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.]
No comments:
Post a Comment