History in Gaming -- Does a Leman Russ Make Any Sense?

Posted by Ranillon on 31. August 2009 00:44

The short answer is “not really.”

(Ah, that was an easy article!)



This is not to say that it wouldn’t work.  It pretty much is guaranteed to do so as the basic design and technology has been tried before.  There isn’t anything inherently impossible about the Leman Russ design (assuming lascannons and plasma weapons are ultimately possible – a good bet).  What is a problem is that the design isn’t very effective.  It has a number of serious deficiencies that one shouldn’t find in a design that is supposedly tried and true over very long periods of time.

The most readily apparent example on the Leman Russ is its tracks.  They extend all the way around the outside much like an early Mark I/V World War One British tank.  In fact, the Leman Russ design pays more than a slight homage to this historical vehicle.  For that reason alone it’s not hard to believe the Russ would actually be able to move around, yet there is a reason why the Mark V tread design did not serve as the model for what came later.  For one thing the tracks are needlessly exposed, making them comparative easy targets.  The treads on a tank are perhaps the most vulnerable part of the war machine.  One good shot by even a moderately powerful weapon and suddenly the tank is going nowhere.  That’s why it makes sense to hide the tracks as much as possible behind armor plates or even just from the sight of the enemy.  No point in making the bad guy’s task any simpler.

Yet, there is an even deeper issue with the tracks on a Leman Russ – or, more specifically, how the treads attach to the rest of the vehicle.  Namely, they do so directly without the presence of any suspension.  That is a big, big problem.
Suspensions are, among other things, used on all modern vehicles to aid in smoothing out the ride and improving handling.  Without one both are going to suffer.  Control is going to be an issue as every possible uneven surface that might lift or lower one side of the machine will tend to pull it in other directions than perhaps the tankers would prefer.  It also makes it more likely they might get stuck or even if they aren’t careful tip over.  More subtly, when they go over obstacles without a suspension the tank will tend to rise up or lean at high angles.  This in turn exposes the less well armored portions of the tank thereby leaving it vulnerable to a wider range of weapons.

Even worse than this is how the absence of a suspension means that every last bump or crash will be transmitted directly to the rest of the tank.  Remember that among other traits tanks are meant to be cross-country vehicles, country that tends to be rather bumpy.  Without a suspension in-between to mitigate the effects of all that rough terrain both the tank and the people inside are going to have a hard time enduring the trip.

When people talk about tanks they tend to concentrate on how well they do in face-to-face combat.  How thick is the armor or how big is the main gun?  What tends to be missed is that while combat may be the most exciting bit, it’s also only a comparatively tiny amount of the total time the tank and its crew spend together.  Livability is in its own way just as important as potency on the battlefield.



A British Mark I/V tank was in its own way a revolutionary invention.  It certainly aided the Allies in winning the war.  However, it was in some ways as much a menace to those that manned it as the Germans it faced.  The engine was in the same compartment as the crew while there was inadequate ventilation and certainly no air conditioning.  That made for a burning, carbon monoxide filled hell.  Likewise, men had to dress up in heavy cloths and wear chainmail masks to avoid injury from metal flakes and rivets that would fly about when small arms fire hit the tank.  Finally, the gas tanks were placed above the crew thus meaning that a well-placed shot might burst them and cause everyone inside to be incinerated!  Even if the tankers survived their ordeal they might easily take days or weeks to recover enough to give it another go. 

It doesn’t matter how amazing your tank may be if you don’t have trained crews to use it!  And, make no mistake – trained tankers are a vital resource.  Yes, the Imperium wastes life on a whim, but a skilled crewman is too valuable a tool even for it to expend needlessly.

Another real-life historical example is the venerable United States M4 Sherman.  In retrospect it has gained a reputation for being a death trap when facing later German tanks (the Germans didn’t call them “Tommy Cookers” for nothing) such as the Panther and Tiger.  Yet, what this forgets is that for everything else the Sherman was clearly superior.  It was far more dependable and rugged while also being a comparative joy to live in.  When Soviet tankers received some via Lend Lease they were amazed – it came with spectacular luxuries such as power steering that made the Sherman quite popular.  This is really saying something given that contemporary Soviet tanks such as the famous T-34 or KV-1 were clearly superior in a battle situation.

Back to the Leman Russ – another limitation of the Russ design are the sponson mounted weapons.  They may look impressive, but in real life they’d probably be more trouble than they’d be worth.  One reason is that those extra weapons require extra amounts of machinery and ammunition.  They also need extra gunners.  All that added space and weight means less of each that can be used for things like armor.  It also puts greater strain on the engine making the tank slower and more prone to breakdowns. 

So many different weapons and people using them also plays havoc on basic command and control.  In a comparable WW1 or 2 tanks you have a commander who barks orders to the crew around him.  It’s tough enough to get the tank going where you want and a single gun on target.  Add in another three major weapons and using them effectively is going to be nigh impossible.  Who is supposed to fire at what?  Did he mean me or Bob manning the lascannon?  The interior of a tank in battle is a loud, smelly place where communication is difficult at best.  In such circumstances the practical thing to do is lessen complexity, not increase it with lots of extra systems for everyone to deal with.

There is also another factor, one that applies to battleships as much as tanks – bigger really is better.  A single large cannon is more effective than a set of smaller ones even if the latter add up to greater throw weight.  The larger the shot the better able it is to puncture armor at greater distances.  What does it matter if your tank is festooned with a hundred guns if all their shots just patter uselessly off the other guy’s tank?  Why waste all that extra weight on smaller weapons when you can combine it all into one giant cannon?  The only real weapons you need on a tank are those meant for different roles.  For example, a main battle cannon isn’t very efficient when it comes to taking out infantry, so load up on a few machine guns to take care of them.  Otherwise, simpler is better.

It is true that a multi-turreted Leman Russ is more fun to play with which is no doubt why Games Workshop went with that than something closer to modern real life.  And, to be fair, the Leman Russ would work – technically.  Still, if I had to be a tanker I think I’d prefer a modern Abrams over the more primitively designed Leman Russ.