PDA

View Full Version : Length of Leman russ? (in meters)



Marsekay
31-10-2007, 21:33
looking for the "official" length of a leman russ in meters if anyone has IA1

cheers!

KjetilKverndokken
31-10-2007, 21:38
Its nothing official...

But it looks comparable to the WWII King Tiger tank in size, compared to guardsmen models. But I will not bother to look the length up though...

Mr Kibbles
31-10-2007, 21:46
In IA1 it says the lenght of the russ and all its variants is 7.08m

KjetilKverndokken
31-10-2007, 21:55
In IA1 it says the lenght of the russ and all its variants is 7.08m

A little short... But hey, who said GW could measure :rolleyes:

Mr Kibbles
31-10-2007, 21:57
Well it is supposed to be cramped and stuffy in there, like early ww2 era soviet tanks.

azimaith
31-10-2007, 22:29
Actually they look more like WW1 trencher tanks, but yeah, its one of those tanks where your sitting in there with the engine exhaust.

Argastes
31-10-2007, 22:34
Actually they look more like WW1 trencher tanks, but yeah, its one of those tanks where your sitting in there with the engine exhaust.

Yep, modern tanks have separate driver, fighting, and engine compartments, but the Russ seems to be a big armored box.

EDIT: Also, while it's true that 7 meters is a bit shorter than a modern MBT, remember that the Russ is also considerably taller. Which is a pretty stupid design, but at least it gives the crew lots more room than they'd have in a 7-meter-long tank of modern proportions (i.e., much lower hull). Overall, I don't think the interior of the Russ would be that much more cramped than that of a real-world tank. Not that some modern tanks are still quite cramped. Apparently the T-62 is especially uncomfortable.

2nd EDIT: Oh yeah, is 7.08 meters the hull length, or is it length overall, including the barrels of the main gun or frontal hull gun (whichever is longer)?

Sai-Lauren
01-11-2007, 14:11
EDIT: Also, while it's true that 7 meters is a bit shorter than a modern MBT, remember that the Russ is also considerably taller.
Which is a pretty stupid design, but at least it gives the crew lots more room than they'd have in a 7-meter-long tank of modern proportions (i.e., much lower hull).
More like there's more room for ammo, fuel, etc .;)
For the crew, if someone wants to breathe out, someone else has to breath in first.
Which is why I'm kind of the opinion that a lot of armoured regiments from military worlds like Cadia are crewed by the female soldiers - simply as they usually have smaller bodies and will thus have slightly more room to move around in their vehicles.

The height is due to the hull lascannon - take a look at things like the M3 Lee/Grant from WW2 for what the Russ is actually based on.

As for the length, a T-72 is 6.9m, a Challenger 2 is 8.3m, while a Leopard 2 is 7.7m. So it's kind of within the range for modern MBTs.

GR_Zombie
01-11-2007, 18:32
Wow, I totally misinterpreted the title of this thread... :angel:

Yeah I did a double take...:D

Argastes
01-11-2007, 22:06
More like there's more room for ammo, fuel, etc .;)
For the crew, if someone wants to breathe out, someone else has to breath in first.
Which is why I'm kind of the opinion that a lot of armoured regiments from military worlds like Cadia are crewed by the female soldiers - simply as they usually have smaller bodies and will thus have slightly more room to move around in their vehicles.

I'm inclined to agree with that opinion... it's also handy because women are less suited to infantry service, for the same reason, so female recruits MOS armor and males go infantry. That neatly explains why basically all IG infantry models are male even though it's supposed to include women as well.

And of course you're right, additional hull space will be occupied by additional consumables, not elbow room for the crew. Silly me, this is the IG we're talking about here!


The height is due to the hull lascannon - take a look at things like the M3 Lee/Grant from WW2 for what the Russ is actually based on.

That's interesting speculation, but I don't think there's any reason a lascannon mounting would force a high hull. Much bigger weapons than a lascannon have been mounted in much lower hulls than a Russ IRL; take the Strv-103's main gun for instance. The only reason the M3's main gun forced such a high hull was because the sponson was positioned over the track, which pushed it up much higher than would otherwise have been necessary--especially since the track also rode quite high as it returned (at least in comparison to the tank's size). In addition to being mounted in the center of the hull, enabling it's barbette to be situated lower than the top of the tracks, the Russ lascannon obviously has no need for the mounting to allow breech access (unlike a conventional gun). So the Russ could be made MUCH lower without the lascannon mount causing any problems; clearly, the reasons for the Russ' high silhouette are different.


