Your Nation's Main Battle Tank [Part 2]

[Samozaryadnyastan]

It's Lyran in the same sense that an M16 is Colt, or an M82 is Barrett.

Not really.

Yes it is, it's identifying the product with its manufacturer.
Isn't it?

[United States of PA]

The Tank is a Lamonian Tank being marketed by Lyran Arms.

It is no more a Lyran Tank than i am a Martian.

It's Lyran in the same sense that an M16 is Colt, or an M82 is Barrett.

M16 is a Armalite Rifle currently manufcatured by Colt.

It is still a Armalite.

the M82 was designed by Barret, and is therefore a Barret rifle, regardless of whoever currently makes it.

Yes it is, it's identifying the product with its manufacturer.
Isn't it?

You identify the product primarily with its designer. Hence why M16/AR15 is a Armalite, M1 Abrams is General Dynamics, F16 is Lockheed/Lockheed Martin (Depending on whether you prefer to use the companies current name or the then name), M14 is a Springfield Armory Rifle and so on and so forth.

In the case here, you identify the M21A2 as a Lamonian Tank, since it was designed and is primarily produced by Lamonians, even if its only distributer here on NS is Lyran Arms.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

To be overly pedantic, it was technically a General Dynamics aircraft and produced at what had been the Convair factory, Lockheed bought GD, and later on Martin too.

[United States of PA]

True true, my bad, have always remembered the F16 as a Lockheed aircraft.

[Soviet Haaregrad]

True true, my bad, have always remembered the F16 as a Lockheed aircraft.

18 years will do that to you. Remembering it as GD makes me feel old.

[The Soviet Technocracy]

Northrop uber alles.

[Soviet Rausknovik]

This is a translated English text version.

KVM-75

(Krukob/Vladimir Modernized)



[[There are two Rausknovikian Infantrymen in front for scale and an optional wheel rack. The following shows ONLY the tank and the ERA, no tank commander, hatch closed.]]

Primary Armament: Fully stabilised, dual-axis, 140mm HV autoloading rifled gun, 45 rounds, fed from a 3-round rotary magazine and an MV-2A67 Autoloader
Secondary Armament: 1x 23mm co-axial chaingun, 700 rounds 1x 12.7mm AA machinegun, 1100 rounds
Armor thickness:

If...

A = Lower hull
B = Glacis
C = Front 1/3 side hull
D = Front side turret Side Turret
E = Upper front turret
F =Rear Turret
G = Rear Hull
H = side hull
J =Mantlet
K = Weakened Zone
L = Front turret corners
M = Side Turret

...then...

A = 590-650mm KE & 800-970mm HEAT
B = 560-590mm KE & 800-1050mm HEAT
C = 160mm KE & 900mm HEAT
D = 300mm KE & 480mm HEAT
E = N/A
F = 90mm KE & 410mm HEAT
G = 100mm KE & 500mm HEAT
H = 90mm KE & 680mm HEAT
J = 880mm KE & 1620mm HEAT
K = 900mm KE & 1500mm HEAT
L = 880mm KE & 1310mm HEAT
M = 300mm KE & 480mm HEAT

Weight: 46 tonnes
Length: 7.066 m
Width: 3.779 m
Height: 2.215 m
Crew: 3
Suspension: Torsion bar
Powerplant: 6TD-2MT-7 6-cylinder diesel
1,200 hp (890 kW)
Horsepower/tonne: 26
Speed: 64.89 km/h (40 mph) - 70.2 km/h (43 mph)
Maximum Operational Range: 539 km
Preventive Measures: Fireproofed fuel and ammunition storage, Active protection system including Laser dazzler and Missile scrambler, ERA slots, Self-sealing fuel tank, and thermal signature reducing coating
Cost per unit: 5.6 million People's Marks (Aproxx. 4.2 million USD)
Produced 2075-Present
Number Active: 8,736 (as of 2090)

Biography:

The KVM-75 was developed after the bloody First Rausk-Chechen War with Chechnya. Up to that point in time (2060), Soviet Rausknovik have been using primarily Export Versions of the Russian T-100 as their MBT. After the consequences that left Soviet Rausknovik defeated and humiliated, Rausknovikian engineers drew up a new main battle tank, nicknamed, the "Wolf," based off of Chinese Type-102 tanks (Advancements of Type 99) and Ukrainian and Belorussian T-87 tanks.

