You know, it’s the damnedest thing, but ever
since I returned to the Templin Institute from an undisclosed location in Eastern Europe, I
can’t stop thinking about tanks. I find them intensely interesting. From their debut in the
First World War in which they were deployed break the static trench lines on the Western Front, to
their dominance on the Eastern Front some 30 years later, where great fleets armor dueled in places
like Brody, Kharkov and Kursk, all the way to the modern era where the equipment and doctrines of
the Cold War began to clash with new realities. But what future does the tank have? Even
today there are theorists who declare it to be an obsolete piece of technology, doomed to
be replaced by advanced aircraft, drones or other types of vehicles. And that might be so, maybe in
the future tanks will be cast alongside zeppelins or boards with nails in them, as no longer needed
in warfare. But when I look at the armies of alternate worlds fighting across interstellar
wars, armies which indeed lack these kinds of armoured vehicles, I can’t help but think that
they might be better off if they had a few tanks. Sure the scale might be bigger, but in
so many of these wars and conflicts, the battlefield situations for which these
vehicles were designed were still present and in my opinion at least, tanks could
altered the course of the fighting. The wildlife of Pandora might have been able to
overcome the “Amplified Mobility Platforms” used by the RDA, but I doubt they would have been as
successful trying to tip over a 70 ton tank. The United Federation of Planets wouldn’t have needed
to rely on WWI tactics against the dominion or the klingons, the Mobile Infantry of the Terran
Federation would have actually been mobile and no tricky use of tow cables would have stopped
Imperial tanks, if they’d had any, on Hoth. In some cases, the lack of tanks and other
armoured fighting vehicles makes sense. We might forgive Stargate Command for relying on light
infantry when they were limited to whatever could fit through a wormhole with a 20 foot diameter.
Not much chance an M1 Abrams was going to make it very far through that. The Alliance to Restore the
Republic also made very little and sporadic use of tanks because they were in most cases trying
to avoid the pitched battles those vehicles were designed for. And the remnants of the 12
Colonies of Kobol simply lost all their tanks when the Cylons destroyed their homeworlds and
were left to fight with what they had. So while some interstellar armies might be excused for the
lack of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles in their inventory, there’s others where I think
the words of one Heinz Guderain remain true. “Whenever in future wars the battle is fought,
armored troops will play the decisive role.” So if we can agree that tanks might still have
a place within the armies mobilized to fight interstellar wars, what characteristics should
they have, what features should they avoid, what kinds of vehicles make the most sense to
deploy and how should they all be categorized. These are the questions we’ll be
discussing on this episode of Incoming. And find yourself a comfy chair, make another
batch of stroganoff with maybe some homemade creme fraiche instead of sour cream this time,
and grab a vanilla coke, cause this is a long one. But before we begin, it’s important to
note that depending on which alternate world you find yourself within, the nature of its
battlefields can vary drastically. Some possess fantastic technologies or supernatural abilities
that can fundamentally alter the nature of war and others have seen the adoption of new types of
machines that might have largely supplanted the traditional tank. For this reason, I’ll be talking
about the systems involved in a tank design in a largely imprecise way. I can't tell you an
autocannon is a better choice over a laser or that you should always pick shields instead of
armor when these concepts vary so tremendously across alternate worlds. So with that in
mind, this guide might not be relevant to every interstellar army, but hopefully
can be something of a starting point. And I should also mention that while in
most cases I’ll be referencing the vehicles used by “interstellar armies”,
those required to fight across multiple planets or star systems,
this won’t always be the case. In some instances, it will be necessary to draw
examples from armies that while not technically interstellar, are nevertheless suitably
advanced and unique enough to be included. And so, with my futile attempt to reduce comments that begin with the phrase “um
actually” now over, let’s begin. One of the interesting bits of
history or trivia surrounding tanks, is that unlike say firearms or artillery,
where we don’t have a clear picture of their origins and first use, or aircraft whose
civilian origins made their role in conflicts not immediately understood, tanks were
designed to fulfill a very clear function and in a conflict recent enough to make their
combat history relatively well recorded. In short, we can say definitively why tanks
were designed, where they were first utilized and how they’ve performed ever since. This
gives us a solid foundation to work from. And that foundation begins on the
Western Front of the first World War, a combination of technological developments, the
relative parity of the countries on either side, and the terrain being fought over, created
a situation where most battles heavily favored the defender. This in turn resulted in a
stalemate and both the Allies and Central Powers would spend much of the war looking for a way to
break it. The landship, later known as the tank, was one of the solutions presented to solve
this problem. They were armoured vehicles, mobile enough to cross rugged battlefield terrain,
armoured enough to survive the fire of the enemy, and equipped with enough offensive firepower
to break through entrenched enemy defenses. The first use of the tank was on 15 September
1916 during the Battle of Flers-Courcelette, part of the larger Battle of the Somme.
Their performance here was mixed. The British MKI tanks were generally unreliable
as a result of their rushed design process, and not available in large enough
numbers to make a significant difference. But the concept was proven to have potential,
and today, over a century later they have grown to form a core part of modern armies and
fulfill, more or less, that same battlefield role. As is to be expected however, a century of
development and combat use has expanded, refined, and in some cases, dramatically
changed their characteristics. There’s even some debate on whether the
term “tank” should be used to refer to certain armoured fighting vehicles. Fundamentally
though, every tank or AFV is still a balance of those three characteristics:
Mobility, Protection and Firepower. Mobility might stream straightforward, but
there’s a few layers to the underlying concept. The first is known as “tactical mobility” and is
probably the most obvious. How fast is the tank, how quickly can it accelerate, brake or turn on
various kinds of terrain. Can it clear obstacles like walls or trenches or environmental
considerations like rivers and forests. Second you have “operational mobility”, how well
it can move within a larger area of operations, or from battlefield to battlefield. The third
major layer is known as “strategic mobility”. This refers to how quickly and effectively the
tank can be transported to the battlefield. Most tanks are relatively slow and rely
on some external transportation system like ships, railways or aircraft
when travelling long distances. Just as an example, a Sherman tank breaking
through ruined buildings during street fighting in Caen would be demonstrating tactical mobility. It
racing to liberate Paris would be a demonstration of operational mobility, and it being shipped to
Japan and then Korea would be strategic mobility. It’s my belief that between the three,
strategic mobility would be one of the most important factors of a tank designed for use in an
interstellar army. Payload capacity is always one of the most limiting design characteristics of
any spacecraft, making sure tanks can be loaded onto an interstellar transport as efficiently
as possible would be a huge consideration. Your nation might have the best tank in
the galaxy, but if its too big to fit on your starships and it can’t get to where it
needs to go, that tank is suddenly useless. But when not being transported externally, a
tank’s mobility is usually achieved through continuous tracks or wheels and each offers
various advantages or disadvantages to both Tactical, Operational and Strategic mobility.