As for the length, a T-72 is 6.9m, a Challenger 2 is 8.3m, while a Leopard 2 is 7.7m. So it's kind of within the range for modern MBTs.

Yeah, but those are HULL lengths, not overall lengths. A Challenger is 11.50 meters with it's turret traversed forward; a Leopard 2 is 9.66 meters; and a T-72 is 9.53 meters. In basically all modern BMTs, the main gun sticks out beyond the front of the hull and adds a couple meters in LOA. So before we can say how short a Russ is in comparison to a real MBT, we need to know whether 7.08 meters is it's LOA, or it's hull length. If 7.08 meters is LOA, then the hull itself is probably more like 6 meters or a little less, which is getting rather short compared to modern MBTs. Whereas if 7.08 meters is only hull length, then yeah, it's not that much shorter in the hull than modern MBTs, and LOA is probably closer to 8-8.5 meters. That's why I asked for clarification in my previous post; hopefully someone can tell us whether IA1 specifies hull length or LOA.

mick005usa
02-11-2007, 02:15
I'm inclined to believe we're not talking about mr. russ, correct?

Sai-Lauren
02-11-2007, 09:13
And of course you're right, additional hull space will be occupied by additional consumables, not elbow room for the crew. Silly me, this is the IG we're talking about here!

Well, not just the IG, but any fighting force.



That's interesting speculation, but I don't think there's any reason a lascannon mounting would force a high hull. Much bigger weapons than a lascannon have been mounted in much lower hulls than a Russ IRL; take the Strv-103's main gun for instance. The only reason the M3's main gun forced such a high hull was because the sponson was positioned over the track, which pushed it up much higher than would otherwise have been necessary--especially since the track also rode quite high as it returned (at least in comparison to the tank's size). In addition to being mounted in the center of the hull, enabling it's barbette to be situated lower than the top of the tracks, the Russ lascannon obviously has no need for the mounting to allow breech access (unlike a conventional gun). So the Russ could be made MUCH lower without the lascannon mount causing any problems; clearly, the reasons for the Russ' high silhouette are different.

Not really, there's still ground clearance required under the hull (so it can't drop too far down to the ground), plus some poor person has to actually get hold of the thing and point it at what it needs to shoot at - if the traverse is powered then there's gearing and power feeds underneath (there's no room on top), and even if it isn't, the power cells are likely going to be down there as well. Add in the dozer blade mounting points, frontal armour and so on, and there's not a lot of space you can possibly save.

About the only way you could drop the height is to turn the lascannon on it's side (like the 17pdr on the Firefly was, although for different reasons), which would probably then limit it's traverse, or otherwise prevent the gunner from being able to use it as effectively.

Edit:Although you'd then impinge on the drivers position and possibly also make the tanks footprint larger, and I would say that length and width is more important than height for something which spends a lot of it's life on troop ships and drop ships - larger footprint means more deck covered, means larger ships or less conveyed.

Or you get a smaller lascannon, which is likely to break more often.



Yeah, but those are HULL lengths, not overall lengths. A Challenger is 11.50 meters with it's turret traversed forward; a Leopard 2 is 9.66 meters; and a T-72 is 9.53 meters. In basically all modern BMTs, the main gun sticks out beyond the front of the hull and adds a couple meters in LOA. So before we can say how short a Russ is in comparison to a real MBT, we need to know whether 7.08 meters is it's LOA, or it's hull length. If 7.08 meters is LOA, then the hull itself is probably more like 6 meters or a little less, which is getting rather short compared to modern MBTs. Whereas if 7.08 meters is only hull length, then yeah, it's not that much shorter in the hull than modern MBTs, and LOA is probably closer to 8-8.5 meters. That's why I asked for clarification in my previous post; hopefully someone can tell us whether IA1 specifies hull length or LOA.
I would say the Russ' listed length is hull - IIRC it doesn't get smaller for the Conqueror, or longer for the Vanquisher, for example. ;)

Argastes
02-11-2007, 15:01
Well, not just the IG, but any fighting force.

Well, modern Western forces usually do place some degree of importance in crew comfort, because it's conclusively been shown that it improves combat efficiency. Especially in something like tank, where the crew may be in there for days on end without a break; uncomfortable conditions exacerbate fatigue. An M1's crew is always going to be more combat-effective than a T-72's crew, all other things being equal, because their fighting compartment is less cramped and uncomfortable. There is a definite military value to giving AFV crew comfort at least a little consideration



Not really, there's still ground clearance required under the hull (so it can't drop too far down to the ground), plus some poor person has to actually get hold of the thing and point it at what it needs to shoot at...