The first feature noticeable from T-100s is the different hull borrowed from the Chinese. The turret is very much the same of a T-87, except electronics and autoloader along with fire-control are vastly superior. The KVM-75 also had a revolutionary 3-round rotary magazine that increased the rate of fire immensely, making it able to outperform many tanks of its time. The armor package is the awe-inspiring and famous Dorchester armor found on the Challenger 2. Although the armor is not as thick as the Challanger 2, the armor is sufficient enough to turn back 120mm shells and up to 140mm shells.

[[The Dorchester armor was captured from a disabled Challanger 2 from Rausknovik's western neighbors, BTW. This is just to clear any suspicions that we are British based.]]

The armament itself is an improvement, as it is a 140mm HV rifled gun, also fully stabilsed and maintained by an autoloader. The third gen. kinetic energy armour-piercing ammunition for the 140 mm tank gun is the APFSDS round with a 30:1 length/calibre heavy tungsten alloy penetrator and the round has a muzzle velocity of 1,650 m/s and is claimed to be capable of penetrating 930 mm steel armor at a distance of 2.000 m. Very fearsome indeed. With a DU tip on the APFSDS, the gun is capable of penetrating well over 1000mm of steel armor.

[Amerikians]

Okay. I have to commend that level of awesome.

[Samozaryadnyastan]

Awesome lineart and cool-sounding tank - I'm just not sure if it actually has the space to hold 45 140mm rounds and 700 23mm rounds. 140mm shells are typically in two parts, let's not forget - warhead and some propellant and the second portion contains the main propellant wad.
That is a lot of ammunition.

[Xin Ming]

A good solid design and write up. May want to cut the ammunition to 25 rounds, though. Space for 140mm shells is hard to come by as they come in two bits.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Tank doctrine and designations is quite misunderstood here. Let's move forth.

A main battle tank (MBT) is, on one level the most numerous tank in the inventory of a nation, but that is not the defining characteristic. The defining characteristic is the fact that it undertakes most roles otherwise assigned to a tank in that nation's armed forces. The M1 Abrams, for example, is an MBT, the T-34 is not. The T-34 was intended to work with the KV, T-55 with the T-10, and so on. There is no such partnership with the M1, as it does all. Bu default, if you have a large number of X tank, it is likely to be your MBT, as it is likely to do most things, but that is not completely true.

Consider if you will, the US M60 series (Not an MBT until the A3, by the way). The initial intention was for formations to rely on the M60A1 as their immediate and maneuver platform, with M60A2 supporting at range. This is a offensive/defensive partnership which defines theoretical US doctrine prior to the collapse of the USSR, and flows back to the 1930s. The fact that there were supposed to be three M60A1s for every A2, and more in practice, doesn't change this and make the M60A1 the MBT.

The term MBT was invented by the British to describe the Universal Tank, which would fill the roles of infantry and cruiser completely (Centurion), and was simply carried over for nomenclature when the heavy-tank was reintroduced (See doctrine on the Conquer).

The Soviets really never adopted the MBT concept, and neither has any post-Soviet state. The T-80 was supposed to replace the T-10 as the vanguard maneuver element of armoured warfare, with the T-72 replacing the T-55 as the support vehicle of motorized rifle units. The reality of funding changes things, but not enough to know the two vehicles had very different functions in mind. Only now is Russia trying to move to a single, do-all tank. And even now it's failing (T-95/T-90 split in theoretical doctrine. Post Soviet states are much the same way, except their budgets are relegating much tank-work to platforms unable to undertake the job effectively (IFVs).

