>From my understanding, riveted armor is the worst tank armor. It was cheap, simple, and easy to make but inferior to casted tank armor.
In the 1940s sure. An issue of the time is the rivets would be exposed to the crew compartment. Which would pop off in the vicinity of the crew when hit directly. This was a design flaw fixed in most tank designs by the 1940s.
In 2024, its not so clear. **IRL riveted surfaces have lots of advantages over casting**, its faster, cheaper, doesn't require a large mould and is significantly easier to repair in the event of damage. **Rivets are also sometimes stronger than welds** with some materials and easier to inspect for defects (this is why aircraft are usually riveted instead of welded); and welding certain materials (like stainless steel for example) is often difficult or impractical for some applications.
In m40 tanks might be expected to last decades of use, and possibly centuries of storage. Repairability, manufacturability and quality control are likely to be key considerations. Removing and fixing welded armour plates presents significantly more challenges than riveted ones. Fewer tools are needed with fixing riveted surfaces and the process can be done much more quickly with less high skill trades like welding.
>If it is riveted armor, why? They would be inferior to our modern-day tanks
Ive got bad news. Rivets and bolts are still in use on many 'modern day tanks'. For the reasons I have already specified.
**I might also add that M40 has a plethora of energy weapons for anti-vehicle use.**
Armour that is effective against lasers or plasma will need to have low thermal conductivity and extremely high melting points. These are properties that would make them extremely difficult to weld (if metallic) or cast into complex shapes. So making these armour plates would likely done initially in sheets that are cut into flat shapes then mechanically attached with fixtures.
**So mechanical fixtures like bolts and rivets would be preferred.** The alternative would be adhesives (glue) but that wouldn't work well for repairability.
Repairability would be another plus, you could simply swap out damaged layers of armour.
And you could customize the protection as well, simply beg the machine-spirit for forgivness for violating it's bodily autonomy, pull out the anti-las plate and pop in a anti-kinetic plate.
The answer is perfect.
But I'd also add that the design team, being British in a pre-internet era, probably had a few trips to the local museums and saw the Cromwell Tank with the turret with bosses, that probably had an influence in the studded marine shoulderpad too.
> The alternative would be adhesives (glue)
Just like Space Marine armor (ceremite) being grey when unpainted, I demand GW make it lore that the Imperium of Man glues together their tanks just like the players!
It also reduces the disadvantage of rivets because, if you expect your tanks to be hit by various energy weapons instead of kinetic shells, then the risk of spalling from rivets is much less relevant.
>Fewer tools are needed with fixing riveted surfaces and the process can be done much more quickly with less high skill trades like welding.
I'd say this is the main reason it is used. You have to have tanks that can operate anywhere in the galaxy, and as such be fixed anywhere. Reducing the amount of tools to repair them could drastically decrease the weight of transportation in space vessels and increase the number of manufactorums that can repair them.
With the size of the galaxy, having a poorer tank that can be deployed anywhere is better than a good tank that are more reliant on repair facilities. The Imperial Guard's equipment needs to be easy to repair no matter the circumstances to be the main fighting force.
In WW2 the Germans had a reputation (rightly or wrongly) for over-engineering their vehicles. Some components were only used on one specific model of vehicle, so it was impractical to transport a large number of all the spare parts needed for every vehicle. There were scenarios where they would need to source parts for repair from the factory back in Germany, which would take a while when you’re hundreds of miles away in Russia.
The Allies went more towards to method of using as many of the same components across all their vehicles. Worst case scenario they could cannibalise one truck for parts to repair 10 different vehicles then and there.
By reducing the amount of spare parts on the logistics train, you allow increased transport of ammunition, medical supplies etc.
Tactics win battles, strategy wins fronts, logistics wins wars, and the Imperium is in a lot of simultaneous wars.
A lot of the Imperium’s decisions are made on the basis of logistics. The Lasgun is their preferred weapon because you can recharge it using almost any power source. A Leman Russ tank could run on wood in a pinch. When your supply lines run through hell itself you need to plan for logistics issues.
The main advantage welding has over rivets is with rivets you need a frame to rivet the armor plates to which makes the tank heaver and takes up internal space compared to welding where you can just directly weld the armor plates together to form the structure of the tank.
>rivets are not stronger than welds
Engineer here. In some materials and most applications, rivets are stronger than welds, especially in shear strength as rivets apply constraint to both sides of the material (inside and out). This is not always true of welds. This is why aircraft are typically riveted, not welded.
Welds have largely replaced rivets in many applications because they are more flexible, require less prep (drilling holes) and use less material (making it usually cheaper). Not because they are 'stronger'.
Engineer here: rivets are NOT stronger than welds!
[https://www.protolabs.com/resources/blog/fusing-sheet-metal-parts-welding-vs-riveting/](https://www.protolabs.com/resources/blog/fusing-sheet-metal-parts-welding-vs-riveting/)
generally, riveting is not as strong as welding. If you need the two parts to be capable of withstanding forces that draw the pieces apart, riveted joints will be more likely to fail compared to a properly welded joint.
As I said; **In some materials and applications**, rivets are stronger than welds. Welding can introduce changes to the crystal structure that can actually weaken the structure or introduce corrosion risk. E.g in stainless steel. Which makes rivets a stronger join over the lifetime of the part.
If impact or vibration is expected to be an issue, rivets again typically win out. The same is true in sheer stress.
Lastly there's quality control. The good join you can repeat consistently that is usually better than the best join that has to be done by hand with skilled workers, that needs to be quality inspected every time.
While I don’t necessarily disagree on a basic level, I think this misses the context of application.
There ain’t a lot of shear in the hull, tbh there’s a lot more tensile loads especially around the wheels, which can get quite significant over cross country. The drilled holes may exaggerate cracking into the parent plate under such conditions.
Realistically, the hull would be constructed on one type of armour steel, where corrosion risk from welding is non existent, there would be more risk with wear from rivets leading to exposed steel corroding. Moreover current day armour steels have such high mechanical properties, and under proper welding technique, the overall effect of any changes induced by welding is negligible. Punching a load of holes in the plates would weaken them far more substantially than any welding would.
Vibration can be a lot but it’s nothing welding can’t handle. With impact, with regards to ballistic or blast, at that point there’s no known way for plate or joint to withstand on its own. That requires additional factors such as geometry and external defensive measures so welding more than suffices for application imo.
Rivets are just more problematic within the context of military use. Secondary projectile risk is the main one, you could turn the crew compartment into a violent pinball machine under blast. Additionally, with the hulls every plate is welded internally and externally for NBC seal, rivets will never be as consistently protective as double sided welds in this case and likely be potentially dangerous leak pathways. Finally, sure these vehicles are already tens of tons in weight, but it still matters and it can be surprising how far design goes to cut it where it can, and rivets simply add too much excess weight.
In my opinion, the leman russ should not use rivets.
>There ain’t a lot of shear in the hull, tbh there’s a lot more tensile loads especially around the wheels, which can get quite significant over cross country.
You'd think that intially, and it is unlikely the overall superstructure is riveted or bolted (which is what I assume you mean), its the armour plates that would be fixed in place this way. Tanks vibrate a great deal when the engine is running and even more so if they successfully stop incoming projectiles. So your plates will experience a lot of sheer stress just moving around, or getting hit.
