Predator Tank vs Leman Russ Comparison

[Fingolfin_Noldor]

Meltas are superior against vehicles only at close-range. At half the weapon's range, they get a bonus to penetrate armor.

And no, no current Russ configuration allows lascannon sponsons. They can all get one in the front, though.

Kinda odd really. I would imagine having all 4 lascannons would make the Leman Russ particularly good at killing armor.

How does the standard cannon really compare when fit with anti-armor shells against lascannons? From the Sabbat Martyr, it seems it might even leave a dent on a Baneblade, while the Destroyer's main gun failed to penetrate the armor of the said Baneblade if I recall correctly.

[Black Admiral]

Battlecannon firing AP shells are, it seems, more powerful than lascannons, as per Gunheads; Spoiler

Again and again, the tanks fired. More and more of the true shape of The Fortress of Arrogance was revealed. Then one shot struck the raging warboss that stood atop the turret. There was a sudden burst of bright blue light and a loud cracking sound as the energy field generated by the warboss's armour struggled to absorb the blast. Against lesser weapons like lascannons, it might have held indefinitely, but it simply wasn't powerful enough to repel the sheer force of a tank round impacting at full velocity. The field collapsed and the beast's arm vanished completely in a fine red mist.

The warboss staggered and looked sideways at the ragged, bleeding stump of flesh with an expression of slack-jawed disbelief. That was when a second round, an armour-piercing shell from Captain Immrich's Vanquisher, Firemane, struck it dead centre in the torso. The round punched straight through the ork's power armour, blew its guts out its back, and blasted it from its feet.
- pgs. 398 & 399

Emphasis is mine.

[SAMAS]

Well keep in mind that an AP shell is, in game terms, just like a Melta shot at half range. So there is some truth to that.

[Vendetta]

Might not be completely applicable, but in Epic rules, the Battlecannon has the same anti-armour power as a Lascannon, and works against infantry as well (It's AT4+/AP4+, wheras a Lascannon is AT4+ only).

The battlecannon also has significantly longer range (75cm rather than 45cm).

Leman Russes are a serious piece of kit at epic scale.

This is the kind of unit you get a bucket of dice for, then roll them all at the same time.

You do that with Russes in Epic. Enemy infantry strays into heavy bolter range and you can chuck 30 dice at it.

[Cykeisme]

At present none of the rules in the various 40k game systems really model the difference between the effects of a kinetic impactor and a directed energy beam.

Also, in 40k you'd be shooting only only at different types of armour materials with different structural and thermal resistance, but also exotic defenses like void shields and such.
With as wide an array of different defensive measures you'll be going up against, perhaps it'll be a bit difficult to figure out whether a lascannon or a battle cannon is "better".

[SAMAS]

The moral of this thread is: Respect the Battlecannon.

[Connor MacLeod]

Well, of course rules are low canon, overwritten by everyone else.

You can not use them for direct quantification - but a rule is still stating something. And the special rule for the Leman Russ states thats it is slower than most vehicles.

Saying "well, according to the rules, power armor only absorbs 1/3 of the damage" is obviously wrong - armor just doesn't work that way.
But looking at the armor value of both power armor and eldar exarch armor (3+), we can see that they are roughly equal. There are propably still a lot of differences, and this observation will be overwritten by every other canonic source.
But we can still draw some information out of it.

The only sources I have ever seen you could remotely try that with is Dark Heresy, and even there I'd take it with a grain of salt as the fluff doesnt quite match up with the game data. (They give range increments in metres for some weapons, yet the range values can greatly exceed those. At best you could maybe say they are conditional.)

As for the rest, the biggest problem is - which gaming system's stats do you intend to use, and what edition? (Hellgun vs Hotshot lasguns as a prime example)

As for my sources, i looked it up at the Lexicanum - a warhammer wiki.
The german entry for the Predator refers to Imperial Armour for the speeds. And, as already mentioned, it states 35 kp/h for the Russ.
Aside from the 35/25 and 68/50 kp/h values, all other values are estaminations for variants.

Those are the IA values I mentioned and thus I am well familiar with them. I want to know where numbers like 45 kph and 79 kph (the one open_sketchbook cited) are from. The highest values i know of come from Honour guard (The Russ Executioner making 30 kph as opposed to 18 kph), the 30KPH offroad in heavy gravity from Gunheads, and a 2nd edition Codex Chaos quote White Rabbit has mentioned that had a Russ going at ~70 kph offroad. Of course, IA itself isn't terribly consistent (the Destroyer Tank Hunters use a Russ chassis and weigh in slightly less than the Battlecannon equipped Russ, yet move considerably faster in terms of pulling over 50 kph on road and IIRC 36 kph offroad.)

Rhinos have been mentioned making faster than their IA speeds too (the assault on black reach novel) so its likely Predators can too.

[Connor MacLeod]

As far as Battle Cannon go, you really can't compare them. Anti-tank lascannon as a rule are not tremendously recoil intensive (high MJ/low GJ range likely) since the man portable/heavy weapon crew versions are rather similar to the vehicle mounted ones and only rely on their high energy, high power and/or high intensity nature (depending on settings of course, but usually relying on the combination of all three to some degree or another.) to penetrate armor.

