MBT of the HH

[Ion]

By the definition of a heavy tank with the gun of a superheavy, Sicaran Venator perhaps would come close?

[b1soul]

What would be the enemy's mainline battle vehicles?

[Bloody Legionnaire]

If you forget all modern preconceptions of what a main battle tank's layout or features should be, and go on operational role and usage, then the Land Raider is definitely the MBT.

 

It has the speed to maneuver, and the armour and weaponry to go toe-to-toe with the enemy's mainline battle vehicles, and is expected to do just that. It can be/is expected to detach as an armoured spearhead to fight enemy armour/strongpoints, maybe as part of a separate mechanized push after dropping its troops. It is produced in large numbers, and can form as the heart or tip of any assault. It fulfills all the modern traits of an MBT.

 

The fact that it carries troops is simply reflective of the central nature of the Adeptus Astartes in the way war is fought in the 31st-41st millennium. Just because it transports troops doesn't mean it isn't fulfilling the role of an MBT.

 

The Predator is more used as a light gun system (Stryker MGS) or tank destroyer. Hunter-killer/reactive mobile detachments to raid, exploit and outflank.

The LR does not fulfill the any traits of modern MBT.. Are you guys really trying to sell the LR as a tank used specifically as an anti-armor vehicle that doubles as a troop transport... or is it a troop transport that has heavy weaponry? I'm sorry I don't think the LR has any business in the discussion. The LR in universe is not a tank that would seek out enemy armor as its main role nor would any player use the LR for that sole purpose.

[Legionnaire of the VIIth]

What would be the enemy's mainline battle vehicles?

For Auxilia (Solar and Imperialis/Cults) I would say the Leman Russ would fit that bill.

 

As for the topic at hand, I think the Sicaran Venator is the only Tank that the Legions currently has that can fit the bill for MBT.

[DuskRaider]

I would say the Predator is the Legions' Main Battle Tank. It can fulfill a variety of roles on the battlefield, from anti-infantry to dedicated anti-tank, and do it in a plethora of different configurations. Seriously, who said the Predator can't fulfill anti-tank and why haven't they actually played the game?

[Demonl]

It IS the Land Raider, straight from Forge World.

 

Legion Land Raider  Battle Squadron entry. It is the finest armoured fighting vehicle and the mainstay battle tank of the Space Marine Legions.

 

To expand.

 

From now. The Russian Armata Universal platform contains variant for the main battle tank (T-14) and the IFV (T-15). In 30K Lascannons pack the equivalent punch against armour that a 130mm cannon does on a main battle tank, but takes up far less space. So the Land Raider is able to combine both these functions, main battle tank and IFV. The Predator doesn't have the armour required and is considered by Forge World as a medium tank. 

 

Also note that Space Marines are just that, Space Marines. Deployed from space, able and necessary to fight in all environments. The Land Raider assists with this and as such is the default ubiquitous tank. 

 

Also note that the Malcador was the original Main Battle Tank for the Space Marine legions before being replaced by the Land Raider (Taken from the Legion Malcador Tank entry).

The Sicaran is deemed to be a high speed 'destroyer' tank, and was developed after the Land Raider and Predator to complement it. It doesn't have the same armour, nor the commonality that the Land Raider has. It may have aspects that fit the modern day MBT description, but so does the Land Raider. The added benefit of troop capacity for Legions who were expected to fight in the most inhospitable environments and earlier adoption see the Land Raider used as the main battle tank.

[Demonl]

 

If you forget all modern preconceptions of what a main battle tank's layout or features should be, and go on operational role and usage, then the Land Raider is definitely the MBT.

 

It has the speed to maneuver, and the armour and weaponry to go toe-to-toe with the enemy's mainline battle vehicles, and is expected to do just that. It can be/is expected to detach as an armoured spearhead to fight enemy armour/strongpoints, maybe as part of a separate mechanized push after dropping its troops. It is produced in large numbers, and can form as the heart or tip of any assault. It fulfills all the modern traits of an MBT.

 

The fact that it carries troops is simply reflective of the central nature of the Adeptus Astartes in the way war is fought in the 31st-41st millennium. Just because it transports troops doesn't mean it isn't fulfilling the role of an MBT.

