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.

[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.

[Nabterayl]

Wow Nabby, tanks doing Mach 5 eh...?
Tank projectiles doing Mach 5, sure. A Rheinmetall 120mm smoothbore like those used on the Abrams or a Leopard 2 can hit 1,580-1,750 mps pretty reliably, as I understand (depending mostly on the round being used, I suppose), which is Mach 4.6-5.1 at sea level. I don't know what kind of muzzle velocities you get out of the L30s you guys use, but I imagine it's in the same ballpark.