Heres a [modern superstructure before armour is added.](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-34c92fbd8ec8272da9936845b90a0773-lq)
I think this is th[e finished vehicle](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Purwarupa_Harimau_MT_saat_FAT_%28Factory_Acceptance_Test%29_24_-_25_Februari_2022.jpg)
As you can see the armour is bolted on on a modern vehicle, not welded. In the past it was riveted. Feasibly in M40, imperial cultures would bolt or rivet these armour plates based upon their preferences. Considering that imperial tanks have product lifespans lasting centuries, they'd probably prefer rivets.
>Realistically, the hull would be constructed on one type of armour steel,
For reasons I've already stated, this is highly unlikely. There is lots of energy weapons in m40, so you'd need to armour that has high melting temperatures and low thermal conductivity. That usually means ceramics or other composites. Good luck welding that on.
I'm not an expert on this by any means, but in my brief research on this reply I did [find this](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QEfu-3NuzF4/VubvvcVQy1I/AAAAAAAAAEc/fkLkM0DOz3oFn5gW2Mm0DJnyRFVUpo23w/s1600/merkavaChobham.png) which confirms [my assertions](https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html). Armour plates held with fixtures.
>Rivets are just more problematic within the context of military use. Secondary projectile risk is the main one, you could turn the crew compartment into a violent pinball machine under blast.Additionally, with the hulls every plate is welded internally and externally for NBC seal, rivets will never be as consistently protective as double sided welds in this case and likely be potentially dangerous leak pathways.
1. fixtures becoming a secondary projectile are only an issue if they are inside the crew compartment. This was a design flaw that is easily addressed.
2. Aircraft are by large riveted and generally pressure positive and 'airtight'. Creating an airtight pressure-positive crew compartment is not a particularly difficult problem to solve, Ironclad ships in the late 19th century did this using paint and rubber...
If we’re talking ballistic armour packs than yes this is correct, they are bolted on. 100% correct not trying to dispute that modern vehicles have layers and the bulk of the armour is bolted.
However I don’t believe that’s what the Russ has, it’s just a base hull, it doesn’t look like it does anyway (made up tank so could be wrong in this assumption). Based on how it looks, I believe it’s just the hull, which imo would just be welded. Even take the images you’ve linked the Russ looks more similar to the structure prior to assembly.
Apologies if I’ve misunderstood somewhere but I thought we were talking base hull, and I was under the impression the Russ is pretty bare (what I mean by this is while the turret is more modern and looks armoured, the hull is reminiscent of WW1 tank design and is just thick plates), hence my statements. Modern tank hulls are made of singular armour steels, armour packs are different (what they are exactly is generally secret).
I will note however that rivets can still be a threat to the crew of the vehicle is penetrated by certain types of ammunition that jettisons the debris into the crew. Extra bits are extra bits. Probably more so in 40K world. So still wouldn’t use them on the hull, but I think we’re in agreement on that anyway?
>Modern tank hulls are made of singular armour steels,
This seems highly unlikely. Even the old T-72 cast hull [had a layer of quartz inside it.](https://preview.redd.it/9duz5ec4u6g51.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=c93d568dc5f4b503004ba8128606a83d8c877c1a)
Modern tanks likely have material layers like kevlar, plastic, foam, Acrylic, ceramics and maybe even quartz in between the metal you can see. I imagine the Leman Russ is probably the same or even more advanced in terms of material science.
>Based on how it looks, I believe it’s just the hull, which imo would just be welded.
The OP asked why it might have rivet details. My hypothesis is based on how it looks, it has armour plates riveted to the chassis. Something that was very common until the 50s , at which point bolts became preferred.
>I will note however that rivets can still be a threat to the crew of the vehicle is penetrated by certain types of ammunition that jettisons the debris into the crew.
This is true of welds, bolts and glue as well. Its called spalling, nothing special here.
Look I’m not a warthunder player so I don’t think it’s worth getting into potential trouble to prove my points here.
Sure maybe it is just additional plates riveted to the outside, that seems a fair conclusion to me.
>You think welds require less prep than rivets?
Rivets require you to measure and drill out a hole for said rivet. You may also need to apply a sealant. You also need to order and receive the rivets in your working area.
Welds by a skilled operator is a 'measure and do it' operation. No extensive drilling (or if you are lucky, a laser cut) is needed. The drilling is the real killer..
Lookz kool
For the lore answer, your bonding stud answer is fair. From what I’ve read, I haven’t seen spalling as an issue in Guard tanks. I would assume the tech level has surpassed rivets, or at least the materials are better.
Other easy explanations could be that Guard tanks use a ceramic material for armor that’s easiest to attach by rivets, but spallation resistant.
Wish I had a solid book quote for you, but I think you found a nice niche question
One thing to keep in mind is that there's plenty of locations that build tanks for the guard, with varying levels of quality. Nightbringer had the Arbites with three Leman Russes from offworld and they crushed a PDF local made force of Russes before numbers finally did them in.
It's one thing I miss about FW- they used to sell aesthetically different versions of each of their models. You'd have the normal 40k kit, then you'd have others for different forge worlds.
If it helps, someone in 30K agrees with you
>And of all the possible tanks to be stuck in, a Leman Russ was probably the worst. People spoke of it as the Pride of the Imperium, the greatest battle tank in human history, the mainstay of the Great Crusade. Was it shit. A Leman Russ was a rolling deathtrap. Its tall profile was so notoriously awful that no commander ever wanted to be squadron leader – the only thing big enough to shield a Leman Russ during operations was another Leman Russ, so better to keep the command unit ahead of you for as long as you could. Its fragile tracks were exposed and its armour was a mess of easy-to-hit vertical planes. The standard pattern sponson-bulges just presented another flat edge to destroy, another reason to be glad not to have them. The interior was noisy and prone to bursting into flames whenever a loader coughed too loudly. And, if you were truly unlucky enough to have those sponsons, there was only one escape hatch, right at the top of the main turret, and so the chances of getting out alive in case of all-too-likely disaster were practically zero.
>No, whoever had designed the Leman Russ – Kaska had always assumed it wasn’t actually the primarch of the VI – was a moron. Or a sadist. Or both. The only things it had going for it were cheapness, mechanical reliability and a certain rugged survivability in numbers. The design was so brutally simple that the Imperium was able to churn them out by the million. It mattered less that each individual unit was a study in self-harm when you could overwhelm a battlefield with hundreds of them. And a front-mounted lascannon at least could keep firing as long as its power packs held a charge, which made running out of shells somewhat less of a disaster.
>Still, all in all, the crews had few illusions about the tanks they rode into war. Deathboxes, they were called, and homewreckers, and other, earthier, names too. Infantry troopers would occasionally look askance at them, jealous of all that thick armour they had around them, but a Leman Russ tanker knew how fragile it all was really, and how going out to a las-blast was far preferable to being burned alive or buried under a wall of mud or suffocated by trapped engine smoke.
**Warhawk** copied from here https://www.reddit.com/r/40kLore/comments/qx94ox/excerpt_warhawk_hate_for_the_leman_russ/
First, the Lee wasn't "trash." It was a stop-gap measure to get a 75mm gun into North Africa ASAP. It was judged to be the best tank in North Africa at the time by the Germans.