Modern tanks such as the M1 are, for all intents and purposes, heavy-tanks of old. The assumption that a modern heavy-tank would look much different is incorrect, as the M1 is designed to do what a heavy tank such as the T30 or M6 or any other US heavy tank would do, and as a result has taken the form of a heavy tank. The US simply deploys them in a way to make use of them as other platforms as well (in the role of infantry support, assault, and exploitation). it is instead more likely that a modern US medium tank would be more akin to an M48A5, or if even newer, an AMX-40 analogue.

The ultimate irony is the difference in US/Soviet tank development. One has decided to make the Heavy tank the MBT, and have it take all roles. The other has decided to take a medium tank and try to force it to do what a heavy tank can, to some extent. They have their advantages and disadvantages. Less so then the Europanzer approach, to remove the Heavy Tank role completely and fill it with ATGM carriers and strike aircraft, leaving only the medium tank.

For the 140mm gun discussion. Here is a picture I have posted before of a 140mm gun round (The big one) next to ammunition for the L30A1.

[Soviet Rausknovik]

Actually... Where do you think we keep the ammunition? Just a thought, because, BTW, the ammunition is not all stored just in the turret.

There are 20 rounds in the turret, the rest (25) in the hull.

But thanks for advice. I'll see to the changes if the statement above is rendered impossible as well.

As for the MBT discussion, MBTs are basically the tanks used the most and see the most frontline combat. For instance, the T-34 was not an MBT by today's standards, but because the Soviet Union stopped using their BT tanks as actual frontline tanks, and since the T-34 surpassed all of them, the T-34 is technically an MBT.

The T-34 being an MBT is actually kind of hard to decide, because the Soviet Union at the time had so many different tanks. The actual idea of an MBT came with the T-55 tank.

Again, just saying.

[Indeos]

Actually... Where do you think we keep the ammunition? Just a thought, because, BTW, the ammunition is not all stored just in the turret.

There are 20 rounds in the turret, the rest (25) in the hull.

But thanks for advice. I'll see to the changes if the statement above is rendered impossible as well.

As for the MBT discussion, MBTs are basically the tanks used the most and see the most frontline combat. For instance, the T-34 was not an MBT by today's standards, but because the Soviet Union stopped using their BT tanks as actual frontline tanks, and since the T-34 surpassed all of them, the T-34 is technically an MBT.

The T-34 being an MBT is actually kind of hard to decide, because the Soviet Union at the time had so many different tanks. The actual idea of an MBT came with the T-55 tank.

Again, just saying.

Read Dostanuot Loj's post, and then the MBT discussion ends because he has a degree in something I only know as tankology. As for shell storage, I'd imagine it can't be done or people would already do it.

[Dostanuot Loj]

Actually... Where do you think we keep the ammunition? Just a thought, because, BTW, the ammunition is not all stored just in the turret.

There are 20 rounds in the turret, the rest (25) in the hull.

But thanks for advice. I'll see to the changes if the statement above is rendered impossible as well.

As for the MBT discussion, MBTs are basically the tanks used the most and see the most frontline combat. For instance, the T-34 was not an MBT by today's standards, but because the Soviet Union stopped using their BT tanks as actual frontline tanks, and since the T-34 surpassed all of them, the T-34 is technically an MBT.

The T-34 being an MBT is actually kind of hard to decide, because the Soviet Union at the time had so many different tanks. The actual idea of an MBT came with the T-55 tank.

Again, just saying.

No, the Soviets were very against the universal tank idea. The T-55 still was not (And really never has been), an MBT by definition.

The T-34 was designed to fill the role of exploitation of a breakthrough, that's it. They were the perfect DD tanks (And much better at the role then the BT series) in use. Breakthrough was still to be handled by the heavies (KV, IS), and assault guns, reconnaissance by the lights (T-70, T-80), the only shift in this happened when the T-70 was abandoned in favor of the T-34 due to production, but even that was switched back when the PT-76 came into play.