 

The Predator is more used as a light gun system (Stryker MGS) or tank destroyer. Hunter-killer/reactive mobile detachments to raid, exploit and outflank.

The LR does not fulfill the any traits of modern MBT.. Are you guys really trying to sell the LR as a tank used specifically as an anti-armor vehicle that doubles as a troop transport... or is it a troop transport that has heavy weaponry? I'm sorry I don't think the LR has any business in the discussion. The LR in universe is not a tank that would seek out enemy armor as its main role nor would any player use the LR for that sole purpose.

 

 

Well the MBT concept evolved from the universal tank which combined aspects of the heavy/infantry tanks, superheavy and cruiser/calvary tanks of the interwar and WW2 period. MBTs are always use with infantry in support, generally carried in IFV. This formed because technology reached a point where man held/carried weapons are able to penetrate and destroy MBT armour. The infantry/IFV are required to protect the MBT against other infantry. To see this you just need to look at conflicts in Syria, Chechnya, Donbas, Yugoslavia and how main battle tanks operate.

 

Contemporary Russian development of the Armata platform has the T-14 MBT and the T-15 IFV, both designed to share the same platform/chassis and to operate together, and expected to be joined by a Terminator variant (more missiles, autocannons, anti ATM countermeasures) for even more specialised urban/close quarter combat. 

 

30K weaponary allowed them to combine the IFV and the MBT not only into one platform/chassis design but into one model/variant of that chassis (although variants are still possible). i.e no need to procure the IFV and MBT separately, not need to transport/deploy numbers of an IFV and MBT when it is combined together.

 

A combined IFV/MBT ticks a lot of boxes for procurement, logistics and operations. You also don't have to use the Land Raider for infantry necessarily. It is universal, every tank has good anti-tank and comes with internal infantry support and very good spped and armour, you don't need 50% MBT and 50% IFV, or 33% MBT and 67% IFV, if 100% is both.

 

The OSCE definition supplied is fixated to differentiate in legal terms in the context of the 1980s/90's rather than in functional/conceptual terms. I think its use serves to confuse rather than assist the topic.

[H311fi5h]

The Land Raider lacks one really important feature for an MBT: A good high explosive round. A Main Battle Tank (or any tank for that matter) doesn't just fight other tanks. A tank fights infantry, buildings, gun positions, machine gun nests, and anything else you might find on a battlefield. A Main Battle Tank has to be able to deal with all of that. A Heavy Bolter, which should compare to something like a heavy machine gun/grenade launcher in real life, cannot replace a 120 mm HE shell.

I assume a Lascannon, while being potentially devastating against vehicles filled with ammunition and fuel, will only poke a hole trough a building. How is a Land Raider going to deal with anti-tank weapons in emplacements or buildings? Best it can do is lay down suppressive fire or smoke.

People often forget how important a tank's ability to fight this kind of target is. If you take a look at the typical combat load for a tank you get an idea. For a T-72 for example that would be between 14 and 27 HE rounds out of 39 total, with the rest being APFSDS and HEAT.

Of course there is quite some variation, but the point is, just being good at killing tanks is not what makes an MBT.

 

Interestingly, the Space Marines reverted back to using specialized siege tanks such as the Vindicator and Typhoon. The whole point of having Main Battle Tanks is not needing specialized vehicles, but having one tank that can do it all. Neither the Predator nor the Land Raider can claim that.

[Kasper_Hawser]

Just curious, just WHAT is the definition of a Main Battle Tank in real life? And whose definition would we be using? I understand America, British, French and other European nations have different tank doctrines from the very first Land Raider like tank by England, and that it has evolved extensively even till now.

 

So as of 2017, how does US or Britain define MBT? As an anti-tank itself? Or has it crossed over to infantry support like the Bradley? Given the unconventional nature of Afghaanistan and Iraq, I imagine its no longer about tanks fighting tanks anymore.