Tracks are much better at overcoming rugged terrain and unfavorable conditions such as
heavy mud, ice or sand. This comes at the expense of their overall top speed. Wheels by
contrast are less suited towards rough terrain, but they offer much greater fuel efficiency
and are less maintenance intensive. As such, they can travel much longer distances. Now it
should be noted there is some debate on whether tracks are a fundamental characteristic of tank
design, and if wheeled vehicles should be called something else like a “maneuver combat vehicle”.
That’s not a debate that I’d like to get into, but for the purposes of this video, I’m willing
to stretch the definitions a bit. I’ll just draw the line at legs, put those on a tank and
you have a walker, or battlemech or whatever. But there’s one other popular method of
propelling tanks across the battlefield that we see utilized very often
within interstellar armies. And this leads me to tangent
#1: Anti-gravity or hover tanks. The main benefits to a propulsion system like
this is that a hovertank would likely be able to achieve a much higher top speed and be largely
immune to things like rivers, lakes, lava flows, and other hazardous environmental features.
This by itself is a huge advantage. River crossings are traditionally some of the most
dangerous operations a tank can be involved in. Deep wading or fording, where a tank drives across
a river using a snorkel to provide engine intake, is exceptionally risky and wildly unpopular with
crews, even when they’re not under enemy fire. Being able to simply drive across rivers without
requiring deep fording or the construction of bridges would be of huge strategic benefit.
But there is also another potential benefit, that a hovertank might be immune to landmines. I’m
a little less sure about this. In any alternate reality where the technology available has made
hovertanks commonplace, it seems incredibly likely that landmines that can detect the presence
of hovertanks above them are also commonplace. A more universal downside, is that regardless of
how the tank is made to hover, it’s only going to be effective over flat terrain; water, grasslands,
sand. On any kind of rocky or ruined battlefield where you have sudden and unpredictable variances
in elevation, it seems pretty likely that the hovertank would just start banging into stuff.
Additionally, I have to assume that whatever technology allows the tank to hover, is coming
at the expense of something else. Maybe the tank needs to be lighter or carry a smaller gun, there
is likely some kind of trade off. And personally, while I can’t defend this point objectively,
I think hover tanks just look stupid, let me grind the skulls of the enemy to
dust beneath my treads, not hover over them. In conclusion, I think an argument
can definitely be made for the use of hovertanks within interstellar armies, but I
don’t believe every tank should be a hovertank. Maybe a unit of hovertanks can be used
to establish a foothold across the river before bridging equipment and tracked
vehicles are brought over to reinforce. Okay, but moving on. The second major
characteristic of tank design is protection. This isn’t simply a tank’s armor, shields, or whatever,
but a whole array of interconnecting principals, layered on top of each other that are collectively
sometimes known as the Protection Onion. The outer layer of the Onion is the idea of
avoiding a dangerous encounter in the first place. Your tank can’t be shot at, if your tank is
nowhere near anything that can shoot at you. In this case, communications equipment or
sensors that tie an individual vehicle into a wider networked environment, are
just as useful as additional armor. Possible threats to the tank can be
pinpointed by a starship in orbit, automated satellites or drones, other
vehicles or even boots on the ground. Once identified and these threats properly
communicated the tank now knows to avoid them. But that’s not always feasible, which
brings us to the next layer of the Onion: avoiding detection. Originally, this was as
simple as slapping some green paint on a tank and hoping nobody noticed it hiding in a bush. But
as the ways of detecting tanks have evolved so too have the methods of circumventing that detection.