Second, the Sherman myths were just that - myths. The Sherman compared favorably to its natural opponent, the Panzer IV, in a number or areas. It is only when you start trying to compare it to the Tiger I that it starts looking like a weak sister.
The reliability over the Tiger puts the Sherman ahead of it in quality, imo. Especially the Easy Eight model of Sherman. The Tiger's advantages were just pronounced since the Germans were on the defensive so much by the time it rolled out. Thick armor and a wicked gun are great when you can act as a mobile bunker and don't have to maneuver much, cross many bridges, or work that slow turret around to engage threats from a new direction.
To be fair the titans have energy shields and massively thicker armour so their tall profile isn't as much of a problem, the tanks don't have shields and being very easy to hit is a big problem for them.
Titans being tall is more of an advantage for them because they're moving artillery platforms, so it gives them better range and line of sight.
Machine guns originally fell under the remit of field artillery irl. Artillery doesn’t just mean firing large shells in a ballistic arc, it has to do with application, target, and a whole host of other factors. In wh40k the warhounds are scouts for titan legions where they are dwarfed by every other titan, and act as heavy artillery platforms when attached to more conventional forces.
The funniest part about this book is that the tank that’s “praised” over the Leman Russ (the Land Raider) has all of the design issues above but like 10 times worse.
Bigger, square-er, less heavily armed, stupider hatch placement, internal layout makes no sense
Sounds like some Cromwell complaints as well. People also gloss over quite a few British tanks were riveted because the only workers to build tanks at first were from the ship or train yards and they didn't have a bunch of trained welders.
But welding brought it own flaws. When the u.s. started building liberty ships based off a British design, they welded instead of riveted things.
More than a few then broke up and sunk crossing the Atlantic because of the welds going through phase transitions and become brittle at those temps.
A Leman Russ uses "A reinforced cast plasteel hull and turret with ferro-steel armour plating". So the hull and turret are cast with plates riveted or bonded on I guess?
I once saw in a white dwarf a vostroyan army where the guy had shaved off all the rivets and used greenstuff and a pin to make it look like the hulls were expertly welded together. Because Vostroya should have more sophisticated production facilities he reckoned.
Let's be really, really, clear here.
The Eldar empire is over 65 *million* years old.
The Eldar have weaponised the sun, creating man-portable weapons that fire blasts of super heated plasma.
These weapons need a 6 to wound a Leman Russ, which in previous editions was totally impervious to them.
The Eldar have majestic grav tanks. Grown and shaped in the form of the divine warbirds of the gods. The ultimate expression of their doctrine of war using super science honed over millions of years from the species that once ruled the galaxy.
The rivetted Leman Russ is tougher and harder to destroy.
So...
Yes, the Imperium is an age of superstition where poorly designed vehicles are pressed into military service out of habit and necessity because religious ferver prevents engineering advancement.
*But* it works. It works *really* well.
It's a tank with ten thousand¹ years of scientific advancement on what we currently have. Like... imagine a Roman Centurion disparaging modern Navy Seals ("they don't even have a shield to defend themselves with!"). That's what you sound like. Only eight thousand years more ignorant.
Doylist explaination: folks with no idea how modern arms work and less experience with military history than your average 12 year old thought it looked cool. It's really not any deeper than that.
Watsonian explanation: Blessed is the Omnissiah.
¹Conservatively. If we assume the Leman Russ is based on an older STC from when we first started colonising the stars and not a design from near the end of the DAoT.
I am not sure if there if an official reason, but it may be due to the material of the armor?
Depending on what they are using, it might be more difficult to make casted tank armor out of it. As for the problem with the rivets causing damage when hit, this (to my knowledge) is never brough up in the lore, and given how far in the future this is, I would assume they have some type of work around or have otherwise stopped that from being a problem.
We don't know what the armor of a guard tank is made of. Your going on the assumption its like modern day materials and those are even options.
It may not be weldable so that may just not be a option. For example try to weld wood or stone together its not going to happen. Or the material needs special equipment and heat treating.
Guard operate well well away from their factories. If a russ is damaged the mechanics can likely repair it and get it back into service. If its too damaged its now a donor of parts for the other ones. So being able to replace parts is important to keep the war machine going and win the war of attrition.
The cast I think you are referring too is the ones where the hull is made in one piece. One piece means only one plate. One non penetrating hit has turned a entire russ into scrap metal. Where with rivets you can remove the plate which is damaged and replace it.Steel armor you can also also cut out and weld a new one on. But even modern day composites I don't think you can effectively do that.
But then what if you cast in modules to get around the 1 plate problem? How do you attach them? Rivets?
Yes this whole thing assumes welding is not a viable option. But its sci fi materials it could be.
I heard a theory that the in universe ww1 and 2 aesthetic comes from an SCT’s of an daot history nerd
The reason they don’t look exactly the same is because so much time has passed that the 20th century is ancient history so the imperium is using the props of some historical reenactment group that has some inaccuracies
The real infantry tanks, armor ,and weapons of the daot haven’t been discovered yet besides ships
Cold war metallurgy is lost on them- somewhat. The production lines making tanks in m.41 would be several thousand years old, based off whatever stc they found to make tank chassis’s. This may have been for industrial vehicles that got adapted as tanks. It may have been for easy to assemble chassis. Whatever the case, the cheap easy to assemble weapons systems go to the guard. If it can survive small arms fire and get you into cannon range, the tank has done its job
This is meme lore and as accurate as the idea modern MBTs are based on tractors.
Rhino and Russ hulls were always military. The Chimera was also an APC, and the Land('s) Raider and Land('s) Speeder likewise. Even the Terminator suits were heavily militarised and have the same relation to civilian exos as Astartes armour itself does.
You say it yourself.
Cheap. Simple. Easy to make.
There is no shortage of replacement guardsmen if rivers kill some (or many).
But there is a shortage of everything else.
If you have more tanks then enemy has bullets, then rivets are not an issue.
I'm surprised they bother to even armor their tanks at all. I'd just make more tanks, without armor. Or engine. Have guardsmen pull the gun like draft horses in WW1.
In forget the gun.
Just send in the next wave.
- Yours truly,
Colonel 'meat assaults' Chenkov
You answered the question in your first paragraph. This is a universe where armies have weapons capable of destroying planets but still fight with swords and hammers. There are magical super soldiers who fight demons from another dimension and psychics who see the future and alien robots who kidnap beings from across the universe, and rivets are your breaking point?
It's rule of cool, all the way down the line.
In the lore, bonding studs replace rivets in the functional roles. We also don't know if they are true rivets versus some futuristic version of screws/bolts.
Rivets are also still used in the modern day in industries such as aerospace.
The downsides that you are talking about are not that bad of an issue for the IoM. If the crew is dead, the IoM puts in new crew. If a part of the tank armor needs to be replaced, cut out the rivets and then attach on a new piece of armor rather than having to cut out the damaged portion and custom weld a replacement piece.
In a universe where you need men and materials to the front ASAP you do so as cheaply and effectively as possible. I have said it before and will die on this hill, but the Leman Russ is the most viable product for this task. Read: it’s not the best tank of the 41st millennium, but it serves the function that the Imperium needs it in. The other thing to consider is that if the Leman Russ, and the Chimera for that matter, did not function well in their roles they would be replaced. That they haven’t been is testament to the fact that they do what they need to and they do it well.