The breakthrough tank came about with the T-35, into KV, IS, T-10, until finally being developed into the T-64 and T-80. Where the role was still the same, break through enemy lines so the lower ends (Exploitative tanks, DD) could flood enemy rear areas, which is what the BT, T-34, T-54/55, T-62, and T-72 were intended to do. There was never any Soviet MBT as a matter of doctrine.

On to ammo storage, your storage doesn't make sense. Most tanks carry 12-20 rounds in the hull anyway, and a few more in the turret. When your round takes up almost double the overall volume, it's another story. The space for 25 such rounds in the hull is what you would use for ~40 rounds. Which means you've got Merkava or Challenger style stowage for them. This means most of your vital equipment is turret mounted, which means you have little/no stowage space there (Merkava and Chally carry less then 15 rounds ready in the turret, with the Chally more, and the Merk quite less).

[The Anglo-Saxon Empire]

Actually... Where do you think we keep the ammunition? Just a thought, because, BTW, the ammunition is not all stored just in the turret.

There are 20 rounds in the turret, the rest (25) in the hull.

But thanks for advice. I'll see to the changes if the statement above is rendered impossible as well.

As for the MBT discussion, MBTs are basically the tanks used the most and see the most frontline combat. For instance, the T-34 was not an MBT by today's standards, but because the Soviet Union stopped using their BT tanks as actual frontline tanks, and since the T-34 surpassed all of them, the T-34 is technically an MBT.

The T-34 being an MBT is actually kind of hard to decide, because the Soviet Union at the time had so many different tanks. The actual idea of an MBT came with the T-55 tank.

Again, just saying.

Read Dostanuot Loj's post, and then the MBT discussion ends because he has a degree in something I only know as tankology. As for shell storage, I'd imagine it can't be done or people would already do it.

The 'passenger' section of the Merk is normally filled with ammo.

[Indeos]

Read Dostanuot Loj's post, and then the MBT discussion ends because he has a degree in something I only know as tankology. As for shell storage, I'd imagine it can't be done or people would already do it.

The 'passenger' section of the Merk is normally filled with ammo.

He just covered that, actually. I'm no expert, though, and I'll concede the storage bit in advance.

[Munathanura]

I have a question: can you carry more ammunition without an autoloader, or is there very little difference in ammunition capacity?

[Dostanuot Loj]

I have a question: can you carry more ammunition without an autoloader, or is there very little difference in ammunition capacity?

Little difference. The thing is how much the auto loader carries (Ready rounds), and how much is stowed elsewhere (Like the hull). This changes, as, for example, the T-72 carries all its 20-something rounds in the auto loader, and provisions for no extra. The LeClerc, however, carries 22 rounds in auto loader, and 16 in hull to reload it. As opposed to the Chally which carries 15 ready rounds in the turret the loader can reach, and the rest are hard to get at.

[Munathanura]

I have a question: can you carry more ammunition without an autoloader, or is there very little difference in ammunition capacity?

Little difference. The thing is how much the auto loader carries (Ready rounds), and how much is stowed elsewhere (Like the hull). This changes, as, for example, the T-72 carries all its 20-something rounds in the auto loader, and provisions for no extra. The LeClerc, however, carries 22 rounds in auto loader, and 16 in hull to reload it. As opposed to the Chally which carries 15 ready rounds in the turret the loader can reach, and the rest are hard to get at.

Thanks, that solves the issue of whether or not to go for a tank with an autoloader.

What's your opinion on the MBT-70? Could it be made to work if it was designed more recently (somewhere between 1990 and 2005), or would it still fail?