Again, this is something that will depend on the technology of the alternate reality this tank
finds itself within. In most cases, it will refer to masking the electronic, radar, acoustic,
infrared and the magnetic signature of the tank, but if your enemy can detect the
psychic presence of the tank’s crew, or some other method, then wearing tinfoil hats
would fall into this layer of the umbrella. Likewise, if Gods or other supernatural forces
are actively involved on the battlefield, then prayer might also be utilized
here, although I feel like prayer might extend across every layer of the
onion, that’s something to think about. But, maybe in spite of everything, your
tank has been spotted. The next layer of the onion is to avoid being acquired by enemy
systems. This is another aspect where there's no universal technological solution, but unique
applications that vary from reality to reality. I’m sure the Covenant fighting on Reach use a
drastically different method of acquiring targets, compared to say, the Soviet Union trying
to take over Europa. Countermeasures might include things like decoys, smoke or other
obscurants, or some sort of jamming device. Once a shot is fired though, we move into the
next next layer, avoiding being hit. At the risk of sounding like a broken record, this is
again heavily dependent on whatever technology is available within the alternate reality your tank
operates within. In our own world, there are many different counter-measures in use, but generally
fit into soft-kill or hard-kill measures. A soft-method would alter the tracking or sensing
behavior of an incoming threat causing it to veer off course. This might be flares or counter-radar
chaff, or again, depending on where you find yourself, something more fantastical. If some sort
of Tyranid living ammunition is being shot at you, projecting a pheromone that makes your tank smell
like the ammunition’s brood-mother, would probably be a soft-kill measure. A hard kill measure would
be some sort of direct counter-attack meant to intercept and neutralize the incoming threat. This
could be some sort of missile or other kinetic attack, or if you had a Jedi in your tank crew,
maybe using the force to stop enemy blaster fire. But, if your tank exists
in a post-Order 66 universe or that Tyranid living ammunition
really hated its brood mother, we end up in the penultimate layer of our
onion. Avoiding penetration, and this, finally is where elements like armor, shields
or whatever, finally comes into play. The more you can pack onto a tank or the better you can
economize it, the better a tank’s survivability. The last layer to the Onion is ensuring
that even if every countermeasure fails, and the tank is hit and penetrated, this
doesn’t necessarily result in a kill. These could be redundant systems, allowing
the vehicle to continue functioning even if a major component is damaged, or one last layer of
protection afforded to the vehicle's crew. If your tank is unmanned or is crewed by droids or robots
or whatever, this may not even be a major issue. But, moving away from protection, the last
major characteristic is a tank’s firepower, and thankfully this is the most straightforward
of the three. A tank’s main weapon is typically a single large-caliber cannon mounted on
a fully traversing turret. This can be capable of firing a variety of ammunition
types, increasing the gun’s effectiveness against hard targets like enemy tanks, soft
targets like enemy unarmored vehicles or infantry and anything else a tank might reasonably
need to fire upon. Within interstellar armies, this might be a railgun, or a giant laser,
some sort of plasma accelerator, or who knows. But whatever it is, I’d expect that tanks might
be given special ammunition or their lasers charged in a specific way, so that they have the
capability to inflict more damage against shields, low flying starships, mechanized walkers and
whatever else. If it exists and is a threat, there is almost certainly some sort of
specialized ammunition intended to deal with it. Making sure the tank is big enough
to house all that ammunition, is another consideration
in the firepower category. While a single cannon is the most popularly
used tank armament in our own world, other options exist. Autocannons are
the 2nd most popular, trading caliber size for firing speed and ammunition
count. In most cases, but not always, you would expect guns like these to be less
effective against heavily armoured targets, but more so against infantry, lighter
vehicles and even aircraft. Again, the interstellar equivalent to this could be anything,
pulse phasers, tachyon shredders, whatever. Variations in a tank’s armament however, is where
we again slide into the debate of what constitutes a tank. Give a vehicle a large enough gun, and
you might end up with what some would consider a self-propelled artillery piece, optimize
it towards shooting down helicopters, aerospace craft or starships, you might
have a self-propelled anti-aircraft weapon. But there is one specific type of armament
that I don’t think should ever be on a tank, and this leads us to Tangent #2. As mentioned, pretty much every successful tank
design has been armed with a single cannon. So if one cannon is good, having two
cannons has gotta be even better right, maybe even twice as good? Well, I don’t think
so. This has something that’s been tried multiple times across our own history and the results
have never made such a design worthwhile. You have to start by asking, what problem
is a dual gun tank meant to solve? It’s only major advantage that I can think of,
would be that it can fire two shots at once. But if you’re looking to increase the tank’s rate of
fire, an autocannon or some similar kind of weapon seems like a better option. If you don’t want
to sacrifice the power of each individual round, then investing in a better loading
system seems much more practical. When you add a second cannon, you also need to
add another detection system, another method to load it, and find a place for all the extra
ammunition that additional gun would need. It also seems like it would be
harder to line up your shots as the gun is no longer in the center
of the tank’s turret or chassis. Dual cannon systems only make sense if you're
trying to spray a large area with fire, which is why you do find this type
of armament on anti-air vehicles When dealing with enemy tanks
though, precision is what's required. Now all that said, it’s perfectly possible some
kind of weapons technology might exist in some alternate reality to make this arrangement more
pacticle, but for the most part, stick to one gun. But a tank's offensive power is also based on
the systems in place to make sure it can actually acquire the enemy. There are again many elements
to this, ranging from the sensors that identify the enemy, to the stabilization methods that
ensure a tank’s cannon remains fixated on that target, regardless of what the rest of the vehicle
is doing. This to me is one of the ways in which tanks seem superior to mechanized walkers. When
you compare the videos of tanks driving around with pints of beer resting comfortably
on their guns, to Imperial ATATs or the BattleMechs of the Inner Sphere, well
the latter always comes off a bit clunky. So between Mobility, Protection and Firepower, you
have the three main characteristics of any tank. Improvements in one of those areas, will
likely come at the expense of the other two. But, it’s important to remember that
many other factors will impact the overall success of any tank design and
these are often much harder to measure. Other secondary characteristics
include things like: Ease of Training: How long does it take