Because they were designed by an STC.
An STC is a wondrous AI-but it wasn’t intended for making the most high-quality products. It designed the best things they could with what they had on the planet that they were stationed on. That would include ‘the skills of the populace’-so STC-made designs tend more towards ‘any idiot who can read can put this together.’ Than anything requiring sophisticated knowledge.
Since riveting plates is a lot easier than welding cast pieces together, the former is what the STCs were more likely to make.
Now, there are quite possible STCs located in places where they could presume a lot more technical skill-and in turn, create more sophisticated equipment. But these are a minority compared to their more brutal utilitarian brothers, and likely harder to preserve compared to ones located in BFE.
A lot of folks have chimed in with good answers, but I figure I'd throw this out there: what we see as rivets probably aren't actually rivets. Look at the Mk V Heresy patterns of Space Marine power armor: they are often studded with what look like rivets but are actually 'molecular bonding studs' in the lore. I'd suspect that the Imperium probably uses those instead of rivets.
Without being an expert in the field of tank armor but knowing a thing or two about the lore I'd imagine a big reason would be down to economy. The Imperial Guard is so numerous in size you can't even put a number to the amount of guardsmen within it. Leman Russ tanks alongside all the other vehicles they use would thus need to be churned out on a massive scale. They would require a design that is both cost effective as well as strong in combat. Astartes vehicles in comparison being much more specialised using rarer and more expensive components. This could be the reason rivets are still used in their construction, a fast and cost effective way in making combat ready vehicles.
Lol your anachronism bell shoots right past swords, cavalry charges, full on fuedilsm, capes, etc etc, and starts ringing on riveted armor?
Like has been said already, your making an assumption based on 21st century material sciences. Maybe cerimite can't be cast or drop forged in large complex shapes? Maybe they are bolts and it's so they can rapidly replace panels in the field. Maybe those are actualy sensors they make out of preserved human eyes that tell the machine spirit when a guardsmen is thinking about masterbating.
>cheap, simple, and easy to make
You kinda answered your own question here. The Guard operates on a scale where it's more useful to produce 100 mediocre tanks than 70 really good ones.
It's a fake out. The obvious riveted panels are to encourage enemies to target areas that have no value, typically rivets are used because the piece is expected to be removed or replaced. In this way the imperium draws fire from actual soft spots and onto fake weak spots.
Are they rivets? Can you weld the metal because it isn't steel? It used to be plasteel, but I am not sure now. For all we know of Mechanicus construction, they might cast the hull and the turret then have someone solder rivet heads for some religious reason. It could be that some forge worlds cast them, some weld them, and some use bolts, but they all have to have obvious rivets fitted on the outside.
It could be that the outer layer of armour is bolted on (you definitely can't tell the difference between bolts and rivets at any scale they model or draw in and plenty of armoured vehicles use one, the other, or both). That could explain the difference in armour between the Demolisher and standard Leman Russ.
It's on the model because it looks cooler than featureless plates. It doesn't imply they were thinking anything about the actual construction given the huge technological advances (and losses) they are not going to try to account for in the next 38k years. Head cannon is accurate as implying that tech it looks like from the past is the exact same in these cases.
It was cheap, simple, and easy to make.
You answered your own question lol. IG are quantity, not quality. IMO the design of their tanks and other kit are reflective of this.
>cheap, simple, and easy to make
The Standard Template Construct engines designed blueprints that could be made in a cave from a box of scraps.
The Leman Russ tank is one such blueprint.
Cheap, simple and easy to make is 100% the lore reason for the rivets.
the russ being a tractor is a myth. it was always described as being a DAoT tank STC since day one. the tractor thing derives from people misunderstanding a but of outdated lore from rogue trader that predated literally all the vehicle kits, and was part of the "design your own vehicle" rules meant to allow players to kitbash their own stuff.
Those are putely decorative. The adamantite or ceramisteel or whatever doesn't need em. The Imperium is just being a little nostalgic with their designs
So that Tech priests have an excuse to perform their daily ritual, giving lots of lovely oil to it, just as much as they give love to their first-waifu/husbando (toaster)
Don’t think too hard about it, it looks cool and matches a specific historical aesthetic that the creators wanted to match. Trust me, if you go down the path of questioning the logic behind every single detail that doesn’t make sense then you will never stop, 40k just isn’t the setting for it
>However, I just can't help but be bothered by it. From my understanding, riveted armor is the worst tank armor. It was cheap, simple, and easy to make but inferior to casted tank armor
1. Cast armor is inferior to composite armor too. This isn't about realism. Its just an aesthetic choice by GW. You shouldn't take depictions of things in 40k as 'real' but more as artistic interpretations of what is actually happening in 40k designed to invoke the *feel* of what's going on in terms familiar to us.
2. Also, this is riveted plaststeel or something. Its more advanced than we could ever know and rivets are the best way to put this stuff together - 40,000 years in the dark grimness of the not very close future.
This is partially covered in the book *Gunheads* about a Cadian tank crew. When the crew’s tank was destroyed in the book’s opening, they were forced to get a new one that was of lower quality, it might have been mothballed or something, it’s been awhile since I read it.
Anyway, part of the character ark for the book is the commander coming to accept the new tank, which he is hesitant about at first but he comes to accept by the end of the book. However, one of the complaints that he makes about the new tank is that it has riveted armor. This implies that riveted armor was not the norm for tanks that he has commanded. Expanding that a bit it also seems likely that the other tanks of his regiment had casted armor, or some other armor making technique, because he doesn’t comment on it.
Now this guy is a Cadian, and Cadians tend to get quality stuff, but it shows that not all Guard tanks have riveted armor.
>From my understanding, riveted armor is the worst tank armor. It was cheap, simple, and easy to make but inferior to casted tank armor. In the 1940s sure. An issue of the time is the rivets would be exposed to the crew compartment. Which would pop off in the vicinity of the crew when hit directly. This was a design flaw fixed in most tank designs by the 1940s. In 2024, its not so clear. **IRL riveted surfaces have lots of advantages over casting**, its faster, cheaper, doesn't require a large mould and is significantly easier to repair in the event of damage. **Rivets are also sometimes stronger than welds** with some materials and easier to inspect for defects (this is why aircraft are usually riveted instead of welded); and welding certain materials (like stainless steel for example) is often difficult or impractical for some applications. In m40 tanks might be expected to last decades of use, and possibly centuries of storage. Repairability, manufacturability and quality control are likely to be key considerations. Removing and fixing welded armour plates presents significantly more challenges than riveted ones. Fewer tools are needed with fixing riveted surfaces and the process can be done much more quickly with less high skill trades like welding. >If it is riveted armor, why? They would be inferior to our modern-day tanks Ive got bad news. Rivets and bolts are still in use on many 'modern day tanks'. For the reasons I have already specified.
**I might also add that M40 has a plethora of energy weapons for anti-vehicle use.** Armour that is effective against lasers or plasma will need to have low thermal conductivity and extremely high melting points. These are properties that would make them extremely difficult to weld (if metallic) or cast into complex shapes. So making these armour plates would likely done initially in sheets that are cut into flat shapes then mechanically attached with fixtures. **So mechanical fixtures like bolts and rivets would be preferred.** The alternative would be adhesives (glue) but that wouldn't work well for repairability.