Battle cannons, however, can likely rely on a multitude of options. They can use shaped charges and/or a krak analogue (likely chemical explosive), probably have a melta-charge analogue (missiles do and there are meltabombs, and IIRC other Russ variants have them) which is Directed energy (for all intents and purposes.) Plasma may be possible as well. And of course, there is the kinetic kill weapon (armor piercing impactors and/or saboted rounds, depending on design.) which will rely on a combination of KE and momentum to penetrate (arguably.) And you have combinations of the above.

The KE part probably varies quite a bit in performance according to Russ design and who is building it - you migth get improved performance using rocket boosted ammo (most likely and many other tank variants use it and probably the best for them) to just making a bigger gun (least effective unless they have some damn good propellant which is possible, but even then has some nasty drawbacks in terms of recoil.)

In short, its really hard to generalize

[Cykeisme]

Specifically, there might be armour that's highly resistant to thermal effects (advanced ceramics that we know the Imperium uses), but perhaps less so to a kinetic impactor when compared to high-tech alloys.
Then you have funky stuff like Wraithbone armour, whatever it is Tyranid carapces are really made of, and daemons from the Immaterium.
Then you've got void shields and powerfields that still transfer the momentum of an impact to the projectors, I believe.

"Realistically", for some of them, a lascannon or plasma weapon might be more effective than a high-velocity shell, and vice versa for others.

[loomer]

I'm not entirely up to scratch on my directed energy weapon and particle weapon physics, but wouldn't some kind of magical energy shield have an easier time of dissipating something that is pure energy rather than something with actual mass?

I'm picturing it (in the example we had above), and this is probably wrong, as the lascannon blasts sort of 'washing over' the field somehow, like it forcibly diffuses the concentrated light that is a laser outwards and around, meaning the same total force is initially received but maybe 10% bleeds off from the redirection and the rest has little chance of actually breaking down the shield?

Going on with this line of thought, a large (aren't Russ AT shells about five inches in diameter at the tip?), high mass object with significant kinetic energy behind it can't merely be diffused or 'spread' out, as though the warhead itself can dent, fragment, or flatten out on the shield it can't be completely 'wrapped' around the shield to impact everywhere with diminished force. So, assuming even roughly even power, it might simply be a matter of direct force versus distributed force, with the shield generator being unable to handle said direct force and thus losing power and probably being torn free of the armour itself due to CoM.

[Starglider]

I'm not entirely up to scratch on my directed energy weapon and particle weapon physics, but wouldn't some kind of magical energy shield have an easier time of dissipating something that is pure energy rather than something with actual mass?

'Energy shields' are dependent on magical made-up physics anyway, so really this is completely arbitrary (as demonstrated by Dune's 'shoot a shield with a lasgun and you get a massive explosion, because... the author says so').

[Connor MacLeod]

Beam weapons can have momentum just like projectiles. Its just that for most beam weapons you'll get more energy than momentum. A laser with the momentum of a pistol bullet will have nearly a gigajoule of energy, compared to say half a kilojoule or so) for the pistol bullet. Mike's analysis of the TESB asteorid incident is a good example of this.

Its also why the "laser immunity/adaptation to bullets" excuses sometimes displayed in Trek are absurd. You really CAN'T shield against force/momentum the way you can with energy, you can only deal with it in some manner (such as bracing, counterforce, spreading it over a wider area, redirecting it, etc.) So with high momentum/high force situations, it is a matter of strong structural bracing and such.

[Shroom Man 777]

Kinda odd really. I would imagine having all 4 lascannons would make the Leman Russ particularly good at killing armor.

Maybe there's a limit to the internal volume of the Leman Russ that makes it unable to pack the power sources (or radiators or whatsits) needed for so many lascannons? If the Predator is based on the Rhino, which is an armored personnel carrier for goddamn Space Marines, then it's gonna have an overabundance of internal space - unlike the Leman Russ' specialized tank chassis. But that also means the Russ will have thicker armor than the Rhino.

Do Space Wolves use Leman Russ tanks?

[Lost Soal]

Kinda odd really. I would imagine having all 4 lascannons would make the Leman Russ particularly good at killing armor.

Do Space Wolves use Leman Russ tanks?

They did do. Haven't touched a Codex or the game for a few editions now though so couldn't say if they still do.

[Connor MacLeod]

Maybe there's a limit to the internal volume of the Leman Russ that makes it unable to pack the power sources (or radiators or whatsits) needed for so many lascannons? If the Predator is based on the Rhino, which is an armored personnel carrier for goddamn Space Marines, then it's gonna have an overabundance of internal space - unlike the Leman Russ' specialized tank chassis. But that also means the Russ will have thicker armor than the Rhino.

Doesn't seem likely. Going by IA diagrams all the stuff for the front mounted lascannon seems prety compact relative to the overall internal volume.. no more so than the heavy bolter mountings do, so I dont see why you couldn't stick sponson lascannons on it either (other than game balance.) As I recall the Annihilator lascannons were nothing more than Long Fang lascannon stuck into a turret, anyhow. Doubt it would be any different fo rthe Russ.