for a novice crew to become proficient. Crew Comfort: how long can the tank be
operated before its crew needs a break. Reliability: How often does the tank
break down while in regular use. Ease of Maintenance & Repair: How much effort and
time is required to keep the vehicle operational? Consumption: How long can the tank be
in operation before it needs a resupply, either of fuel or ammunition. Cost: How much money or
time does it take to build? There’s a whole lot more secondary
characteristics like these, but the point is; It’s possible to end up with a tank that scores a
perfect 10 in mobility, protection and firepower, only for nobody to want to crew the thing because
it’s interior is too loud and hot and it takes forever to figure out how to drive it. You might
also find that these Secondary Characteristics can directly affect Primary characteristics. Your tank
might have phenomenal mobility, but if it breaks down all the time, it’s not going to get very far
no matter how fast its top speed. Likewise, you can have the best gun in the galaxy, but maybe the
tank is only big enough to fit a couple rounds. But, that aside, pretty much every tank in
history has been designed with those three main characteristics in mind, and hopefully enough
attention given to those secondary characteristics so as to make the vehicle practical. With an ever
increasing number of designs, has come the desire and need to classify those designs into various
tank types. Here we run into a bit of a problem. Many different classification systems have
been used since the introduction of the tank and these have evolved and changed both
across history and between nations. Some countries classified their tanks based on their
weight, others on their battlefield role. There is unfortunately no universal classification
system that works across all eras and nations. What might be called a “cruiser tank” in
one army, would be designated a “light” or “medium tank” in another, even if
the designs were identical. Likewise the requirements for what constitutes a light,
medium, or h eavy tank have changed over time. So when we talk about the
different types of tanks, it’s important to remember that
these designations… well there kinda, PoC Yeah, what he said. So we’ll do our best to provide a visual
representation of how each type of tank is balanced between those three primary
characteristics, mobility, protection and firepower, but even within the same tank
class, these attributes can vary wildly. We’ll be starting with the modern main battle tank,
before moving into various kinds of historical designations as determined both by weight and
battlefield role. We’ll include a few examples of vehicle types that are arguably not tanks at
all, and some others that will assuredly piss off the tank pursuits out there. But hey, better
to cast the net too wide than too narrow right? The concept of a main battle tank or MBT,
is in our world at least, the most modern classification we’ll be discussing. Across
history, the number of tank types in use has expanded and contracted with evolving
technologies and shifting doctrines. Since the middle of the Cold War into the modern
era, the MBT has successfully replaced a number of more specialized tank types to become the
most predominant class in service today. The idea behind them is pretty simple, a design
that balances evenly between speed, protection and firepower. The oversimplified role of an MBT
would be as a jack-of-all trades. Through advances in suspension systems, lightweight
composite armor and other technologies, it has the firepower of what was
historically designated a super-heavy tank, the armor of a heavy tank, the mobility of a
light tank with the weight of a medium tank. It makes sense that this kind of design has
replaced various others, with the technical sophistication of tanks increasing over time.
Why maintain numerous distinct production lines when you can achieve the same battlefield
results with just one? It seems to me that for 90% of interstellar armies, the Main Battle
Tank is what you would see in service most often. Battle Order here. Just a quick interjection, Main
Battle Tanks aren’t actually an even weighting of technical characteristics. They are simply the
main tank used by an army, and not defined by any specific technical detail. As was said, the reason
modern main battle tanks are the way they are now is because technology got to the point where
one tank could do the traditional jobs of light, medium, and heavy tanks. However, there are
different design philosophies that make it hard to pin down a technically derived definition.
For example, the Germans and French of the early Cold War generally gave their MBTs less armor
to afford greater mobility because during an offensive maneuver war, when protecting against
artillery shrapnel is often enough. The Americans and British meanwhile opted for heavier armor
with a tradeoff in mobility, as they foresaw less aggressive operations against the Soviets that
would require being able to take direct hits. You also have to consider that some countries
operate multiple MBTs in different types of units. For example, countries like Russia or
South Korea operate older tanks in infantry units for direct fire support while they keep
their newest tanks in their premiere armor units. Ultimately, designations are relative and what
your MBT is all depends on the threat. If the threat is such that a traditionally light tank
can take the hits and dish the damage you need, using it as your main tank is perfectly fine. For
example, the Stuart light tank was mainly used for reconnaissance and screening in Europe, and
probably couldn’t have been America’s main tank due to the armor and anti-tank threat. However,
in the Pacific, there were plenty of situations where the Stuart could function as the main tank.
Afterall, if the enemy really only had small arms to counter them, a light tank protected
against rifle fire was actually capable of closing with and destroying them. Further, in
restricted terrain, like jungle or a wooded area, light tanks could actually provide benefits
in maneuverability compared to larger options. Remember, designing a tank force
is really all about addressing the circumstances you are likely to find
yourself in within the limitations of your resources. You are right though, most tanks
will likely be main battle tanks in the future, but being most of the tank force is sort of
what makes main battle tanks main battle tanks. Damn, Battle Order comes in outta nowhere to
take me to class. But he’s absolutely right, any of the tanks we’ll go over in this video
could potentially fulfill the role of an MBT depending on the battlefield they find
themselves within. And even traditional MBTs might not all be an equal balance of those
three characteristics. But with that said... The type 61 tank in service with the Earth
Federation would be a good example of an MBT. It’s the main tank fielded by Federation
forces and it can fulfill a multitude of roles. Design wise, I don’t think the dual cannons
are necessary, and it's maybe a bit big, but overall, it’s a pretty effective design
at least to my largely untrained eye. But before technology made the MBT possible,
armies utilized many different types of tanks. The Light Tank is one of the few variants
that has been present across history, but also remains viable. Originally, these tanks
emphasized speed and were intended to harass and outmaneuver larger vehicles. They could perform
screening actions ahead of a heavier armoured formation, conduct reconnaissance, artillery
observation and participate in landing operations. In the modern era, many of these roles