This is equally true of the Strv-103, which manages to still be quite low...

Yeah, of course you still have to maintain a decent ground clearance; what I'm saying is that the M3 is not an accurate comparison because it's sponson was situated much higher than ground clearance would require. Look at it from the front. (http://www.battlefield.ru/lend_tank/grant_1.jpg) The sponson is SEVERAL feet higher than it would have to be if it was situated centrally, even if the ground clearance was kept the same, because it's over the tracks and the top of the tracks are much higher than the bottom of the hull. My point is that you can't say "The Russ is tall due to it's lascannon mount just like the M3 was tall due to it's 75mm mount," because the ONLY reason the 75mm mount made the M3 tall was that it was over the track, which forced it up quite high--and the Russ lascannon mount isn't over a track.

Also, I'm not sure that the hull lascannon has it's own gunner; some fluff sources indicate otherwise. For example, in Dark Millennium there's a short story about a Russ crew in which the turret gunner also controls the hull lascannon. I think we need someone with IA1 to tell us what it says about a Russ' crew requirements.


...if the traverse is powered then there's gearing and power feeds underneath (there's no room on top), and even if it isn't, the power cells are likely going to be down there as well. Add in the dozer blade mounting points, frontal armour and so on, and there's not a lot of space you can possibly save.

About the only way you could drop the height is to turn the lascannon on it's side (like the 17pdr on the Firefly was, although for different reasons), which would probably then limit it's traverse, or otherwise prevent the gunner from being able to use it as effectively.

Edit:Although you'd then impinge on the drivers position and possibly also make the tanks footprint larger, and I would say that length and width is more important than height for something which spends a lot of it's life on troop ships and drop ships - larger footprint means more deck covered, means larger ships or less conveyed.

The traverse mechanism doesn't need any kind of substantial gearing; just like real turrets, all it needs is is a single electric motor driving a single gear that engages with a ring on the rotating part of the sponson. It certainly wouldn't have to be underneath OR on top of the mount; it would most likely be behind it. In fact, look at that frontal view of the M3 again: Clearly the traverse mechanisms for a hull-mounted weapon don't have to extend much below the weapon mounting itself, because the M3's sponson assembly only extends a few inches below the bottom edge of the barbette. Power feeds wouldn't have to come in from underneath the weapon even if there's no room on top; they could also connect from behind. Even if they did come in from underneath, they'd only need a couple extra inches of height, because they're just cables--it's not like you need to fit in a feedway for big shells or something. And I see no reason why the power cells would have to be underneath the weapon, rather than back in the hull as well. Dozer blade mounting points don't add height at all; they're just steel brackets welded to the outside of the hull. They could just as easily be fitted to the tank no matter how low it was, and take up zero room inside the hull. Frontal armor doesn't have to add height either; it adds thickness, but not height. A tank can just easily have a given thickness of frontal armor when it's two meters tall rather than four. Sorry, none of these are reasons why the Russ' lascannon would force a high hull.

And while minimizing length/width may be important for a vehicle which spends time in a dropship, it's only more important than minimizing height if the vehicle's time outside of a dropship isn't spent getting shot at by powerful anti-tank weapons. Survivability is just as important as transportability for a main battle tank. Besides, a lower but longer/wider vehicle isn't actually any less transportable; yes, you can fit fewer of them on a given amount of deck space, but the height of each deck aboard a dropship can then be concordantly lower. If the Russ was lower but longer, then when the Navy designed it's transports to accommodate them, they could fit more decks into a transport of the same size by reducing the deckplate-to-deckhead clearance. As long as the total volume occupied by the tank remains the same, you can carry just as many of them on a ship no matter what shape they are, because the shape of a ship's cargo spaces can be varied in three dimensions.

Omniassiah
03-11-2007, 04:18
IA 1 lists the crew as Commander, Driver, Gunner, Loader, 2x Sponson. Which you could reasonable argue that any of the 4 hull crew could fire the lascannon because they sure are not in that turret ridiculously small turret. Ideally if the redo the tank kits for Guard I hope they move towards a more modern look, Move the hull mount to a Coax with a larger turret and widen the tank a bit. Not to mention plastic bits for all the Russ varients

Enough wish listing, anyway its an awkward fit for the crew men of a Russ. Best fit, I could figure.Driver right side front of the hull, Commander on the Lascannon, Loader in the turret, Gunner in the hull inside the turret ring. Best I could come up with that might work.