[Angmarred]

From what I recall of the BL books, most of the scenes with LR usually depict them as battle tanks first and troop transports second, if at all

[Demonl]

The Land Raider lacks one really important feature for an MBT: A good high explosive round. A Main Battle Tank (or any tank for that matter) doesn't just fight other tanks. A tank fights infantry, buildings, gun positions, machine gun nests, and anything else you might find on a battlefield. A Main Battle Tank has to be able to deal with all of that. A Heavy Bolter, which should compare to something like a heavy machine gun/grenade launcher in real life, cannot replace a 120 mm HE shell.

I assume a Lascannon, while being potentially devastating against vehicles filled with ammunition and fuel, will only poke a hole trough a building. How is a Land Raider going to deal with anti-tank weapons in emplacements or buildings? Best it can do is lay down suppressive fire or smoke.

People often forget how important a tank's ability to fight this kind of target is. If you take a look at the typical combat load for a tank you get an idea. For a T-72 for example that would be between 14 and 27 HE rounds out of 39 total, with the rest being APFSDS and HEAT.

Of course there is quite some variation, but the point is, just being good at killing tanks is not what makes an MBT.

 

Interestingly, the Space Marines reverted back to using specialized siege tanks such as the Vindicator and Typhoon. The whole point of having Main Battle Tanks is not needing specialized vehicles, but having one tank that can do it all. Neither the Predator nor the Land Raider can claim that.

 

This is true HE is very important, in recent conflicts significantly more important than the various anti armour shells. The FW solution was the introduction of the Achilles pattern. however It is still a dedicated model that is specifically produced. It would have to fight out vs Vindicators/Typhons who are specialist siege tanks for manufacturing/inventory/procurement preference.

 

It does raise the question, why do Land Raiders have Lascannons instead of Plasma derived weapons which could be dual purpose? Gets hot/too much power involved/unreliable/expensive?

[Laughingman]

I would argue that by the strict osco definition space marines don't really have a MBT. If you remove the large caliber projectile weapon requirement I venture to guess a Deimos Pattern Predator Executioner would be analogous to a mbt.

 

The osco definition of a main battle tank can be found in this document

 

http://www.osce.org/library/14087

[Demonl]

I would argue that by the strict osco definition space marines don't really have a MBT. If you remove the large caliber projectile weapon requirement I venture to guess a Deimos Pattern Predator Executioner would be analogous to a mbt.

 

The osco definition of a main battle tank can be found in this document

 

http://www.osce.org/library/14087

 

 

This is a legal definition for a particular context (1990 conventional forces reduction/peace movement). The concept of a main battle tank had been around much earlier and was used to describe the development of a universal tank that took the elements from the various tank classes of an earlier period. The intention being that the universal tank was fast, well armed and armoured and capable of fulfilling a range of operation, tactical and strategic outcomes.

The OSCE here was just looking for a category to describe and classify the 1980's MBTs into a category that was separate from other categories of conventional forces. Not relevant at all for a 31st Millennium Imperium about to conquer the galaxy. 

 

You can certainly make the point that there is no MBT that fits a 1990's ams reduction treaty definition, but this is because the requirements and context of a universal tank vary greatly between 1990's reality and 31st millennium fantasy.

[Majorbookworm]

The MBT evolved because of a confluence of two factors. The arms race duribg world war 2 produced vehicles which were much larger and better equipped than their conceptual equivalents pre-war. In particular engine technology was now able to give heavily armoured vehicles (by late war/immediate post war standards) a respectable speed, without having to trade off mobility so much for protection. However, the emergence of shaped charge HEAT munitions imposed a new soft limit on heavy tank development,because the required amount of armor needed to defeat them was so impractically large (though later on Reactive and Composite armors would mitigate this to a degree).

 

This led to the abandonment of heavy tanks as a concept on economic grounds, as the new 'big' post war mediums like the T-44 or the Patton series could take on their duties reasonably well. And of course the British Centurion 'Universal' tank set up the concept as well. So, mediums and heavies both merged into the new 'MBT'.

 

So, a MBT is a tank with medium tank mobility and heavy tank protection and firepower, though of course exactly what those factors entail is dependent on your historical perspective. It is not really designed as a generalist military vehicle, but is limited to large scale conventional warfare scenarios, and is expected to fight both other armored targets as well as infantry.