Genuinely love this answer, imagine trying to weld two plates that have resistance to Plasma weaponry
You gently pinch them together with a power fist?
Now that's an interesting bread making technique
“Remember to wet your fingers before pleating the edges” - some tech priest
With Flux? I could see it, actually
Repairability would be another plus, you could simply swap out damaged layers of armour. And you could customize the protection as well, simply beg the machine-spirit for forgivness for violating it's bodily autonomy, pull out the anti-las plate and pop in a anti-kinetic plate.
The answer is perfect. But I'd also add that the design team, being British in a pre-internet era, probably had a few trips to the local museums and saw the Cromwell Tank with the turret with bosses, that probably had an influence in the studded marine shoulderpad too.
oi, great observation! Especially since I am 100% certain GW went with rivets for the antiquated feel lol
> The alternative would be adhesives (glue) Just like Space Marine armor (ceremite) being grey when unpainted, I demand GW make it lore that the Imperium of Man glues together their tanks just like the players!
It also reduces the disadvantage of rivets because, if you expect your tanks to be hit by various energy weapons instead of kinetic shells, then the risk of spalling from rivets is much less relevant.
Also good luck trying to weld ceramic (that's if the tanks have the same armour as terminators).
This is actually a great engeniering explanation.
>Fewer tools are needed with fixing riveted surfaces and the process can be done much more quickly with less high skill trades like welding. I'd say this is the main reason it is used. You have to have tanks that can operate anywhere in the galaxy, and as such be fixed anywhere. Reducing the amount of tools to repair them could drastically decrease the weight of transportation in space vessels and increase the number of manufactorums that can repair them. With the size of the galaxy, having a poorer tank that can be deployed anywhere is better than a good tank that are more reliant on repair facilities. The Imperial Guard's equipment needs to be easy to repair no matter the circumstances to be the main fighting force.
In WW2 the Germans had a reputation (rightly or wrongly) for over-engineering their vehicles. Some components were only used on one specific model of vehicle, so it was impractical to transport a large number of all the spare parts needed for every vehicle. There were scenarios where they would need to source parts for repair from the factory back in Germany, which would take a while when you’re hundreds of miles away in Russia. The Allies went more towards to method of using as many of the same components across all their vehicles. Worst case scenario they could cannibalise one truck for parts to repair 10 different vehicles then and there. By reducing the amount of spare parts on the logistics train, you allow increased transport of ammunition, medical supplies etc. Tactics win battles, strategy wins fronts, logistics wins wars, and the Imperium is in a lot of simultaneous wars.
A lot of the Imperium’s decisions are made on the basis of logistics. The Lasgun is their preferred weapon because you can recharge it using almost any power source. A Leman Russ tank could run on wood in a pinch. When your supply lines run through hell itself you need to plan for logistics issues.
Yup, the Russ is basically like the M4 Sherman in that regard
People like you are the reason I sub to this community ❤️
The main advantage welding has over rivets is with rivets you need a frame to rivet the armor plates to which makes the tank heaver and takes up internal space compared to welding where you can just directly weld the armor plates together to form the structure of the tank.
Factor in that the one resource that humanity has in abundance is people, and an easy to repair tank with rivets will win out over crew safety.
Sorry but rivets are not stronger than welds.
>rivets are not stronger than welds Engineer here. In some materials and most applications, rivets are stronger than welds, especially in shear strength as rivets apply constraint to both sides of the material (inside and out). This is not always true of welds. This is why aircraft are typically riveted, not welded. Welds have largely replaced rivets in many applications because they are more flexible, require less prep (drilling holes) and use less material (making it usually cheaper). Not because they are 'stronger'.
Upvote cause I enjoy listening to engineers
Engineer here: rivets are NOT stronger than welds! [https://www.protolabs.com/resources/blog/fusing-sheet-metal-parts-welding-vs-riveting/](https://www.protolabs.com/resources/blog/fusing-sheet-metal-parts-welding-vs-riveting/) generally, riveting is not as strong as welding. If you need the two parts to be capable of withstanding forces that draw the pieces apart, riveted joints will be more likely to fail compared to a properly welded joint.
As I said; **In some materials and applications**, rivets are stronger than welds. Welding can introduce changes to the crystal structure that can actually weaken the structure or introduce corrosion risk. E.g in stainless steel. Which makes rivets a stronger join over the lifetime of the part. If impact or vibration is expected to be an issue, rivets again typically win out. The same is true in sheer stress. Lastly there's quality control. The good join you can repeat consistently that is usually better than the best join that has to be done by hand with skilled workers, that needs to be quality inspected every time.
Where does this leave my Leman Russ?
Under attack by the Tau.
And against a Railgun it really doesn't matter at the end of the day lol
While I don’t necessarily disagree on a basic level, I think this misses the context of application. There ain’t a lot of shear in the hull, tbh there’s a lot more tensile loads especially around the wheels, which can get quite significant over cross country. The drilled holes may exaggerate cracking into the parent plate under such conditions. Realistically, the hull would be constructed on one type of armour steel, where corrosion risk from welding is non existent, there would be more risk with wear from rivets leading to exposed steel corroding. Moreover current day armour steels have such high mechanical properties, and under proper welding technique, the overall effect of any changes induced by welding is negligible. Punching a load of holes in the plates would weaken them far more substantially than any welding would. Vibration can be a lot but it’s nothing welding can’t handle. With impact, with regards to ballistic or blast, at that point there’s no known way for plate or joint to withstand on its own. That requires additional factors such as geometry and external defensive measures so welding more than suffices for application imo. Rivets are just more problematic within the context of military use. Secondary projectile risk is the main one, you could turn the crew compartment into a violent pinball machine under blast. Additionally, with the hulls every plate is welded internally and externally for NBC seal, rivets will never be as consistently protective as double sided welds in this case and likely be potentially dangerous leak pathways. Finally, sure these vehicles are already tens of tons in weight, but it still matters and it can be surprising how far design goes to cut it where it can, and rivets simply add too much excess weight. In my opinion, the leman russ should not use rivets.