have shifted to other battlefield elements, but the viability of the light tank within
airborne or amphibious landings makes it uniquely suited towards interstellar armies. If your is
fighting a relatively low-intensity insurgency across a number of worlds, lugging around MBTs
might be inefficient and cost prohibitive. A dedicated light tank might be better suited
towards this kind of expeditionary warfare. The Scorpion Tank utilized by the Brotherhood
of Nod would be a good example of a light tank. While its design seems impractical
by modern standards, it has a smaller gun, high speed and its light weight allows it to be
rapidly redeployed. It’s not meant to engage the heaviest vehicles used by Nod’s opponents,
relying instead on other heavier vehicles. The medium tank is perhaps one of the most
ill-defined tank types encompassing a wide variety of vehicles. While the name suggests
some sort of weight distinction, medium tanks were routinely classified by their battlefield
role. Initially, this was similar to that of a light tank, prioritizing speed and exploiting
the breakthroughs made by heavier tanks, but this later evolved to instead focus
on mobility, protection and firepower, if not exactly equally, at least in
a way that was bit more balanced. For this reason, medium tanks almost entirely
evolved or were replaced by Main Battle Tanks. It’s hard to see how medium tanks would fit into
an interstellar army, a standard main battle tank makes a lot more sense. But, if society suffered
through some kind of tark age of technology resulting in an amalgamation of
different military theories and doctrines under the command of an ignorant faith-based
regime, maybe the concept would return. It should be no surprise then that the Leman
Russ would be a good example of a medium tank in interstellar use. It is neither the largest
nor most advanced tank in service within the Imperium of Man, yet it’s able
to be produced in great numbers and routinely modified to fit a number of more
specialized roles. Most importantly however, it serves alongside both lighter and heavier
vehicles, indicating its status as a medium tank. This leads us to heavy tanks. As the name
suggests, these vehicles weighed more than Light or Medium Tanks and sacrificed mobility
and maneuverability for better protection and equal or superior firepower. Heavy
tanks were necessary in both world wars, first for surviving artillery and anti-tank guns
while crossing trench-lines or no man’s land, and then for anti-tank warfare
once that became more common. The lack of mobility ended up being a
major weakness though, as heavy tanks had a difficult time getting to the positions
where they could excel in their intended role. More often they were used as mobile pillboxes or
as focal points in a wider defensive position. It would be hard to justify
using heavy tanks within an interstellar army. Even if technology
and doctrine made the basic concept viable, I’d imagine hauling these enormous slow vehicles
around the galaxy would be a giant waste. By the time they lumbered off their transports, and were
ferried to the battlefield, the war might be over. But, the Tumbril Nova is a good example of a heavy
tank within an interstellar army. It is enormous, heavy, and extremely resilient to damage. It also
seems to have the same disadvantages inherent to its class, with even dedicated transports only
able to carry a couple of the vehicles at a time. I’ve spoken at great length before about how I
don’t particularly find the Nova to be a good design, but in a video like this one,
where critiquing the individual designs isn’t really the point it
seems unfair for me to repeat all those same critiques again.
So I’ll have someone else do it. Thanks Spookston! If you’d like
to see the UNSC’s Scorpion, the tanks of the Imperium of Man and
many other given that same treatment, be sure to check out Spookston’s
Youtube channel. Okay, back to it. Deficiencies in the design aside, the Nova
seems to be a heavy tank by the standards of the Cold War, mostly dedicated to destroying
other tanks. We can contrast this with a different heavy tank design that seems to have
been based more on the World One War standard. The Imperium of Man classifies the
Baneblade as a super-heavy tank, and we’ll get to those next, but when you compare
it to some of the absolutely enormous vehicles it serves alongside, the Baneblade is comparatively
small. So for our purposes today we’ll consider it a heavy tank. The point is, rather than a single
large caliber cannon, the Baneblade’s armament is composed of up to a dozen separate
guns, each suited towards enemy armor, fortification or infantry. With a crew of ten
people, it’s more akin to a moving fortress. The Baneblade, at least doctrinally, would not
have been out of place in 1919 as a heavy tank. So that takes us to Super-Heavy tanks. Ostensibly,
this refers to any tanks suitably heavier than a heavy tank, but where exactly that line is hard to
define. In our own world, I almost think it’s more appropriate to classify Super-Heavy tanks based
on their deficiencies, as every single design that fits that type has either been cancelled,
or wildly impractical. My definition would be when a heavy tank becomes too big to move under
its own power, it is now a Super-Heavy tank. For all the same reasons that a heavy tank
would be an inefficient design type within an interstellar army, a super-heavy
tank would be even less desirable. In my opinion, if the nation in question is
capable of constructing starships big enough to efficiently transport these gigantic vehicles into
a variety of warzones across interstellar space, it would likely also be capable
of using orbital bombardment or some other method to overcome the situations
for which these super-heavy tanks were designed. As impractical as I might find them, the
Bolo Tanks used by the Concordiat of Man would be a good example of a super-heavy tank. I don’t understand how they can move, but these
AI guided vehicles are absolutely enormous, bristling with weapons and exemplify
the old concept of a “landship”. So we move now from tank types more
or less classified by their weight, to those classified by their intended role. As previously mentioned, there is a lot
of overlap between these two systems. We’ll start with the “Cruiser Tank”. In
a lot of cases, these are very similar to light or medium tanks, comparatively
small and fast at the expense of armor. The distinction between light, medium and
cruiser tanks is often subtle and sometimes arbitrary. But where light tanks were generally
designed to conduct scouting and screening, cruiser tanks were intended to exploit
breakthroughs in the enemy’s line and directly engage other armoured units. This brings
it more in line with the concept of a medium tank. Now we’ll run into some issues trying to apply
historical designations like the Cruiser Tank to futuristic vehicles, so your mileage might
vary on some of my examples from here on out. That said, I think a strong case can be
made that the M-44 Hammerhead in service with the Systems Alliance is a good example of
a cruiser tank. It’s equipped with solid-fuel rocket thrusters in place of wheels or
tracks allowing it to move at great speeds, but its single forward facing gun is evidence
that the hammerhead was intended to engage armored targets. Now the System Alliance itself
classifies this as an infantry fighting vehicle, but as we’ll get into later on,
I don’t think this quite fits. Using the Hammerhead as an example, we can also
maybe take some inspiration on how the cruiser tank concept might fit into an interstellar army.