My guess is that its simply Game Balance. The same way you used to be able to have plasma Sponsons too, as well as melta ones.

Do Space Wolves use Leman Russ tanks?

[/quote]

Only the Exterminator AFAIK, though they might use the Annihilator variant too.

[Shortie]

Maybe there's a limit to the internal volume of the Leman Russ that makes it unable to pack the power sources (or radiators or whatsits) needed for so many lascannons? If the Predator is based on the Rhino, which is an armored personnel carrier for goddamn Space Marines, then it's gonna have an overabundance of internal space - unlike the Leman Russ' specialized tank chassis. But that also means the Russ will have thicker armor than the Rhino.

Doesn't seem likely. Going by IA diagrams all the stuff for the front mounted lascannon seems prety compact relative to the overall internal volume.. no more so than the heavy bolter mountings do, so I dont see why you couldn't stick sponson lascannons on it either (other than game balance.) As I recall the Annihilator lascannons were nothing more than Long Fang lascannon stuck into a turret, anyhow. Doubt it would be any different fo rthe Russ.

My guess is that its simply Game Balance. The same way you used to be able to have plasma Sponsons too, as well as melta ones.

Well yeah, but supposedly they need dirty great capacitators, hence the Land Raider getting room for another 6 troops if you swap the lascannons for smaller weapons.

Given that Russ sponsons are really awkward (any connectors and a hatch for the gunner to fit through have to go inside the track wheels) there is some logic to them only having smaller weapons. On a Predator they're remote operated, which means no need for a hatch, which means room for a great big power cable. No actual evidence for that, but it's not impossible.

That said, you can assume that infantry lascannons aren't quite the same - less ammo, less cooling (lower ROF) etc, it's just 40K is too crude to show the differences.

[andrewgpaul]

The plasma and melta sponsons have returned, by the way. At least for the Demolisher, I can't remember if every variant gets them.

[SAMAS]

They all do, now.

[Cykeisme]

Worth noting that previously there the 4th Edition Armoured Company army list provided the "Improved Sponsons" option to give any Leman Russ the same sponson weapon choices as the Demolisher.
I guess in 5th Ed, out-of-universe, it's now supposed to always have been be more widely available than in the older fluff/rules.

That said, you can assume that infantry lascannons aren't quite the same - less ammo, less cooling (lower ROF) etc, it's just 40K is too crude to show the differences.

This is one of my major qualms about the whole thing. The game mechanics of the tabletop game are often used as a reference when the fiction is written, but the tabletop game is at such a crude "resolution" that it oversimplifies things.

In the fluff, an Astartes boltgun is far more powerful than a boltgun sized for a normal man, but they're identical in tabletop. And then there's man-portable lascannons and heavy bolters being identical in performance to the ones Astartes carry, as well as those mounted on vehicles..

Games like Dark Heresy have a much higher level of detail. Although they're still game mechanics, we can at least use them to compare the effectiveness (and therefore yield etc) of one weapon to another. Unfortunately these rulesets simply don't cover larger things, like vehicle weapons and such.
Thus we're stuck.

[andrewgpaul]

In the fluff, an Astartes boltgun is far more powerful than a boltgun sized for a normal man, but they're identical in tabletop. And then there's man-portable lascannons and heavy bolters being identical in performance to the ones Astartes carry, as well as those mounted on vehicles..

To be fair, for the last 4 editions of the game, those "man-portable" weapons have been mounted on tripods or trails and needed a team of two guardsmen to grag around, as opposed to one Marine holding it in one hand.

[Shortie]

In the fluff, an Astartes boltgun is far more powerful than a boltgun sized for a normal man, but they're identical in tabletop. And then there's man-portable lascannons and heavy bolters being identical in performance to the ones Astartes carry, as well as those mounted on vehicles..

To be fair, for the last 4 editions of the game, those "man-portable" weapons have been mounted on tripods or trails and needed a team of two guardsmen to grag around, as opposed to one Marine holding it in one hand.

Which is a nice start. There were all those weapons customisation rules for VDR a while back long-barrel/gatling/blast and so on, but they don't seem to come up much in standard units. They'd be ideal for this sort of thing, but too much chrome for quick-reference I suppose.

Besides, which of us doesn't have our own version of the universe inside our head anyway?

[Connor MacLeod]

Worth noting that previously there the 4th Edition Armoured Company army list provided the "Improved Sponsons" option to give any Leman Russ the same sponson weapon choices as the Demolisher.

where does one exactly find that army list?

[Raxmei]

Worth noting that previously there the 4th Edition Armoured Company army list provided the "Improved Sponsons" option to give any Leman Russ the same sponson weapon choices as the Demolisher.

where does one exactly find that army list?

It used to be a free download from the GW website. I still have a copy saved. It's 626 kilobytes and has a 472 kilobyte vehicle appendix.

[Connor MacLeod]

I wouldnt mind seeing it if you could.

[Hawkwings]

I think this thread has indirectly shown that Leman Russ tanks are far cooler than Predators, and therefore, far superior.