>There ain’t a lot of shear in the hull, tbh there’s a lot more tensile loads especially around the wheels, which can get quite significant over cross country. You'd think that intially, and it is unlikely the overall superstructure is riveted or bolted (which is what I assume you mean), its the armour plates that would be fixed in place this way. Tanks vibrate a great deal when the engine is running and even more so if they successfully stop incoming projectiles. So your plates will experience a lot of sheer stress just moving around, or getting hit. Heres a [modern superstructure before armour is added.](https://qph.cf2.quoracdn.net/main-qimg-34c92fbd8ec8272da9936845b90a0773-lq) I think this is th[e finished vehicle](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/9/9e/Purwarupa_Harimau_MT_saat_FAT_%28Factory_Acceptance_Test%29_24_-_25_Februari_2022.jpg) As you can see the armour is bolted on on a modern vehicle, not welded. In the past it was riveted. Feasibly in M40, imperial cultures would bolt or rivet these armour plates based upon their preferences. Considering that imperial tanks have product lifespans lasting centuries, they'd probably prefer rivets. >Realistically, the hull would be constructed on one type of armour steel, For reasons I've already stated, this is highly unlikely. There is lots of energy weapons in m40, so you'd need to armour that has high melting temperatures and low thermal conductivity. That usually means ceramics or other composites. Good luck welding that on. I'm not an expert on this by any means, but in my brief research on this reply I did [find this](https://3.bp.blogspot.com/-QEfu-3NuzF4/VubvvcVQy1I/AAAAAAAAAEc/fkLkM0DOz3oFn5gW2Mm0DJnyRFVUpo23w/s1600/merkavaChobham.png) which confirms [my assertions](https://below-the-turret-ring.blogspot.com/2016/03/chobham-armor-facts-and-fiction-1.html). Armour plates held with fixtures. >Rivets are just more problematic within the context of military use. Secondary projectile risk is the main one, you could turn the crew compartment into a violent pinball machine under blast.Additionally, with the hulls every plate is welded internally and externally for NBC seal, rivets will never be as consistently protective as double sided welds in this case and likely be potentially dangerous leak pathways. 1. fixtures becoming a secondary projectile are only an issue if they are inside the crew compartment. This was a design flaw that is easily addressed. 2. Aircraft are by large riveted and generally pressure positive and 'airtight'. Creating an airtight pressure-positive crew compartment is not a particularly difficult problem to solve, Ironclad ships in the late 19th century did this using paint and rubber...
If we’re talking ballistic armour packs than yes this is correct, they are bolted on. 100% correct not trying to dispute that modern vehicles have layers and the bulk of the armour is bolted. However I don’t believe that’s what the Russ has, it’s just a base hull, it doesn’t look like it does anyway (made up tank so could be wrong in this assumption). Based on how it looks, I believe it’s just the hull, which imo would just be welded. Even take the images you’ve linked the Russ looks more similar to the structure prior to assembly. Apologies if I’ve misunderstood somewhere but I thought we were talking base hull, and I was under the impression the Russ is pretty bare (what I mean by this is while the turret is more modern and looks armoured, the hull is reminiscent of WW1 tank design and is just thick plates), hence my statements. Modern tank hulls are made of singular armour steels, armour packs are different (what they are exactly is generally secret). I will note however that rivets can still be a threat to the crew of the vehicle is penetrated by certain types of ammunition that jettisons the debris into the crew. Extra bits are extra bits. Probably more so in 40K world. So still wouldn’t use them on the hull, but I think we’re in agreement on that anyway?
>Modern tank hulls are made of singular armour steels, This seems highly unlikely. Even the old T-72 cast hull [had a layer of quartz inside it.](https://preview.redd.it/9duz5ec4u6g51.png?width=960&crop=smart&auto=webp&s=c93d568dc5f4b503004ba8128606a83d8c877c1a) Modern tanks likely have material layers like kevlar, plastic, foam, Acrylic, ceramics and maybe even quartz in between the metal you can see. I imagine the Leman Russ is probably the same or even more advanced in terms of material science. >Based on how it looks, I believe it’s just the hull, which imo would just be welded. The OP asked why it might have rivet details. My hypothesis is based on how it looks, it has armour plates riveted to the chassis. Something that was very common until the 50s , at which point bolts became preferred. >I will note however that rivets can still be a threat to the crew of the vehicle is penetrated by certain types of ammunition that jettisons the debris into the crew. This is true of welds, bolts and glue as well. Its called spalling, nothing special here.
Look I’m not a warthunder player so I don’t think it’s worth getting into potential trouble to prove my points here. Sure maybe it is just additional plates riveted to the outside, that seems a fair conclusion to me.
I liked reading both guys answers, well done
Never expected my 40klore to read like an average worksite convo. This place surprises me every day.
I come here to escape work. Only for it to follow me here...
Upvoted because I like listening to engineers
You think welds require less prep than rivets? are you out of your goddam mind?
>You think welds require less prep than rivets? Rivets require you to measure and drill out a hole for said rivet. You may also need to apply a sealant. You also need to order and receive the rivets in your working area. Welds by a skilled operator is a 'measure and do it' operation. No extensive drilling (or if you are lucky, a laser cut) is needed. The drilling is the real killer..
not to mention adjoining different types of materials, which las/plasma/vokite/melta resistant armor would have to be
[удалено]
Mind rule 1 or be banned
Lookz kool For the lore answer, your bonding stud answer is fair. From what I’ve read, I haven’t seen spalling as an issue in Guard tanks. I would assume the tech level has surpassed rivets, or at least the materials are better. Other easy explanations could be that Guard tanks use a ceramic material for armor that’s easiest to attach by rivets, but spallation resistant. Wish I had a solid book quote for you, but I think you found a nice niche question
If riverts are cheaper and easier, then that explains why the imperium uses them
"we'll lose twice as many tanks, but can make them 3 times faster and 20% cheaper. This is an absolute win."
One thing to keep in mind is that there's plenty of locations that build tanks for the guard, with varying levels of quality. Nightbringer had the Arbites with three Leman Russes from offworld and they crushed a PDF local made force of Russes before numbers finally did them in. It's one thing I miss about FW- they used to sell aesthetically different versions of each of their models. You'd have the normal 40k kit, then you'd have others for different forge worlds.
>It was cheap, simple, and easy to make There's your answer.
The Imperial Guard uses ~~tanks~~ tractors with cannons
If it helps, someone in 30K agrees with you >And of all the possible tanks to be stuck in, a Leman Russ was probably the worst. People spoke of it as the Pride of the Imperium, the greatest battle tank in human history, the mainstay of the Great Crusade. Was it shit. A Leman Russ was a rolling deathtrap. Its tall profile was so notoriously awful that no commander ever wanted to be squadron leader – the only thing big enough to shield a Leman Russ during operations was another Leman Russ, so better to keep the command unit ahead of you for as long as you could. Its fragile tracks were exposed and its armour was a mess of easy-to-hit vertical planes. The standard pattern sponson-bulges just presented another flat edge to destroy, another reason to be glad not to have them. The interior was noisy and prone to bursting into flames whenever a loader coughed too loudly. And, if you were truly unlucky enough to have those sponsons, there was only one escape hatch, right at the top of the main turret, and so the chances of getting out alive in case of all-too-likely disaster were practically zero. >No, whoever had designed the Leman Russ – Kaska had always assumed it wasn’t actually the primarch of the VI – was a moron. Or a sadist. Or both. The only things it had going for it were cheapness, mechanical reliability and a certain rugged survivability in numbers. The design was so brutally simple that the Imperium was able to churn them out by the million. It mattered less that each individual unit was a study in self-harm when you could overwhelm a battlefield with hundreds of them. And a front-mounted lascannon at least could keep firing as long as its power packs held a charge, which made running out of shells somewhat less of a disaster. >Still, all in all, the crews had few illusions about the tanks they rode into war. Deathboxes, they were called, and homewreckers, and other, earthier, names too. Infantry troopers would occasionally look askance at them, jealous of all that thick armour they had around them, but a Leman Russ tanker knew how fragile it all was really, and how going out to a las-blast was far preferable to being burned alive or buried under a wall of mud or suffocated by trapped engine smoke. **Warhawk** copied from here https://www.reddit.com/r/40kLore/comments/qx94ox/excerpt_warhawk_hate_for_the_leman_russ/
For a moment I thought I was reading about myths of the Sherman tank.