As for space consideration, the most important factor for that is Mass, A C-5 Galaxy can fit 4 Abhrams in the Cargo hold but can only fly 2 Max. So it comes to weight not space with MBTs as you'll max out the load limit far before you have to worry about space.

Argastes
03-11-2007, 07:09
Ideally if the redo the tank kits for Guard I hope they move towards a more modern look, Move the hull mount to a Coax with a larger turret and widen the tank a bit. Not to mention plastic bits for all the Russ varients.

Preach it, brother. I'd love to see a new Russ kit that looks more like a Macharius with a big, realistic turret (i.e., nearly as wide as the hull itself, and at least as long as it is wide) mounting the BC and LC together.

Maybe after that we can get a Predator that actually makes sense.... and then the Squats can come back!

Champsguy
03-11-2007, 07:25
I'm inclined to believe we're not talking about mr. russ, correct?

He, of course, at 7 meters, was the most popular primarch with the ladies. He also had no reason to turn to Chaos, being perfectly content with life as it was.

Supremearchmarshal
03-11-2007, 12:45
Preach it, brother. I'd love to see a new Russ kit that looks more like a Macharius with a big, realistic turret (i.e., nearly as wide as the hull itself, and at least as long as it is wide) mounting the BC and LC together.

Well I wouldn't be surprised if the Leman Russ is designed to look intimidating before any survivability considerations. The Imperium in general is actually inefficient and careless with its resources. I mean why do SM get knives as standard close combat weapons instead of power swords (or at least power knives), which IG officers and even some guard sergeants use , and these guys outnumber them thousands to one (or more). Ditto for stormbolters. I won't even get into discussing the efficiency of titans...


Maybe after that we can get a Predator that actually makes sense.... and then the Squats can come back!

Actually I was just thinking about the Predator. Now seeing the redux codexes, they made the Annihilator very expensive to encourage players to use the Destructor. Now waht I think the predator (and most rhino-based vehicles) need is a slightly greater speed - they were faster in earlier editions, and it would make sense for a light tank such as a Predator to be faster than a Leman Russ. The Destructor should have a heavy Autocannon on its turret, giving it a small blast marker - its current main weapon is ridiculously underpowered. The Whirlwind, as an artillery piece, should really have a greater range than an MBT's main gun, and especially more than a hand-held missile launcher!

Argastes
03-11-2007, 16:25
Actually I was just thinking about the Predator. Now seeing the redux codexes, they made the Annihilator very expensive to encourage players to use the Destructor. Now waht I think the predator (and most rhino-based vehicles) need is a slightly greater speed - they were faster in earlier editions, and it would make sense for a light tank such as a Predator to be faster than a Leman Russ. The Destructor should have a heavy Autocannon on its turret, giving it a small blast marker - its current main weapon is ridiculously underpowered. The Whirlwind, as an artillery piece, should really have a greater range than an MBT's main gun, and especially more than a hand-held missile launcher!

Yep, I'd pretty much agree with all of this. I think a decent main gun for the Destructor would be a cannon which could fire with two profiles, one representing an armor-piercing projectile, and one representing an explosive shell. The AP shell (ideally APFSDS :angel:) would be S8 AP2 (or maybe 3), whereas the HE shell would be S5 AP6 with a blast. If the "normal" autocannon is comparable to a modern-day 25x137mm gun, this would make the Destructor autocannon comparable to a high-velocity 30mm to 40mm gun such as a Rarden, KDE, or L70.

Although when I originally said the Predator didn't make sense, I was talking about hull layout. It's based on an APC that can carry ten 7-foot guys in power armor, yet the addition of a small one-man turret to this vehicle completely eliminates it's transport capacity even though the hull size isn't reduced at all? Please. With it's current turret size, a Predator should either be able to carry a six-man dismount section (and the Razorback should be able to carry a full ten, or at least eight), or should be much lower and probably somewhat shorter as well.

Eisen
03-11-2007, 16:38
Yep, I'd pretty much agree with all of this. I think a decent main gun for the Destructor would be a cannon which could fire with two profiles, one representing an armor-piercing projectile, and one representing an explosive shell. The AP shell (ideally APFSDS :angel:) would be S8 AP2 (or maybe 3), whereas the HE shell would be S5 AP6 with a blast. If the "normal" autocannon is comparable to a modern-day 25x137mm gun, this would make the Destructor autocannon comparable to a high-velocity 30mm to 40mm gun such as a Rarden, KDE, or L70.