Normally I’d say the Cruiser Tank concept is redundant next to medium or main battle tanks, but
this is where different technologies could make it more distinct. Earlier than I said that hovertanks
should server alongside tracked vehicles? Well, maybe the tracked vehicles can be classified
as MBTs, while the hovertanks use the term Cruiser tanks. It still fits its historical
role, but in a way that’s now distinct. But next, let's get into the Infantry Tank. If
the cruiser tank is basically a medium tank, than the infantry tank is pretty much a heavy tank. It
was designed to support the advance of infantry, and as such, wasn’t required to move much faster
than walking or running speed. They were equipped with additional armor, but not necessarily more
firepower. Unlike heavy tanks, infantry tanks weren’t specifically designed to engage enemy
armor, at least that wasn’t their primary role. They were instead intended to support infantry
in creating a breakthrough. As such, they were often equipped with similar sized
guns to medium or even light tanks. The Annihilator variant of the Malcador Heavy
tank again in service with the Imperium of Man, is a fairly accurate example of an infantry tank,
even if it’s not directly designated as such. It’s primary armament, a demolisher cannon,
is better suited towards enemy infantry and fortifications, and while its secondary
armament could be used against armoured targets, it’s too slow and large to effectively
perform the role of a tank hunter. So far, each class we’ve talked about are about
as universally recognized as tanks as you can get. But now we start moving into more controversial
territory, are the following vehicles tanks or do they fit into the border category
of “armoured fighting vehicle”. That might vary from nation to nation and era to
era, so I’m not going to pass judgements. A tank destroyer, tank hunter, tank
killer, or self-propelled anti-tank gun, is specifically designed to engage and destroy
enemy armoured vehicles. In most cases they lack the operational mobility and tactical flexibility
of tanks, sacrificing both in favor of firepower. Historical examples are usually turretless, giving
the tank destroyer both a lower silhouette and the ability to house a larger gun. More modern
examples have replaced their tracks with wheels and discarded heavy guns in favor of missile
systems, although cannons have made something of a comeback as the demand for lower
cost anti-tank solutions has increased. Tank destroyers are another type of vehicle
that I think would make a lot of sense within an interstellar army. If the enemy possesses
a large number of heavily armoured units, and you don’t have the means to
transport MBTs or main battle tanks, smaller, cheaper tank destroyers
might be able to do the same job. Now, while its design is unlike any kind of tank
destroyer in our world, the IG-227 Hailfire Class, is used by the Confederacy of Independent
Systems in nearly an identical role. It doesn’t seem particularly durable,
but its high speed and armament made it an excellent counter to the
heavier walkers deployed by the Republic. Next on our list are self-propelled
anti-aircraft weapons and not many people would argue this is a tank
at all. This should be pretty self explanatory; an anti-aircraft system, usually a
couple rapid firing cannons or missiles, are mounted on a tank-like chassis. They are
intended to operate in concert or in the same environments as other armoured vehicles, so
their design is subsequently very similar. Anti-air vehicles might not make a ton of sense
within an invading interstellar army, they’d likely be redundant with fleet carriers in orbit
or in the atmosphere. But for a defending force I can definitely see their use. Fixed anti-aircraft
weapons would likely not last too long before they were targeted by orbital bombardments so having a
mobile platform seems to make sense. If these are suitably armed to engage enemy starships, not just
fighters or bombers, they could be a huge asset. While the exact designation of
this vehicle remains unknown, the Helghast employed a very good example
of a self-propelled anti-air weapon. It was based on the standard Helghast hover
APC chassis, but with an additional quad barreled cannon mounted atop a turret and
what seemed to be anti-aircraft missiles. Next on our list of vehicles we
have Self-Propelled Artillery. Again, in fairness, despite some similarities,
these really aren’t tanks although they do seem to be mistaken for them quite a bit.
Self-Propelled artillery has much lighter armor, usually only resistant to small arms fire or
the shrapnel from counter-battery fire, but they feature a much larger and longer ranged armament,
meant for indirect fire. That is, their targets are often not within visual range. Where these
vehicles have an advantage over towed artillery, is that they’re able to shoot and scoot, limiting
their risk of being hit but counter-fire. In certain situations they might be used for
direct fire support, but only in emergency situations and as a last resort. So if for
example you had a convoy of vehicles heading into enemy territory, you would generally not
want self-propelled artillery to be in the front. As with Self-Propelled anti-aircraft weapons,
I’d imagine this sort of vehicle would only be useful to the defender. A starship parked in
orbit could likely achieve the same results without the added logistics of deploying a
specialized vehicle to the surface of a planet. Battle Order here again. So I actually
disagree with my colleague on this point. A starship would be a formidable fire
support capability, no doubt about that, but that doesn’t make artillery at lower echelons
useless. Otherwise, in the 21st century we just would have had corps-level ballistic missiles and
strategic bombers and nothing lower than that. Putting artillery in the hands of lower commanders
allows for more responsive fires and guarantees that they will have fire support of some kind.