 

Moving on to the actual topic of the vehicles used by the Legions the closest would be the Sicaran. It has an all round mix of armor, firepower and mobility, and more importantly, is indisputably a Tank as we recognise it. The Venator is an casemate style Tank destroyer, and is only intended to fight heavy AFVs. The LR carries infantry and thus is taken beyond the modern conception of the tank. Maybe you could consider it a very heavy IFV (its kinda like the BMP3 in its role + armament), but arguably it stands on its own at least in regard to gow we classify combat vehicles today. The Predator would probably sit somewhere around a modern light tank. There are a number of designs based on APC/IFV hulls which are being developed as lighter alternatives to the MBT, though they are in limited service at the moment.

[Laughingman]

Since it relevant to the discussion I was under the impression modern MBT are around 60-65 metric tons. How much do things like predators and land raider supposedly weigh? 

 

 

[Paradigm]

The predator is based on an M113 with a British scorpion turret on top. It's an actual variant that looks just like a predator without sponsons. The Australians us them. It's a light tank at best.

 

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Variants_of_the_M113_armored_personnel_carrier#/media/File%3APuckapunyal-M113-MRV-1-1.jpg

 

The Sicaran isnt really very close to any modern tank. It has midrange armor, but doesn't have the firepower.

 

The closest thing the legions have is the Malcador. Maybe a Typhon. Neither fit the bill well, but remember a lot of the tanks couldn't even move if they were real, let alone fill a true contemporary role.

 

However, the legions aren't really analogous to contemporary militaries in any way, there are just some design cues. They are firmly rooted in fantasy, so they don't use MBTs really.

[Majorbookworm]

The Sicaran isnt really very close to any modern tank. It has midrange armor, but doesn't have the firepower.

 

 

 

Really? Those high-velocity guns look pretty damn beefy. Dunno how it really holds up on the tabletop though.

[Ryltar Thamior]

There's some pretty intense and interesting discussion in this thread, and that's a great thing! :D 

Personally, if I were going to identify an MBT analogue for the Legiones Astartes, I'd be looking fairly directly at the Sicaran [as others have said]. It's simultaneously faster, better armoured, and better armed than a Predator; at the cost of being rarer both on the tabletop [coming in at a little shy of double the points], and in the fluff [due to the rollout of htem to the Legions still being in-progress when the Heresy broke out]. Now, to be fair the relevant Black/Red book entries DO identify the Predator as a "medium tank" [and, for that matter, the Sicaran as being a "destroyer" tank ... although clearly not in the manner of a standard "tank-destroyer" far-future jagdpanzer analogue, given th eturret etc - a role which is instead fulfilled by the Venator]; but in the technological context of the early 31st millenium, it seems feasible to conclude that the Sicaran is the 'next stage' in MBT design, and if the Heresy hadn't happened - would probably have come to represent the new "Medium" for Astartes armoured formations in much hte same way that the Panther came to eclipse and replace the Panzer IV. [and, as it happens, given production/technological issues meant the Panther *wasn't* able to replace the Germans' previous medium-tank designs but instead supplement them .. the analogy may be even more direct for the Sicaran-Predator relationship - as factors ranging from Horus-shenanigans to technical complexity limited the scale of its ongoing production and deployment relative to the simpler Predator, especially for Loyalist forces]

Now having said all that, a number of further points about armoured vehicle employment in Astartes use probably need to be made. The first is that the Sicaran's status as a "fast" tank does not necessarily de-legitimate it from MBT status. We already know from real-world analogue-value that the Leopard II, for instance [which, I note, also represents qualitative improvements in speed, firepower and armour from the Leopard I in a manner that we might argue is somewaht coterminous with the relationship between the Predator and subsequent Sicaran] is not excluded from being an MBT simply due to being "fast"; nor does a primary combat role of engaging other armoured vehicles do so. And wehre it is arguable that a 'tank destroyer''s primary mode of engagement would be ambush tactics, a sort of fire-and-withdraw formula; the superior speed of the Sicaran would lend itself instead to 'deep battle' operations, whilst its armour and other characteristics may make it a viable 'breakthrough' tank capable of engaging other armour whilst on the move. Which is pretty much exactly how an MBT is supposed to fight. 