Although when I originally said the Predator didn't make sense, I was talking about hull layout. It's based on an APC that can carry ten 7-foot guys in power armor, yet the addition of a small one-man turret to this vehicle completely eliminates it's transport capacity even though the hull size isn't reduced at all? Please. With it's current turret size, a Predator should either be able to carry a six-man dismount section (and the Razorback should be able to carry a full ten, or at least eight), or should be much lower and probably somewhat shorter as well.

Perhaps the Predator's like a Merkava, where it can carry excess manpower, but it's not really meant to, except in an emergency, and the normal troop compartment is full of consumables under most circumstances?

EDIT - Or perhaps a Sheridan is a better comparison point, especially if modeled with H/K missile attached; certainly the Chaos Pred makes sense as a Sheridan - your Havoc launcher makes the barrel-launched missile make a little sense. Might be worth considering to model your Preds with drop-down ramps in the rear still fully functional, as an emergency escape point for the crew. Fill the aft compartment with spare batteries or ammo drums, depending on Pred configuration. Personally, I think storing the ammo on the outside of the turret is... well, less than stellar planning.

Argastes
03-11-2007, 18:01
Perhaps the Predator's like a Merkava, where it can carry excess manpower, but it's not really meant to, except in an emergency, and the normal troop compartment is full of consumables under most circumstances?

Yeah, I considered that, but the problem is that putting the Predator's tiny turret column into the Rhino's very roomy troop compartment is going to leave MUCH more space than the Merkava's rear compartment has--and the Predator's armament is much lighter. They could certainly fill all the leftover space with consumables, but it would be rather silly, since that space would be far better used by fitting a larger turret and/or making the vehicle itself smaller.


EDIT - Or perhaps a Sheridan is a better comparison point, especially if modeled with H/K missile attached; certainly the Chaos Pred makes sense as a Sheridan - your Havoc launcher makes the barrel-launched missile make a little sense. Might be worth considering to model your Preds with drop-down ramps in the rear still fully functional, as an emergency escape point for the crew. Fill the aft compartment with spare batteries or ammo drums, depending on Pred configuration. Personally, I think storing the ammo on the outside of the turret is... well, less than stellar planning.

:confused: I didn't realize the Sheridan had a troop/stowage compartment... correct me I'm wrong, but I don't think it does.

Eisen
03-11-2007, 18:19
No, it doesn't - conflated edit there. Sorry about any confusion. There were some experiments toward making an air-droppable light tank-APC crossover (mostly by the Russians), but those all ended in... well... sheep puree.

Argastes
03-11-2007, 19:05
Ahh, I see. My mistake. Yeah, I agree that a vehicle of about the Sheridan's size would be a realistic representation of what the Predator is supposed to be, although a Predator seems to be better protected. Ideally it wouldn't have those silly sponson weapons and would mount a better main armament instead, but what can you do... it's 40K after all.

Eisen
03-11-2007, 19:15
Make up better "sponsons?" Of course, how do you WYSIWYG calling sponson-mounted anti-personnel weapons HE rounds fired through the main gun rather than... well... sponsons? Calling a lascannon an AT round is reasonable, but representing sponsons is a little tricky.

Argastes
03-11-2007, 19:37
Make up better "sponsons?" Of course, how do you WYSIWYG calling sponson-mounted anti-personnel weapons HE rounds fired through the main gun rather than... well... sponsons? Calling a lascannon an AT round is reasonable, but representing sponsons is a little tricky.

Yeah, it definitely is tricky. I'm not that interested in actually doing it; all my Preds have sponson guns even though they're ridiculous. I'd like to see GW make the Predator design more realistic, but that's definitely not going to happen, so I'll just accept it as it is.

However, if I did want to represent sponson guns without having the sponsons on there, I'd probably do it by using a larger turret with multiple hatches, and then putting a pair of cupola or pintle-mounted automatic weapons up there like the MGs on real tanks. Maybe one in an enclosed commander's cupola, something like what was on the M60A2, and the other on an external ring mount at the gunner's hatch. Full-sized heavy bolters would be kind of silly looking in such mounts so I'd probably use something a little smaller; bolt weapons are ludicrously oversized anyhow, given their described function (a bolter should be lighter and more compact than a lasgun, and heavy bolters should be no larger than an M307). Alternatively, an arrangement like that used on the T-92 would be kind of cool--one heavy bolter in a "mini-turret" mounted on the primary turret to either side of the main gun. I think that's called a cleft turret.

Hmmm now I sort of want to do it...