[Zeiffelheim]

Zeiffelheim's MBT is currently the T-98 "Leonidas" MPABP (Multi-Purpose Armored Battle Platform). It is armed with: 1x smooth-bore 100mm cannon capable of firing several types of rounds, including: Solid Tungsten slugs, Tungsten HESH shells, and Anti-infantry Shrapnel Burst Rounds (ASBRs). 2x Mk.7 .50 Caliber anti-infantry machine guns, mounted on opposite sides of the main turret and capable of rotating 360 degrees. 2x Type-19 Spearmaster missile launchers housed alongside the main cannon inside the top of the turret, armed with anti-aircraft, anti-personnel, and anti-armor warheads. 2x Type-84 Trebuchet heavy missile launchers mounted inside the main body of the tank, designed to act as artillery support for units in combat, and to destroy heavily fortified enemy installations. The T-98 is protected by 4.5" reactive Durasteel armor, and a Karlin EKFSN (Explosive Kinetic Force and Shrapnel Net) Point Defense System capable of detecting any incoming projectile with a mass of at least 3 kg, and defeating any incoming projectile with a velocity of up to 1200 m/s. The engine driving the T-98 is highly classified (The T-98's power system is its one drawback, as the T-98 requires a tremendous amount of fuel, and they are prone to engine overheat in the middle of combat when the tank is being heavily taxed. The tank itself utilizes a quad-tred system (with four sets of treds, two of equal length along each side) The T-98 is manned by a crew of 4, including a Commander, a Pilot, a Gunner, and a Systems Engineer. The crew positions are found in the rear half of the vehicle (the forward half being devoted to the engine and Trebuchet missiles). The pilot is seated on the left, just fore of the turret, the commander is seated to his immediate right. The Gunner is seated just beneath the main cannon, within the turret itself, and the systems engineer is seat to the rear, below the gunner (his station is bisected by the rearmost portion of the turret. There is an escape hatch to the left and above of the pilot, one to the right and above of the commander, and one to the immediate rear of the systems engineer (the gunner uses the systems engineer's escape hatch.) The gunner has control of the main cannon and the turret's swivel (the .50 cal machine guns rotate independent of the main turret). All other positions have full access to the other weapons (save the Trebuchet missiles, which can only be controlled by the commander or gunner). The pilot has full control of the tanks movements, but the commander has an override control, in the event that the pilot should be unable to continue functioning.

Potential upgrades to the T-98 include: A Mark 2 Railgun, to replace the main cannon. A Korchevski Fusion generator to replace the current engine and power system. A 2" upgrade to the exterior armor. and A Moradin-HESG (High Energy Shield Generator) to compliment the Karlin point defense system.

Currently under development is the XT-100 "Sabre", which may potentially replace the T-98 "Leonidas" as Zeiffelheim's MBT in the near future.

The T-98 replaced the Hadrian line of tanks, which included the T-32 LBT, T-34 MBT, and T-36 HBT.

[Interstellar Britannia]

Tank doctrine and designations is quite misunderstood here. Let's move forth.

A main battle tank (MBT) is, on one level the most numerous tank in the inventory of a nation, but that is not the defining characteristic. The defining characteristic is the fact that it undertakes most roles otherwise assigned to a tank in that nation's armed forces. The M1 Abrams, for example, is an MBT, the T-34 is not. The T-34 was intended to work with the KV, T-55 with the T-10, and so on. There is no such partnership with the M1, as it does all. Bu default, if you have a large number of X tank, it is likely to be your MBT, as it is likely to do most things, but that is not completely true.

Consider if you will, the US M60 series (Not an MBT until the A3, by the way). The initial intention was for formations to rely on the M60A1 as their immediate and maneuver platform, with M60A2 supporting at range. This is a offensive/defensive partnership which defines theoretical US doctrine prior to the collapse of the USSR, and flows back to the 1930s. The fact that there were supposed to be three M60A1s for every A2, and more in practice, doesn't change this and make the M60A1 the MBT.

The term MBT was invented by the British to describe the Universal Tank, which would fill the roles of infantry and cruiser completely (Centurion), and was simply carried over for nomenclature when the heavy-tank was reintroduced (See doctrine on the Conquer).