If a starship is providing general support for a large area, what if they are busy supporting
another unit? What if the process of getting approval for orbital bombardment adds precious
minutes to actually getting an effect on the ground? What if friendly soldiers are too close to
the enemy to call in massively powerful starship fires? If a brigade commander for
example has their own artillery, they will always be able to call
on it and might get faster results. To make an analogy, if you have a nail that can be driven in with your ballpeen hammer
and you need it done within 30 seconds, there’s no sense asking your friend to use
their jackhammer to do it in 15 minutes. Additionally, smaller artillery pieces can provide
you better effects for certain missions. Sure, a starship turbolaser can probably glass
10 grid squares at once. But if you just need to suppress a target, hide movement
with smoke, or just probe a position, lighter ground-launched precision artillery
of the future would probably be the move. For this reason, self-propelled artillery ranging from mortar carriers at lower levels
to self-propelled guns and precision missile artillery at the brigade, division
and corps levels is my recommendation. Once again, Battle Order makes a good point. As
with every armored fighting vehicle we’ve gone over, there is always the chance that the benefits
of including them within an interstellar army will outweigh whatever disadvantages
they might have. It all depends on what situation you find yourself within and
what capabilities your forces possess. The siege tanks used by the Terran Dominion are
not a perfect example of self-propelled artillery, but they’re pretty close. In this instance,
the design can perform all the functions of a heavy tank, but then reconfigure
itself to provide longer ranged support. While this concept is intriguing, I do
have to wonder how effective it would be. Each of these configurations is designed towards
a completely different role, so the siege tank is likely not quite as good at either as
two specialized vehicles might have been. Self propelled artillery is unusually
rare within interstellar armies, the only other example I can think of is the
aptly named Self-Propelled Heavy Artillery used by the Grand Army of the Republic. Now
technically this is actually a walker, which I did swear I wasn’t going to include in this video,
but I want to go on another brief tangent here. The main purpose of artillery, as discussed,
is to provide indirect fire. But what’s unusual about the Republic SPHA is that it fires a direct
beam of energy. This energy doesn’t seem to arc or curve in any way, meaning that this
piece of artillery requires a direct line of sight to whatever it’s trying
to hit. And that beam of energy also very clearly pinpoints exactly where
the artillery walker is positioned, leaving it susceptible to counter-battery fire. It
makes me think this weapon was designed more so to hit starships in orbit, as its otherwise unable
to fulfill the traditional role of artillery. While self-propelled artillery is designed
to most often provide indirect fire, Assault guns are the opposite. They are intended
to follow friendly infantry and knock out enemy fortifications or enemy infantry, sometimes at
very close range. They might have significantly weaker armor compared to a traditional
tank, but are usually a bit more mobile. Assault guns have widely fallen out of use as
main battle tanks ended up being able to perform this same role. What’s interesting
however, is that in our own world, the role of main battle tanks are increasingly
resembling that of assault guns. In battling insurgencies in the Middle East, it is rare
that tanks find themselves engaging enemy armor, but rather clearing out strongpoints and
irregular infantry. MBTs seem to be able to fufill this use well enough, but maybe a
dedicated design might be even more efficient. So again, while this design might not be useful
in every interstellar army, when going up against an insurgency of some kind where the enemy doesn’t
have access to armor, this type might be valuable. The Vindicator tanks used by the Space
Marines are a great example of an assault gun. They are intended to accompany infantry, and
clear our fortification with their heavy, forward mounted gun. It’s pretty
much a perfect representation. This leaves us with the last armoured vehicle on
our list, the Infantry Fighting Vehicle or IFV. These share a lot of similarities with armoured
personnel carriers, they’re designed to carry infantry and deliver them into combat. But
where an APC would lthen leave the combat area after deploying its troops, and IFV stays
with the squad, providing direct fire support or advances independently towards its objective.
For this reason, they have heavier armaments and more protection than APCs, at the cost of how many
troops they can carry. Compared to main battle tanks however, they are equally mobile, allowing
infantry to keep up with an armoured advance. This IFV concept has been very popular in our
modern world as armies often need a less expensive vehicle with heavier firepower, and folding in the
ability to carry infantry, makes a lot of sense. And I think they’d make a ton of sense
within an interstellar army as well. Keeping your force mobile when fighting over a battlefield that might be the size of a
planet would be an absolute necessity. The M577 is technically classified by the
United States Colonial Marines as an APC, but I think it fits the definition
of an infantry fighting vehicle pretty well. I say this because unlike most APCs, the M577 has a heavy armament and seems more than
capable of hanging around to provide fire support. And remember when I said earlier that the M44
Hammerhead wasn’t a great example of an IFV? Well it definitely has a large
cannon, but it doesn’t seem to have the ability to carry any troops, just
a few crew. So that’s my rationale there. So with that, we’ve covered most
major tank types and even some armoured fighting vehicles that probably
aren’t tanks at all. I have to admit, including Self Propelled Artillery but then
drawing the line at infantry fighting vehicles feels kinda arbitrary. We could have gone
into flame tanks, takettes, armoured cars, reconnaissance vehicles, mortar carriers,
armoured trains, tank classifications are so nebulous and always evolving that we probably
could have kept going for another 50 minutes. Of course, knowing the different types of tanks
is only part of building your interstellar armoured force. Doctrine is equally important. And
rather than risk embarrassing myself yet again, let’s go back to Battle Order so
is clearly the expert we need. So now that my colleague has given you an overview
of some types of armored fighting vehicles, how do you actually integrate these
into your army? You can min-max your technical performance all you want and shell out
billions for the newest in interstellar tanks, but it can all be squandered if
you don’t know how to employ them. The three main ways you can employ
tanks are as infantry support, aggressive maneuver forces, or reconnaissance. First, where tanks started and where I see them
going, the tank as infantry support. In essence, this is the tank as an assault gun, but with added
capabilities to keep relatively lightly protected infantry in the fight. This is essentially
how tanks were used during World War I, protected self-propelled direct fire artillery
with cross-country mobility. However, you really don’t have to be limited to interwar
British ideas of the “infantry tank” to pull it off. For your interstellar army, you can justify
many different kinds of vehicles to fill the role, from light and heavy tanks, to
main battle tanks or assault guns. For example, the British during World War
II would attach Tank Brigades equipped with Churchill infantry tanks, which were basically
just heavy tanks with British flavor, to infantry units to provide intimate support. However, the
Americans during the same period did something pretty similar but with Sherman medium tanks.
