be lower.

What I look at is in-game comparison. Front armour equivalency of the Land Raider means this is one heavy MBT. I think of it more like Merkava in terms of weight, as opposed to lighter than a Sherman. That sort of classification I give to the 'Stegs' or whatever in the Dan Abnett books.

[Katharon]

I don't think you can go on stats for either weight or thickness of armour from IA or other fluff - because I don't think GW 'get' it - if they did the turret would be bigger to accommodate the breech of the gun, and also the silhouette would be lower.

Their set up in the turret isn't as far off as you'd imagine. The main problem lies in the height of the turret, not the length. Most of their variants work fine, the only real problem lying in the Vanquisher.

What I look at is in-game comparison. Front armour equivalency of the Land Raider means this is one heavy MBT. I think of it more like Merkava in terms of weight, as opposed to lighter than a Sherman. That sort of classification I give to the 'Stegs' or whatever in the Dan Abnett books.

...I honestly don't understand a word of what you typed here. We were talking about Leman Russ tanks and then you mention a Land Raider, then you say Merkava...and what are 'Stegs'? You mean Stalk Tanks that the Blood Pact are often seen using?

[Denzark]

...I honestly don't understand a word of what you typed here. We were talking about Leman Russ tanks and then you mention a Land Raider, then you say Merkava...and what are 'Stegs'? You mean Stalk Tanks that the Blood Pact are often seen using?

Well then Sir allow me to spell it out for you.

What I look at is in-game comparison.

By which I mean I am going to look on Stats found in rule books.

Front armour equivalency of the Land Raider means this is one heavy MBT.

By which I mean the Land Raider is held up as the last word in armoured vehicle protection in the 40Kverse. The Russ has the same front armour, I therefore assess it as heavy armour.


I think of it more like Merkava in terms of weight, as opposed to lighter than a Sherman.

Because I think it is a hugely heavy tank. Is Merkava not about the heaviest real world tank in current use with a decent army? I stand by to be corrected, but I thought it is physically heavier than M1A2 and Challenger 2.


That sort of classification I give to the 'Stegs' or whatever in the Dan Abnett books.

Dan Abnett, in one of the first 2 GG trilogies (ie the first 6 books), refers to a tank manufactured in the Chaos held Worlds that the Crusade is going against. It is not a Imperial Tank with 8 pointed stars on, it is a specific tracked unit with a manufacturers name. IIRC he refers to it as a light tank (compared to the Leman Russ) and I thought its name is something like 'Steg'.

[Nabterayl]

You're thinking of the STeG4, which is an Imperial tank with 8 pointed stars on, just not one we have models or rules for. Same with the AT70 Reaver, which is apparently less sophisticated in terms of its electronics than and undergunned compared to a Leman Russ, and the AT83 Brigand, which seems to enjoy something like parity with a Russ in terms of firepower, at least, both of which the Blood Pact use a lot. These are Imperial designs, mostly churned out by the captured forge world of Urdesh; they just don't measure up to front-line equipment like the Leman Russ.

I'm not inclined to dismiss the Imperial Armour stats for a Russ, though. According to the game, a Leman Russ carries less armor than a Land Raider (in that it isn't AV14 all around, and it's a physically smaller vehicle). According to Imperial Armour, a Leman Russ weighs less than a Land Raider (60 tonnes compared to 72 tonnes), and is slower (35/21 kph on/off road vs. 55/48 kph on/off). I don't see anything weird about that. We expect the Russ to be heavy, but not as heavy as a Land Raider, and we expect space marine armor to be faster than Guard armor.

[Denzark]

Nabby

Thats the kiddy. Including this breakdown, and game stats, I consider Russ to be top of the range - not Sherman-esque. Sherman was not a hard counter to Tiger, and was nowhere near as useful as T-34 - Sherman worked because of numbers and tactics, and the fact we could actually fuel our tanks.

[Nabterayl]

I think it is, yeah - as far as the Imperium is concerned, the Leman Russ is top-of-the-line gear (which may or may not be a sad commentary on the state of Imperial armor depending on your approach to the fluff, but that's 40K for you). Rear-area formations and PDFs would be lucky to get them - just as second-line Imperial troops tend to get autoguns instead of lasguns, they probably tend to get Reavers and Brigands (or similar vehicles) instead of Russes.

For its intended role, I think the Leman Russ only suffers compared to its xenos equivalents such as the Hammerhead. Predators, Land Raiders, and Exorcists may be better at some things than a Leman Russ, but they aren't better at the Leman Russ' actual job.

[magickbk]

I always considered the low side/rear armor of the Russ to be related to the fact that they are supposed to operate essentially in a massive battle line, where the enemy is forced to fight them to the front and not be able to flank.

Also, like many things in 40K, the writers are not experts at everything and you all probably have more knowledge of real-world fighting machines than they do. The basics of the Leman Russ were laid down back in '95, I believe, when the first model came out. Everything since then has to be forced into that framework unless they do a total redesign like they did with the Land Raider. The FW guys therefore put as much as they can within those boundaries, but holes show up. Sort of like trying to fit most of Star Trek into the framework of the Original Series. Some things simply don't hold up to scrutiny, and we have to suspend disbelief which is exceedingly difficult if you are really into tanks and their history. I've sure historical aircraft enthusiasts also cringe every time GW or FW releases some new Flyer.

[Nabterayl]

A lot of it depends on how you think the far future should relate to the present day. Lots of fictional universes have this issue, particularly ones set in a sort of techno-barbarian milieu. In BattleTech, for instance, maximum engagement ranges are specified in meters (and top out at like, about 1 km), and a Gauss rifle that can propel a slug at Mach 2 is among the most destructive weapons available. BattleTech is also a universe where printed circuits are considered an incredible leap forward. All of this adds up to a world where a modern main battle tank (with, for example, a maximum engagement range of something like 4 km, and a velocity of Mach 5) would outclass a BattleMech by an incredible margin, and BattleTech is okay with that.

Whether or not 40K is okay with that depends on the fan's point of view. If you're okay with a modern MBT kicking the *** of a Leman Russ from here to next Tuesday, then you can just say yes, the tank's armor is poorly designed, and that's that; it works in context because the guns involved are similarly primitive and ineffectual. If you're not okay with that (and I'm not saying you should be one way or the other), you have to suspend your disbelief in other ways.

[Denzark]

Wow Nabby, tanks doing Mach 5 eh...?

As before, irrespectvie of an attempt at comparrison, what stands true in our tank design is the same for the 41st Millenium. Even if some tech is seen as witchcraft, common sense things such as keeping the profile low, are NOT beyond the Admech. That is why I like the old Destroyer Tank Hunter, it looks capable.

Also, again I highlight the ergonomics of battle cannon versus breach and space in the turret.

[Anggul]

Yeah, the puny turrets of all Imperial non-super-heavies render any reasonable comparison a bit pointless.