Talk:Leman Russ Battle Tank
Comment on the Leman Russ Eradicator: Alternatively an Admech found a stash of old Steve Jackson GEV/Ogre microgames on disk.
Comment on the Leman Russ Conqueror: It's not old rules that keeps the Conqueror from being a heavy vehicle. It was never intended to be a Heavy vehicle, which is why it was intentionally written without the Lumbering Behemoth rule (see the italicized note on IA1 Second Edition p. 41). If it were a Heavy vehicle, it would have no more mobility than a Leman Russ Battle Tank. Since the Conqueror is intended as a cavalry tank, that would make no sense.
Armour thickness issue
Quote: "One could argue that the Leman Russ is obsolete even on standards of late 20th century, due to the fact that it has only 150mm of armor with some sloping. To put things in perspective the Soviet T-54, which was introduced in the 40's, has armor equal to 200mm of steel. More modern tanks have even thicker armor, the M1 Abrams turret armor offers protection equal to around 400mm of steel."
First of all, claim of T-55 having 200mm of armour while Leman Russ have 150mm is simply not true. T-55 happen to only have 200mm of armour on the front of the it's turret, while having 160mm on side of the turret, and maximun of 100mm of armour on the frontal glacis. Leman Russ tank, as per fluff, stated to have 200mm on turret, while having armour thickness of 180mm on frontal glacis.
However, there is another issue - armour thickness must not be confused with armor's RHA equivalent. For example - steel alloy armor used on T-55 and Chobham armor used on Challenger-2 offering quite different levels of protection for the same overall thickness. And considering Leman Russ tank's armour made of something, called "reinforced plasteel".. --Terran Ghost (talk) 13:03, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
- Imperial Armour has already described the Land Raider, AV 14 all around, as "equivalent to 300 mm of conventional steel." It's probably best not to trust their lies on all specs. --126.96.36.199 19:40, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
1) As per actual Imperial Armour Vol.2 Second edition there is absolutely no reference of "Land Raider frontal armor is equivalent to 300mm of steel homogenous armour" in section describing Land Raider's armoured hull (thats page 29). Where does this figure came from in the first place?
2) The tabletop game's actual mechanics (the crunch) was never actually meant to and shouldn't be considered part of the lore on WH40K universe. That's it because the crunch needs to factor in basic playability and game balance. So AV14 do not equal any RHA equivalent of armor.
Par example, per crunch, both Leman Russ tank and Baneblade tank have AV14 frontal armor and AV13 side armor, while per lore Baneblade is way more powerfully armoured than Leman Russ. The crunch is that way, however, because, well, you can not get 7 or 8 on a d6 roll and with maximum weapon's strength being 10, 14 is set as absolute maximum of vehicle's armour value.
3) Well, top speed may be not the Leman Russ tank's strong point. However, there is two things to be considered. First, is that Leman Russ tank's engine is multi-fuel. And, surprise, in 40K multi-fuel does not means "it could run either on diesel oil or gasoline", that means "it could run on pratically everything that is liquid and can be burned". Second - Leman Russ tanks is optimised for mass production. That means, such tanks are churned out by the tens of millions annually and shipped off to various Imperial Guard regiments and PDF forces. On the contrary, modern days MBTs are invariably high-end machines, each with a whooping cost of 3 to 9 million USD.
Should be noted, however, that this stems from different conflicts expected and fought. Leman Russ is designed and built for WW2-style mass warfare, where the tanks average estimated life on a battlefield is often numbered in minutes. Modern MBTs are, on the contrary, mostly build to fight in regional often asymmetrical or low-level warfare.--Terran Ghost (talk) 12:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Why is there a link to the Leman Russ Vanquisher when it's only half a page up?
It's probably an artifact from when it had its own page. Now that it is condensed onto this page, the link leads to a redirect which leads back to the same page that it is on. But who knows? --Naeondaemon (talk) 07:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Leman Russ Annihilator part
Quote: "but the officer responsible for these conversions was found of tech-heresy and sentenced to death" Again where do this part come from? First, Imperial Armour Vol.5 do not give anything like this statement at all, only stating that the Annihilator is a rather uncommon pattern and that techpriests having devised such pattern may have modeled it after the Predator Annihilator. Second, Adeptus Mechanicus techpriests occasionally do not only devise field conversions, but even invent new tehcnology altogether (for example, conversion field generators, like the one in Rosarius and Iron Halos were actually invented by one of the AdMech's magos'). If the result of the work is not one of the few specifically proscribed technologies (like Silica Animus) nobody get's executed or even prosecuted - techpriests than run tests and trials and decide wherether the device is compliant with the existing machine canon. If found compliant it is declared that Omnissiah blesses that particular innovation and production starts. Problem is that acceptance procedure may be very long if one petition lord ot Mechanicus from Mars, but there are instances when specific forge worlds hand "local sanction to produce" to specifically successful innovations, like, for example Thunderer siege tanks (very likely, locally sanctioned by lords of Mechanicus forge worlds' denied access to Laser Destroyer STCs to produce full-fledged Destroyer Tank Hunters).--Terran Ghost (talk) 22:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)\
Leman Russ speed question
Where did the 70km/h come from? http://wh40k.lexicanum.com/wiki/Leman_Russ_Battle_Tank this says the top speed is 35km/h on road.
Mathammer on the russ variation if you are interested (40k 8th) http://elite40k.blogspot.nl/2017/06/analysis-astra-militarum-in-8th-ed-russ.html https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-F9C3oTJ5ZiY/WTaMmdbsUYI/AAAAAAAAFGg/YivXym54NFMjXwHASdZSPFmjNm1cFIwygCLcB/s1600/russ.png