The Soviets really never adopted the MBT concept, and neither has any post-Soviet state. The T-80 was supposed to replace the T-10 as the vanguard maneuver element of armoured warfare, with the T-72 replacing the T-55 as the support vehicle of motorized rifle units. The reality of funding changes things, but not enough to know the two vehicles had very different functions in mind. Only now is Russia trying to move to a single, do-all tank. And even now it's failing (T-95/T-90 split in theoretical doctrine. Post Soviet states are much the same way, except their budgets are relegating much tank-work to platforms unable to undertake the job effectively (IFVs).

Modern tanks such as the M1 are, for all intents and purposes, heavy-tanks of old. The assumption that a modern heavy-tank would look much different is incorrect, as the M1 is designed to do what a heavy tank such as the T30 or M6 or any other US heavy tank would do, and as a result has taken the form of a heavy tank. The US simply deploys them in a way to make use of them as other platforms as well (in the role of infantry support, assault, and exploitation). it is instead more likely that a modern US medium tank would be more akin to an M48A5, or if even newer, an AMX-40 analogue.

The ultimate irony is the difference in US/Soviet tank development. One has decided to make the Heavy tank the MBT, and have it take all roles. The other has decided to take a medium tank and try to force it to do what a heavy tank can, to some extent. They have their advantages and disadvantages. Less so then the Europanzer approach, to remove the Heavy Tank role completely and fill it with ATGM carriers and strike aircraft, leaving only the medium tank.

For the 140mm gun discussion. Here is a picture I have posted before of a 140mm gun round (The big one) next to ammunition for the L30A1.
(Image)

Wiki lied to me once again regarding T-34s as Universal tanks.

tyvm

[Inutoland]

Zeiffelheim's MBT is currently the T-98 "Leonidas" MPABP (Multi-Purpose Armored Battle Platform). It is armed with: 1x smooth-bore 100mm cannon capable of firing several types of rounds, including: Solid Tungsten slugs, Tungsten HESH shells, and Anti-infantry Shrapnel Burst Rounds (ASBRs). 2x Mk.7 .50 Caliber anti-infantry machine guns, mounted on opposite sides of the main turret and capable of rotating 360 degrees. 2x Type-19 Spearmaster missile launchers housed alongside the main cannon inside the top of the turret, armed with anti-aircraft, anti-personnel, and anti-armor warheads. 2x Type-84 Trebuchet heavy missile launchers mounted inside the main body of the tank, designed to act as artillery support for units in combat, and to destroy heavily fortified enemy installations. The T-98 is protected by 4.5" reactive Durasteel armor, and a Karlin EKFSN (Explosive Kinetic Force and Shrapnel Net) Point Defense System capable of detecting any incoming projectile with a mass of at least 3 kg, and defeating any incoming projectile with a velocity of up to 1200 m/s. The engine driving the T-98 is highly classified (The T-98's power system is its one drawback, as the T-98 requires a tremendous amount of fuel, and they are prone to engine overheat in the middle of combat when the tank is being heavily taxed. The tank itself utilizes a quad-tred system (with four sets of treds, two of equal length along each side) The T-98 is manned by a crew of 4, including a Commander, a Pilot, a Gunner, and a Systems Engineer. The crew positions are found in the rear half of the vehicle (the forward half being devoted to the engine and Trebuchet missiles). The pilot is seated on the left, just fore of the turret, the commander is seated to his immediate right. The Gunner is seated just beneath the main cannon, within the turret itself, and the systems engineer is seat to the rear, below the gunner (his station is bisected by the rearmost portion of the turret. There is an escape hatch to the left and above of the pilot, one to the right and above of the commander, and one to the immediate rear of the systems engineer (the gunner uses the systems engineer's escape hatch.) The gunner has control of the main cannon and the turret's swivel (the .50 cal machine guns rotate independent of the main turret). All other positions have full access to the other weapons (save the Trebuchet missiles, which can only be controlled by the commander or gunner). The pilot has full control of the tanks movements, but the commander has an override control, in the event that the pilot should be unable to continue functioning.