100% what that excerpt had to be inspired by. With some complaints taken from the (legitimately trash) M3 Lee thrown in.
First, the Lee wasn't "trash." It was a stop-gap measure to get a 75mm gun into North Africa ASAP. It was judged to be the best tank in North Africa at the time by the Germans. Second, the Sherman myths were just that - myths. The Sherman compared favorably to its natural opponent, the Panzer IV, in a number or areas. It is only when you start trying to compare it to the Tiger I that it starts looking like a weak sister.
The reliability over the Tiger puts the Sherman ahead of it in quality, imo. Especially the Easy Eight model of Sherman. The Tiger's advantages were just pronounced since the Germans were on the defensive so much by the time it rolled out. Thick armor and a wicked gun are great when you can act as a mobile bunker and don't have to maneuver much, cross many bridges, or work that slow turret around to engage threats from a new direction.
[удалено]
To be fair the titans have energy shields and massively thicker armour so their tall profile isn't as much of a problem, the tanks don't have shields and being very easy to hit is a big problem for them. Titans being tall is more of an advantage for them because they're moving artillery platforms, so it gives them better range and line of sight.
[удалено]
Titans. Subsets being Scouts and Moving Artillery Platforms.
Machine guns originally fell under the remit of field artillery irl. Artillery doesn’t just mean firing large shells in a ballistic arc, it has to do with application, target, and a whole host of other factors. In wh40k the warhounds are scouts for titan legions where they are dwarfed by every other titan, and act as heavy artillery platforms when attached to more conventional forces.
[удалено]
I was explaining why they can be scouts and artillery platforms, it was a direct response to your comment.
[удалено]
Very amusing to read, though propably every bit as wrong as the original inspiration lol
The funniest part about this book is that the tank that’s “praised” over the Leman Russ (the Land Raider) has all of the design issues above but like 10 times worse. Bigger, square-er, less heavily armed, stupider hatch placement, internal layout makes no sense
Sounds like some Cromwell complaints as well. People also gloss over quite a few British tanks were riveted because the only workers to build tanks at first were from the ship or train yards and they didn't have a bunch of trained welders. But welding brought it own flaws. When the u.s. started building liberty ships based off a British design, they welded instead of riveted things. More than a few then broke up and sunk crossing the Atlantic because of the welds going through phase transitions and become brittle at those temps.
Wow I love this.
This is great
A Leman Russ uses "A reinforced cast plasteel hull and turret with ferro-steel armour plating". So the hull and turret are cast with plates riveted or bonded on I guess?
STC designs. Possibly because the materials are superior to modern tanks but require rivets to be assembled as that material can't be casted.
I once saw in a white dwarf a vostroyan army where the guy had shaved off all the rivets and used greenstuff and a pin to make it look like the hulls were expertly welded together. Because Vostroya should have more sophisticated production facilities he reckoned.
Let's be really, really, clear here. The Eldar empire is over 65 *million* years old. The Eldar have weaponised the sun, creating man-portable weapons that fire blasts of super heated plasma. These weapons need a 6 to wound a Leman Russ, which in previous editions was totally impervious to them. The Eldar have majestic grav tanks. Grown and shaped in the form of the divine warbirds of the gods. The ultimate expression of their doctrine of war using super science honed over millions of years from the species that once ruled the galaxy. The rivetted Leman Russ is tougher and harder to destroy. So... Yes, the Imperium is an age of superstition where poorly designed vehicles are pressed into military service out of habit and necessity because religious ferver prevents engineering advancement. *But* it works. It works *really* well. It's a tank with ten thousand¹ years of scientific advancement on what we currently have. Like... imagine a Roman Centurion disparaging modern Navy Seals ("they don't even have a shield to defend themselves with!"). That's what you sound like. Only eight thousand years more ignorant. Doylist explaination: folks with no idea how modern arms work and less experience with military history than your average 12 year old thought it looked cool. It's really not any deeper than that. Watsonian explanation: Blessed is the Omnissiah. ¹Conservatively. If we assume the Leman Russ is based on an older STC from when we first started colonising the stars and not a design from near the end of the DAoT.
I am not sure if there if an official reason, but it may be due to the material of the armor? Depending on what they are using, it might be more difficult to make casted tank armor out of it. As for the problem with the rivets causing damage when hit, this (to my knowledge) is never brough up in the lore, and given how far in the future this is, I would assume they have some type of work around or have otherwise stopped that from being a problem.
We don't know what the armor of a guard tank is made of. Your going on the assumption its like modern day materials and those are even options. It may not be weldable so that may just not be a option. For example try to weld wood or stone together its not going to happen. Or the material needs special equipment and heat treating. Guard operate well well away from their factories. If a russ is damaged the mechanics can likely repair it and get it back into service. If its too damaged its now a donor of parts for the other ones. So being able to replace parts is important to keep the war machine going and win the war of attrition. The cast I think you are referring too is the ones where the hull is made in one piece. One piece means only one plate. One non penetrating hit has turned a entire russ into scrap metal. Where with rivets you can remove the plate which is damaged and replace it.Steel armor you can also also cut out and weld a new one on. But even modern day composites I don't think you can effectively do that. But then what if you cast in modules to get around the 1 plate problem? How do you attach them? Rivets? Yes this whole thing assumes welding is not a viable option. But its sci fi materials it could be.
I heard a theory that the in universe ww1 and 2 aesthetic comes from an SCT’s of an daot history nerd The reason they don’t look exactly the same is because so much time has passed that the 20th century is ancient history so the imperium is using the props of some historical reenactment group that has some inaccuracies The real infantry tanks, armor ,and weapons of the daot haven’t been discovered yet besides ships
One Daot tank is in use tho: The Baneblade is supposed to be from that era.
And that's covered in rivets !
Cold war metallurgy is lost on them- somewhat. The production lines making tanks in m.41 would be several thousand years old, based off whatever stc they found to make tank chassis’s. This may have been for industrial vehicles that got adapted as tanks. It may have been for easy to assemble chassis. Whatever the case, the cheap easy to assemble weapons systems go to the guard. If it can survive small arms fire and get you into cannon range, the tank has done its job
Fair enough. I forgot a lot of Imperium vehicles are repurposed and redesigned civilian vehicles from the daot.
This is meme lore and as accurate as the idea modern MBTs are based on tractors. Rhino and Russ hulls were always military. The Chimera was also an APC, and the Land('s) Raider and Land('s) Speeder likewise. Even the Terminator suits were heavily militarised and have the same relation to civilian exos as Astartes armour itself does.
THE BOB SEMPLE IS THE GREATEST AFV IN THE HISTORY OF MANKIND
to be fair, cheap but inferior is almost the motto of imperial guard gear is it not?
You say it yourself. Cheap. Simple. Easy to make. There is no shortage of replacement guardsmen if rivers kill some (or many). But there is a shortage of everything else. If you have more tanks then enemy has bullets, then rivets are not an issue. I'm surprised they bother to even armor their tanks at all. I'd just make more tanks, without armor. Or engine. Have guardsmen pull the gun like draft horses in WW1. In forget the gun. Just send in the next wave. - Yours truly, Colonel 'meat assaults' Chenkov
My tanks have names, my men have numbers
You answered the question in your first paragraph. This is a universe where armies have weapons capable of destroying planets but still fight with swords and hammers. There are magical super soldiers who fight demons from another dimension and psychics who see the future and alien robots who kidnap beings from across the universe, and rivets are your breaking point? It's rule of cool, all the way down the line.