Eisen
03-11-2007, 19:44
GMTA; my ideal Russ is actually an up-armored Chimaera hull with an M60 turret, or just a 1/48 T-34, and my ideal Chimaera is actually a 1:48 Brad or Warrior. The one area where GW really fails in modeling - I mean catastrophically fails, not overemphasized-for-detail fails - is armored vehicles. After a while of looking at them, they just get ugly. Not functional ugly, either, just ugly.

Argastes
03-11-2007, 19:53
Definitely true; their infantry models have come a long way since the days of RT and 2nd Edition, but vehicles are still ludicrous. I'm with you on the IG vehicles too: If I ever did Guard, I'd probably model my Russes on Chimera hulls with bigger turrets located further back on the hulls. I'd probably put the sponson weapons on the turret for them too.

Overhead pic of T-92 for anyone who wonders what the hell I'm talking about with this business of sponson guns on the turret:
http://www.combatreform2.com/t92topview.jpg

Imagine those machine gun barrels replaced with the stubby business ends of heavy bolters, and that's about how I'd do it.

Eisen
03-11-2007, 19:59
You know, that looks suspiciously viable for a Baneblade conversion... I'd initially thought you were talking more about a cupola turret, but that's definitely... an interesting solution. The Russians' problem was never originality, just quality control.

Of course, for the Predator, or indeed for the Laser Destroyer, you don't need a long housing assembly to accommodate the gun's recoil. Maybe you need a long development length for the laser, but I don't see that being quite the same, or the proportioning being the same. And the batteries' being stored outside the turret on the Predator is just plain silly. When any grot with a penknife can come and cut your ammo feed, you need to talk to your designers again.

Argastes
03-11-2007, 20:43
Actually, the T-92 was American.... back in the day, the Army used the prefix T-, for "Test" to designate prototypes in the testing phase. They later switched to using X for "Experimental", a convention borrowed from aircraft designations, which I actually think is a little unclear; because an Army prototype designated XM is not "experimental" in the same way as an X-plane, and the equivalent aircraft designation would be Y rather than X.

Ahem, back on topic.... I could definitely see a Baneblade variant with a cleft turret like that. Maybe with a Conqueror-model battle cannon in each mini-turret and something bigger in the center? Maybe a Vanquisher-type battle cannon or a laser destroyer. I also agree about the laser tube length. In fact, the main portion of a laser weapon doesn't have to swivel to face the target at all; only the optics turret does, and that can be quite small. The gas tube (or whatever is used; I'd actually think 40K lasers are generally solid-state types) could be down in the hull, with it's centerline axis parallel to the vehicle's centerline, and with the beam being reflected 90 degrees up into the optics turret and then reflected again towards the target. In fact, this is how the Diehl/MBB HEL prototype did it: The laser itself was housed in a big box on the rear hull and fired straight up, and the focusing optics were mounted on the end of a long, jointed, elevating crane arm that held them several meters above the laser. The vertical beam passed through open air for several meters before entering the focusing optics and being reflected towards the target. I think a Baneblade variant using a similar system would be pretty cool: The entire hull (minus crew/engine space) would be occupied by a single giant laser, with only a small optics turret atop the vehicle, but that little turret would spit out a beam even more powerful than a Shadowsword's main armament! Of course it wouldn't look "cool" at all--in fact, at casual inspection, it wouldn't even appear to be armed--so I guess we can bank on it never making it's way into the 40K universe.

Eisen
03-11-2007, 20:49
Actually, the T-92 was American.... back in the day, the Army used the prefix T-, for "Test" to designate prototypes in the testing phase. They later switched to using X for "Experimental", a convention borrowed from aircraft designations, which I actually think is a little unclear; because an Army prototype designated XM is not "experimental" in the same way as an X-plane, and the equivalent aircraft designation would be Y rather than X.

Forgotten about that; last time I remember seeing it used was for prototypes of the Pershing - shows how closely I track the development of vehicles in the US military. Uniforms? Small arms? No problem. Vehicles? Not so much.