Potential upgrades to the T-98 include: A Mark 2 Railgun, to replace the main cannon. A Korchevski Fusion generator to replace the current engine and power system. A 2" upgrade to the exterior armor. and A Moradin-HESG (High Energy Shield Generator) to compliment the Karlin point defense system.

Currently under development is the XT-100 "Sabre", which may potentially replace the T-98 "Leonidas" as Zeiffelheim's MBT in the near future.

The T-98 replaced the Hadrian line of tanks, which included the T-32 LBT, T-34 MBT, and T-36 HBT.

The density of technobabble in this is quite intense.

-100mm smoothbore gun won't even dent most RL modern tanks, and is woefully undergunned by the standards of NS, unless you RP in the 1950s. If you're PMT, you want at least an ETC gun, of at least 140mm calibre.
-Housing your missile tubes inside the turret or inside the hull is a bad idea. Just use GLATGMs.
-Durasteel sounds like badly-named Wankonium
-No details on how this point defence net is supposed to work
-Why a 4-man crew? Use the space taken up by your Systems Engineer for something worthwhile, like more ammunition stowage.
-A railgun in MT is totally unworkable. You can't make a power source small enough until (high-end) PMT. I guess you're at least PMT, though, as you mention a shield generator upgrade.

[United States of PA]

-100mm smoothbore gun won't even dent most RL modern tanks, and is woefully undergunned by the standards of NS, unless you RP in the 1950s. If you're PMT, you want at least an ETC gun, of at least 140mm calibre.

Yes it will, a Flak 18/36 from WW2 will dent a Abrams pretty well if used properly.

[New Zepuha]

Im going to settle this leman russ thing once and for all. If you have read Gunheads, which takes place from the point of view of a tank commander fighting the orks for a relic baneblade tank [Ends up fighting a Squiggoth with whats left of the company.]. Now, its actually quite spacious inside, it has to be, for two gunners, a commander a driver all have to fit in there. the gunners double as loaders while the tank commander usually aims the gun. Now when it comes down to it suspension isn't needed when you are fighting in mass wave charges and all that jazz. And infact the WW1 design is actually pretty damn sexy, and Titans aren't tanks, they are considered Dreadnoughts. Now why sponsons, i'll tell you, have you evered faced a crazed ork horde climbing all over tanks? or perhaps frenzied cultists armed with grenades trying to lob a grenade down your hatch, I thought so. Baneblades are about the size of a modern home or two depending on the variant, bristleing with gargantuan guns and a massive grenade launcher. Trust me, I have seen them in action. So *deep breath* any questions?

[Interstellar Britannia]

Im going to settle this leman russ thing once and for all. If you have read Gunheads, which takes place from the point of view of a tank commander fighting the orks for a relic baneblade tank [Ends up fighting a Squiggoth with whats left of the company.]. Now, its actually quite spacious inside, it has to be, for two gunners, a commander a driver all have to fit in there. the gunners double as loaders while the tank commander usually aims the gun. Now when it comes down to it suspension isn't needed when you are fighting in mass wave charges and all that jazz. And infact the WW1 design is actually pretty damn sexy, and Titans aren't tanks, they are considered Dreadnoughts. Now why sponsons, i'll tell you, have you evered faced a crazed ork horde climbing all over tanks? or perhaps frenzied cultists armed with grenades trying to lob a grenade down your hatch, I thought so. Baneblades are about the size of a modern home or two depending on the variant, bristleing with gargantuan guns and a massive grenade launcher. Trust me, I have seen them in action. So *deep breath* any questions?

They fit five fellas into the Pkzf III, the Leman russ is none too impressive in that respect. The turret on the other hand is absurdly small, and as most nations learned in WW2, single man turrets are inefficient. The commander is supposed to command, not aim.

Suspension is especially needed in mass wave charges. The Leman russ is also an infantry support tank rather then a breakthrough tank.

Infantry support is integral to armour success in any situation.

And the Baneblade is small.