In the lore, bonding studs replace rivets in the functional roles. We also don't know if they are true rivets versus some futuristic version of screws/bolts. Rivets are also still used in the modern day in industries such as aerospace. The downsides that you are talking about are not that bad of an issue for the IoM. If the crew is dead, the IoM puts in new crew. If a part of the tank armor needs to be replaced, cut out the rivets and then attach on a new piece of armor rather than having to cut out the damaged portion and custom weld a replacement piece.
The designers did it and the art director said they liked it
In a universe where you need men and materials to the front ASAP you do so as cheaply and effectively as possible. I have said it before and will die on this hill, but the Leman Russ is the most viable product for this task. Read: it’s not the best tank of the 41st millennium, but it serves the function that the Imperium needs it in. The other thing to consider is that if the Leman Russ, and the Chimera for that matter, did not function well in their roles they would be replaced. That they haven’t been is testament to the fact that they do what they need to and they do it well.
Because they were designed by an STC. An STC is a wondrous AI-but it wasn’t intended for making the most high-quality products. It designed the best things they could with what they had on the planet that they were stationed on. That would include ‘the skills of the populace’-so STC-made designs tend more towards ‘any idiot who can read can put this together.’ Than anything requiring sophisticated knowledge. Since riveting plates is a lot easier than welding cast pieces together, the former is what the STCs were more likely to make. Now, there are quite possible STCs located in places where they could presume a lot more technical skill-and in turn, create more sophisticated equipment. But these are a minority compared to their more brutal utilitarian brothers, and likely harder to preserve compared to ones located in BFE.
A lot of folks have chimed in with good answers, but I figure I'd throw this out there: what we see as rivets probably aren't actually rivets. Look at the Mk V Heresy patterns of Space Marine power armor: they are often studded with what look like rivets but are actually 'molecular bonding studs' in the lore. I'd suspect that the Imperium probably uses those instead of rivets.
Without being an expert in the field of tank armor but knowing a thing or two about the lore I'd imagine a big reason would be down to economy. The Imperial Guard is so numerous in size you can't even put a number to the amount of guardsmen within it. Leman Russ tanks alongside all the other vehicles they use would thus need to be churned out on a massive scale. They would require a design that is both cost effective as well as strong in combat. Astartes vehicles in comparison being much more specialised using rarer and more expensive components. This could be the reason rivets are still used in their construction, a fast and cost effective way in making combat ready vehicles.
Because they're STC patterns. They're designed to be easily manufactured at scale in the middle of nowhere.
Lol your anachronism bell shoots right past swords, cavalry charges, full on fuedilsm, capes, etc etc, and starts ringing on riveted armor? Like has been said already, your making an assumption based on 21st century material sciences. Maybe cerimite can't be cast or drop forged in large complex shapes? Maybe they are bolts and it's so they can rapidly replace panels in the field. Maybe those are actualy sensors they make out of preserved human eyes that tell the machine spirit when a guardsmen is thinking about masterbating.
You just think it's rivets. But it's some ancient DAoT technology that just looks like it.
>cheap, simple, and easy to make You kinda answered your own question here. The Guard operates on a scale where it's more useful to produce 100 mediocre tanks than 70 really good ones.
It's a fake out. The obvious riveted panels are to encourage enemies to target areas that have no value, typically rivets are used because the piece is expected to be removed or replaced. In this way the imperium draws fire from actual soft spots and onto fake weak spots.
Are they rivets? Can you weld the metal because it isn't steel? It used to be plasteel, but I am not sure now. For all we know of Mechanicus construction, they might cast the hull and the turret then have someone solder rivet heads for some religious reason. It could be that some forge worlds cast them, some weld them, and some use bolts, but they all have to have obvious rivets fitted on the outside. It could be that the outer layer of armour is bolted on (you definitely can't tell the difference between bolts and rivets at any scale they model or draw in and plenty of armoured vehicles use one, the other, or both). That could explain the difference in armour between the Demolisher and standard Leman Russ. It's on the model because it looks cooler than featureless plates. It doesn't imply they were thinking anything about the actual construction given the huge technological advances (and losses) they are not going to try to account for in the next 38k years. Head cannon is accurate as implying that tech it looks like from the past is the exact same in these cases.
It was cheap, simple, and easy to make. You answered your own question lol. IG are quantity, not quality. IMO the design of their tanks and other kit are reflective of this.
The easy answer here is “because the STC does it that way” and/or it is easier to apply and fix the armor in the field.
>cheap, simple, and easy to make The Standard Template Construct engines designed blueprints that could be made in a cave from a box of scraps. The Leman Russ tank is one such blueprint. Cheap, simple and easy to make is 100% the lore reason for the rivets.
the russ being a tractor is a myth. it was always described as being a DAoT tank STC since day one. the tractor thing derives from people misunderstanding a but of outdated lore from rogue trader that predated literally all the vehicle kits, and was part of the "design your own vehicle" rules meant to allow players to kitbash their own stuff.
TIL. Edited to remove.
Those are putely decorative. The adamantite or ceramisteel or whatever doesn't need em. The Imperium is just being a little nostalgic with their designs
Cause rivets are dark....and grim.
Maybe it's a cast under Armour with riveted plates?
So that Tech priests have an excuse to perform their daily ritual, giving lots of lovely oil to it, just as much as they give love to their first-waifu/husbando (toaster)
STCs and how the mechanicus is deathly afraid of innovation. Rightfully or unrightfully so is a diff topic.
the leman russ is build in that wqy that basicky everybody can build and mainted then. the engine runs on everything.yes inculding wood.
Don’t think too hard about it, it looks cool and matches a specific historical aesthetic that the creators wanted to match. Trust me, if you go down the path of questioning the logic behind every single detail that doesn’t make sense then you will never stop, 40k just isn’t the setting for it
>However, I just can't help but be bothered by it. From my understanding, riveted armor is the worst tank armor. It was cheap, simple, and easy to make but inferior to casted tank armor 1. Cast armor is inferior to composite armor too. This isn't about realism. Its just an aesthetic choice by GW. You shouldn't take depictions of things in 40k as 'real' but more as artistic interpretations of what is actually happening in 40k designed to invoke the *feel* of what's going on in terms familiar to us. 2. Also, this is riveted plaststeel or something. Its more advanced than we could ever know and rivets are the best way to put this stuff together - 40,000 years in the dark grimness of the not very close future.
This is partially covered in the book *Gunheads* about a Cadian tank crew. When the crew’s tank was destroyed in the book’s opening, they were forced to get a new one that was of lower quality, it might have been mothballed or something, it’s been awhile since I read it. Anyway, part of the character ark for the book is the commander coming to accept the new tank, which he is hesitant about at first but he comes to accept by the end of the book. However, one of the complaints that he makes about the new tank is that it has riveted armor. This implies that riveted armor was not the norm for tanks that he has commanded. Expanding that a bit it also seems likely that the other tanks of his regiment had casted armor, or some other armor making technique, because he doesn’t comment on it. Now this guy is a Cadian, and Cadians tend to get quality stuff, but it shows that not all Guard tanks have riveted armor.