The Predator, meanwhile, does also deserve something of a lookin - but given the nature of the battlefields of the 31st millennium (wherein it's arguable that they're fairly comprehensively outperformed by the MBT-analogues and heavier armour of other factions, such as a number of Imperial Army vehicles, or the obvious profusion of Land Raiders and Rhino-based tank-destroyers floating around in Marine forces), I suspect it's more proper to view it in hte manner of a light tank(although admittedly one with pretty decent frontal armour]. Given the theoretical preferred operational style of Marines [hard, fast, and aerospace deployable], I find myself reminded of something like the French AMX-13, or the M551 Sheridan. 

And as applies the Land Raider ... it's true that they're specifically cited in 40k [in the old Index Astartes article on them, I believe] as being the Marines' serious anti-armour [particularly anti-superheavy/titan] vehicle. Although it's questionable for a number of reasons whether it's a good fit for the Main Battle Tank label as we understand it today [Arkhan Land's borrowing of 20th century terminology perhaps notwithstanding - after all, there are a number of instances in 30k of Imperial formations taking terms from our history and applying them ... somewhat questionably - see, for instance, "Ephoroi" from the Custodes writeup in Inferno as one such example]. Certainly, in a direct comparison against the Sicaran, it has better all-around armour; although the matter becomes somewhat more complicated when it comes to a firepower comparison - 6 s7 rending shots versus 2 twin-linked s9 ... although adding lascannon sponsons to the Sicaran almost definitely makes it the superior anti-armour option [not least because targets don't have to be in the frontal arc to actually be hit by all of the vehicle's main armament as they woul with a Land Raider]. 

Indeed, having thought about this for a bit, I'm not sure there IS a 21st century category of vehicle which the Raider easily fits into. I mean, on the face of it, there are a number of "heavy APCs" from history which notionally fit some elements of the profile - being heavily armoured tank-chassis infantry-carriers [and, as applies the Israeli 'Namer' conversion of the Merkava IV, supposedly of even heavier armour than their MBTs ... although the extent to which a Merkava's a conventional MBT is debatable]. But even looking at some of the ultra-modern Russian IFV designs which have come out [thinking here of the Russian Kurganets project], there's still quite a gulf between those and a Raider - at least in terms of the fact that the IFVs in question all mount relatively small-caliber autocannon at best as a main weapon rather than tank cannon [although combat experience from South Africa somewhat amusingly proves that 20mm penetrator autocannon rounds [admittedly from a different, older weapon] ARE capable of seriously damaging enemy armour ... provided that the armour in question is of a WWII vintage] ; with anti-armour capacity provided by ATGMs [which would probably be broadly analogous to Hunter-Killer missiles]. [a similar vehicle from another Imperial force in this regard would be the Dracosan - and,for that matter ... good grief, the Mastodon]

In any case, classified by armour-values, the Land Raider is pretty much a heavy tank. I remember from the old Vehicle Design Rules from a 3rd edition White Dwarf, that it was specifically demarcated as being pretty much right on the line before we get up into super-heavy territory. Admittedly, the absolute profusion of super-heavies and even-larger-land-raider-variants onto the battlefields of the 31st millennium makes it seemingly a little less inconsistent for the Raider to be designated a "medium" tank amdist all of that ... but I'm still somewhat uneasy with the "medium" classification on the basis of both the vehicle in question's characteristics, and its apparent combat role [not least because some might argue that hte main weapon of the Land Raider is actually the complement of Marines with anti-armour weaponry, close combat gear etc. in the infantry compartment]; as well as the opinion shared by a number of people that there's a superior designee for the role in question in the form of the Sicaran [and really, the Tiger running around the place fulfilling a number of MBT characteristics didn't necessarily make it one instead of the comparatively lighter Panzers IV and V in the context of its affiliated force]. 