Ahem, back on topic.... I could definitely see a Baneblade variant with a cleft turret like that. Maybe with a Conqueror-model battle cannon in each mini-turret and something bigger in the center? Maybe a Vanquisher-type battle cannon or a laser destroyer. I also agree about the laser tube length. In fact, the main portion of a laser weapon doesn't have to swivel to face the target at all; only the optics turret does, and that can be quite small. The gas tube (or whatever is used; I'd actually think 40K lasers are generally solid-state types) could be down in the hull, with it's centerline axis parallel to the vehicle's centerline, and with the beam being reflected 90 degrees up into the optics turret and then reflected again towards the target. In fact, this is how the Diehl/MBB HEL prototype did it: The laser itself was housed in a big box on the rear hull and fired straight up, and the focusing optics were mounted on the end of a long, jointed, elevating crane arm that held them several meters above the laser. The vertical beam passed through open air for several meters before entering the focusing optics and being reflected towards the target. I think a Baneblade variant using a similar system would be pretty cool: The entire hull (minus crew/engine space) would be occupied by a single giant laser, with only a small optics turret atop the vehicle, but that little turret would spit out a beam even more powerful than a Shadowsword's main armament! Of course it wouldn't look "cool" at all--in fact, at casual inspection, it wouldn't even appear to be armed--so I guess we can bank on it never making it's way into the 40K universe.

I dunno, I can see treading up a Necron Monolith and giving that explanation for why you're using a Monolith as a Baneblade. Build in a little voicebox that goes "EX-TER-MIN-ATE!" and you've got yourself a Dalek. Or possibly just a reason why AI is a terrible, terrible thing.

Argastes
03-11-2007, 22:22
Ahahahah... I don't like the Monolith model at all, but the idea of it rolling around on treads going "EX-TER-MIN-ATE" almost makes me want to buy one and do it.

Omniassiah
04-11-2007, 04:11
Argastes, I would have to disagree with you on the predator, its one of the few properly scaled vehicles IMO. Figure one driver in the front with the engine, Gunner/Commander in the Turret, 2 Sponson gunners sitting sideways in the crew compartment manning the sponsons via Video feeds like the Damocles. You start running out of space to make a proper transport real quick. Figure the Razorback has a second guy in the back with weapon supplies could easily chew up the space for 4 people if he's sitting.

That said the owner of my LGS recently built a scratch built Demolisher that is more appropriately sized. That said one of the things we noticed, sad that such military treadheads we are didn't catch before, is that the Russ has 2 MASSIVE shot traps on the front of it. Look to the left and the right of the hull mount. A shot to either side is going to end badly for the tank. To the left is the worst sending the round right up into the turret right at the turret ring if it doesn't penetrate the front armor. To the right slams the round straight into the tracks immobilizing the tank. I hope in 2 years+ when its the IG's turn they give us all new plastic kits. New MBT kit(Std., Demo, Vanq, Conq, Ext), IFV/Flametank, Arty tank, Sentinel(Full plastic no metal bitz)

RexTalon
04-11-2007, 07:26
Well, if the tank is 7 meters and the standard Imperial Guardsman is only 28 millimeters then you should be able to fit a few thousand of them in there. :)

Supremearchmarshal
04-11-2007, 10:41
Argastes, I would have to disagree with you on the predator, its one of the few properly scaled vehicles IMO. Figure one driver in the front with the engine, Gunner/Commander in the Turret, 2 Sponson gunners sitting sideways in the crew compartment manning the sponsons via Video feeds like the Damocles. You start running out of space to make a proper transport real quick. Figure the Razorback has a second guy in the back with weapon supplies could easily chew up the space for 4 people if he's sitting.

Well for starters the Predator has only two crewmen. The sponsons would require some space for ammo, but these are weapons whose ammo a single SM can carry on his back. So the Predator does indeed have a lot of unused space.
The Razorback has only one crewman, making it even more ridiculous.

Argastes
04-11-2007, 13:29
Argastes, I would have to disagree with you on the predator, its one of the few properly scaled vehicles IMO. Figure one driver in the front with the engine, Gunner/Commander in the Turret, 2 Sponson gunners sitting sideways in the crew compartment manning the sponsons via Video feeds like the Damocles. You start running out of space to make a proper transport real quick.

Well, I'm not saying it should be a "proper transport", I'm saying it should be able to carry a small dismount team like a modern ACAV or M3. That's a good point about the sponson gunners, I forgot about them. But the turret column is so small that even with the sponson gunners, there ought to be room for four marines in the back. Yeah you can just assume they fill up that space with consumables instead; I never said that wasn't possible, just that it's kind of silly for a vehicle as lightly armed as the Predator, since it would have no problem storing more than enough ammo in the turret column and surrounding space.


Figure the Razorback has a second guy in the back with weapon supplies could easily chew up the space for 4 people if he's sitting.

I don't think so; more like 2 people. The amount of ammunition that fits into the space occupied by just one marine would be more than sufficient, and the gunner's controls certainly shouldn't take up much space, since the controls inside Marine tanks generally seem to be mounted pretty flush against the sides of the compartment; no big boxes full of electronics to take up space. Again, I'm certainly not saying it's impossible for it to carry an amount of ammo that takes up as much space as 3 power-armored giants, but it would be rather silly and pointless; the advantage of being able to carry a larger dismount team would be much more substantial than the advantage of carrying a needlessly large amount of ammo.


That said the owner of my LGS recently built a scratch built Demolisher that is more appropriately sized. That said one of the things we noticed, sad that such military treadheads we are didn't catch before, is that the Russ has 2 MASSIVE shot traps on the front of it. Look to the left and the right of the hull mount. A shot to either side is going to end badly for the tank. To the left is the worst sending the round right up into the turret right at the turret ring if it doesn't penetrate the front armor. To the right slams the round straight into the tracks immobilizing the tank.

:p I've definitely noticed that, it's one of my biggest problems with the Russ kit! In fact, I think it did get mentioned a week or two ago in the thread about 40K/modern-day weapon equivalencies. But good for that guy; any chance of getting a picture of it?


I hope in 2 years+ when its the IG's turn they give us all new plastic kits. New MBT kit(Std., Demo, Vanq, Conq, Ext), IFV/Flametank, Arty tank, Sentinel(Full plastic no metal bitz)

I hope so too; if they're more reasonably designed, that would probably be enough to make me play Guard.

Omniassiah
04-11-2007, 15:10
I'll get the pictures or links of the tank he built up, he took a lot of pictures during construction including a fairly well detailed interior with turret traverse mechanism and everything inside. Its fairly open inside but the armor is only plasticard thick which gives some more space. He's currently down at the Baltimore GT. And I will say that he was insane to build that tank.

@Supremearchmarshal, While the codex says 1 and 2 marines its quite illogical for that passed the rhino. Even with all the advantages a marine could give you driving a tank and firing a remote weapon system would be next to impossible. The same would go with the Predator, maybe 3 personnel with sponsons but nothing less then that.

Which happened to make me think. Most of the times in the Fluff you see razorbacks they tend to be in more of a Command and Control transport function. If so they may have similar setups like the Damocles to allow the Captain/Master access to additional command information while his squad would be in transit.

Argastes
04-11-2007, 16:51
@Supremearchmarshal, While the codex says 1 and 2 marines its quite illogical for that passed the rhino. Even with all the advantages a marine could give you driving a tank and firing a remote weapon system would be next to impossible. The same would go with the Predator, maybe 3 personnel with sponsons but nothing less then that.

/\ Agreed. A Predator with sponsons would definitely need a minimum of 3 crew, probably 4. And in fact, the 2nd Edition datafaxes for it do specify four crew members--a driver and three gunners. If the 3rd/4th Edition codices say it has a crew of two, that's probably because in those editions, the Predator doesn't come with sponsons included--you have to buy them for extra points. A "baseline" predator in 3rd/4th Edition only has the turret gun, and so the "baseline" crew would only be two men. I'd think that the army list entry would tell the basic crew for the tank, not the additional crew that will be required if you buy upgrades for it.

Anyhow, I'd love to see those pics of the guy's Demolisher... please post 'em when you get a chance!

Supremearchmarshal
04-11-2007, 22:43
/\ Agreed. A Predator with sponsons would definitely need a minimum of 3 crew, probably 4. And in fact, the 2nd Edition datafaxes for it do specify four crew members--a driver and three gunners. If the 3rd/4th Edition codices say it has a crew of two, that's probably because in those editions, the Predator doesn't come with sponsons included--you have to buy them for extra points. A "baseline" predator in 3rd/4th Edition only has the turret gun, and so the "baseline" crew would only be two men. I'd think that the army list entry would tell the basic crew for the tank, not the additional crew that will be required if you buy upgrades for it.

Are you questioning the wisdom of the holy Codex Astartes? :skull:

(actually it says two Space Marines - there could be two servitors in there as well - but don't tell anyone)

Omniassiah
05-11-2007, 20:25
Anyhow, I'd love to see those pics of the guy's Demolisher... please post 'em when you get a chance!

Got them!!! Note this is a fairly good idea of the layout we came up with but is far larger then the normal russ. Rich is quite mad as you see by the last picture how much is plasticard on the thing.

But given that it does not have armor plates taking up some of the interior it probably is fairly close in the general layout though my guess it would be more cramped. As the turret traps seem to deflect the rounds away from the more important parts of the tank, it should be fairly easily salvaged, A hatch was added in the floor to make washing of crew remains out with significant water flow into the tank.

Did help build anything but helped with the design aspects