Further, call me something of a traditionalist, but it's difficult to conceive of an armoured vehicle truly fulfilling the MBT role in the absence of a turreted weapon. Guderian, to put it bluntly, had a point. Although having said that, I'm also aware that there HAS been at least one nominal "MBT" mounting a non-turreted main gun, in the form of the Stridsvagen 103 ... although I chalk that vehicle's MBT designation up to a combination of its context within the Swedish armed forces and their respective doctrine [wherein extensive testing demonstrated that the S-103 COULD in fact viably fire on the move and operate in a comparable manner to the Leopard Is and Chieftains of allied forces - despite its design seemingly tiying it to a tank-destroyer mode of employment], and the fact that the term "MBT" has become excessively fuzzy [c.f the way in which what would previously probably have been described as 'heavy tanks' have been folded into the MBT category in the last few decades - which is exactly what i'm effectively alleging has happened with the Land Raider being officially designated a "Medium" tank, despite having armour better than some actual superheavies etc.] 

[Noserenda]

The Land Raider is the closest thing the Legions deployed universally to an MBT, replacing the Malcador in the role. Of course they Legions doctrine doesn't call for a specific MBT as we recognise it because they operate very differently to a Modern military with a lot more focus on Infantry as linebreakers rather than armour.

[Bloody Legionnaire]

 

 

I would argue that by the strict osco definition space marines don't really have a MBT. If you remove the large caliber projectile weapon requirement I venture to guess a Deimos Pattern Predator Executioner would be analogous to a mbt.

 

The osco definition of a main battle tank can be found in this document

 

http://www.osce.org/library/14087

This is a legal definition for a particular context (1990 conventional forces reduction/peace movement). The concept of a main battle tank had been around much earlier and was used to describe the development of a universal tank that took the elements from the various tank classes of an earlier period. The intention being that the universal tank was fast, well armed and armoured and capable of fulfilling a range of operation, tactical and strategic outcomes.

The OSCE here was just looking for a category to describe and classify the 1980's MBTs into a category that was separate from other categories of conventional forces. Not relevant at all for a 31st Millennium Imperium about to conquer the galaxy.

 

You can certainly make the point that there is no MBT that fits a 1990's ams reduction treaty definition, but this is because the requirements and context of a universal tank vary greatly between 1990's reality and 31st millennium fantasy.

Although I disagree with you about the LR in being an MBT in Implementation and purpose... I do agree with your post here.

 

I think some are maybe grouping together a "Battle Tank" (which I do agree the LR is) and a "Main Battle Tank."

 

I'm an American, what I am defining as a "MBT" doesn't appear to be exactly the same as some of you Aussie's or in the U.K. as I don't believe the U.S. approached the Tank with the same "universal Tank" concept.

 

The LR IMO, is an Infantry Tank... and not an MBT. My example of an MBT would be something like an Abrams.. which, minus the gun, the Sicaran is the Legion Tank that comes close. Other wise I agree with out a more powerful turret it falls short of meeting the requirement.

 

Great discussion so far gents.

[Marshal Rohr]

A Land Raider, as well armored as it is, is just a heavily armored IFV. It has two anti-tank weapons and a dual-mounted crew served for close encounters. It would actually need a second and third crew served mounted on the hatches to matter in an urban environment, because the only thing a lascannon would do in real life is destroy armored targets. It, by definition, shoots a beam of light, and because of that it can't really help with infantry, hence the need for an infantry component to ride inside of it to dismount and protect it in closed environments.

 

The Sicaran and Mauler will be the MBT equivalents, and I say equivalents because the Leman Russ is the only MBT in the Imperial Arsenal. The most important weapon on any tank is the machine guns, not its main cannon, for urban environments, which is why the Russ fits this role. The Sicaran and Mauler are more like assault guns in the older mech doctrines of the Wehrmacht. The Vindicator obviously fits this bill as well.

[Legionnaire of the VIIth]

Marshal Rohr, could you explain to me why you think that a lascannon is only capable of destroying armored targets but couldn't kill organic life because it shoots a "beam of light"?

[Brother-Chaplain Kage]

Don't bother with the explanation. I let this go on for longer than I wanted it to in the hopes that it would be more than arguing about the Land Raider, but that's what I get for hoping.

 

http://i.imgur.com/u9yQtVs.gif