In the 20th and 21st Centuries, the Russians and Soviets before them have put a main battle tank
battalion in their Motorized Rifle formations to do basically the same thing; support infantry
with direct fire, provide intimate support and enable infantry to maneuver in the face of
enemy fire. And the Japanese put Type 16 wheeled light tanks in their rapid deployment
infantry regiments, because they wanted a direct fire, close combat capability that can also be
moved by their relatively small airlifters. If you aren’t going up against a mechanized force,
or have relatively few resources and a more infantry heavy army, you’ll probably be using
tanks mostly in support of other forces. In terms of unit organization, you
can really handle it in a lot of ways. Infantry support tank units can be independent
so you can prioritize them to where they’re needed. This was pretty much the World War
II infantry support tank doctrine for the majority of countries, whether they used heavy
breakthrough tanks or medium tanks for the job. Or you can make them organic to infantry units,
so they always have them and have more time to train together. This makes all of your infantry
units more resilient and powerful, but also means you’re less capable of concentrating
tank forces for offensive operations. In terms of amounts, different countries
have done different things. For example, the Russians typically have one tank battalion
per infantry brigade. That’s about 41 tanks supporting about 81 infantry squads for those
watching at home. Meanwhile, the South Koreans have one tank brigade with between 70 and 105
main battle tanks supporting each area defense corps. Corps can vary wildly in size, as they’re
mainly administrative headquarters, but we can guesstimate them as being about 20, to 40,000
people. In the Russian and South Korean cases, these are usually older main battle tanks,
while the Canadians disperse their tanks in mechanized infantry units because they don’t have
the need or money to create dedicated tank units. Another alternative to infantry support tanks is
the assault gun, which are typically less-well protected and provide less intimate direct fire
support to infantry. Unlike tanks, they can’t really close with the enemy, so they’re more about
shooting from an overwatch position while infantry close in. They can be used to take the burden
of infantry support off your main battle tanks, which you can prioritize for more aggressive
action. Assault gun roles, which usually involve anti-personnel and anti-structure work, really
don’t require your best tank gun to be effective. Even a 90mm cannon or a smaller autocannon could
do the job; thus you’re not wasting capability by putting a very capable tank in the role. You
can integrate other things, like anti-tank guided missile carriers, to take on enemy tanks
when needed. Further, assault guns can be more strategically and operationally mobile than tanks,
making them less of a burden for infantry units. One prominent example of assault
guns is in the Chinese practice, whose medium and amphibious combined arms
battalions have an Assault Vehicle Company equipped with either tracked ZTD-5
or wheeled ZTL-11 assault guns. But, perhaps more controversially, infantry fighting
vehicles functionally fit an assault gun role within the mechanized infantry, since
their autocannons or even low-pressure gun-launchers like on the BMP-3 provide
effective direct fire support for infantry. The second major type of tank application is as
aggressive maneuver forces. Using their mobility, firepower, and protection, tanks can be used
to conduct their own combined arms maneuvers, driving deep into enemy territory or
defeating enemy assaults through direct fires and counterattack. In modern times, the main
battle tank is typically the core of such units. I would say if you’re going to have
a dedicated tank maneuver force, the units should be at least half tank.
If you have more infantry than tanks, then I’d classify it as mechanized
personally rather than a tank unit. However, it should also be noted that tank forces need
infantry support to hold ground and screen them when moving through complex terrain, so you don’t
want to go pure tank. Whether that means you have infantry in the tank units all the time or
you attach them from outside is up to you. One example is the combined arms battalion, which
has a mix of tanks and mechanized infantry. The Chinese and Swedes for example do a half-and-half
mix of 2 tank companies and 2 infantry companies. Meanwhile, the Americans have either 2 tank
and 1 infantry company, or the reverse. Thus, each battalion can swap platoons between
companies to create combined arms teams. Another method is making your brigades combined
arms. For example, the Russian Tank Brigade has 3 tank battalions and 1 infantry battalion,
with that infantry battalion being split up to support the tanks. This would entail
creating Battalion Tactical Groups, usually 1 tank battalion reinforced with a motorized rifle
company, artillery, air defense, and other support to create a combined arms unit. In South Korea,
brigades subordinate to their offensively-minded Mobile Divisions are similar, but much more
varied. Each of their brigades typically consist of 3 battalions, and these can be pretty
much any mix of tanks and mechanized infantry. Overall, combined arms units have an advantage
in that different types of units get the chance to train together, form intimate relationships
and gain competence in combined arms operations. You can still grow proficiency in combined arms
even if units aren’t organically combined arms, but they might not have as much experience
in it or build as close relationships. The third and last niche I want to mention is
tanks as reconnaissance and security elements. Your recce and screening units will typically
operate on the bleeding edge of your armored unit, both to observe the enemy force and provide
early warning so the enemy’s recce doesn’t get the jump on you. Having tanks here can
be beneficial as being able to defeat armor in the enemy’s advanced guard or recce element
without outside support is very useful. Further, sometimes attacking the enemy is necessary to
collect information, so offensive capabilities are also necessary for reconnaissance. If
you don’t put tanks in the recon units, you might need to detail tanks from your maneuver
forces to reinforce them, which isn’t ideal. Light tanks were traditionally used for
reconnaissance purposes, so that’s an obvious option. You can also use main battle tanks for
the task. For example, US Army armored brigade combat teams have a tank company with the
M1A2 Abrams. Assault guns are also an option, but I would stay clear of a dedicated heavy
tank in your recce unit for obvious reasons. Even if you don’t put tanks in there, in some
cases dedicated recon vehicles or infantry fighting vehicles can functionally act as light
tanks depending on the circumstance. For example, the M3 Bradley, an infantry fighting vehicle,
displayed many of the characteristics of a light tank during the Battle of 73 Easting, using their
TOW missiles for anti-tank work and autocannons for more assault gun-type fires. So long as you
put something in there that can effectively engage and defeat enemy infantry and armor, you have a
recce capability that can fight for information. I must give special thanks to my colleague over at
Battle Order for lending us their expertise here. If you’re not already familiar with them,
Battle Order does absolutely phenomenal work on their YouTube channel discussing real
life military units in a way that’s clear and accessible. If you want to know how
a modern Russian motor rifle company is organized, what the helmet markings
of paratroopers on D-Day all meant, or even just what is a platoon, there
is no better resource than Battle Order. So, going by the three general uses of
armored formations, infantry support, maneuver warfare and reconnaissance, are
there any lessons we can apply to interstellar armies? Well, even though they don’t make
extensive use of tanks, the Galactic Empire certainly seems to rely pretty much exclusively on
that infantry support doctrine. This makes sense in a battlefield like Jedha City where you have
hidden insurgents amongst the civilian population. Stormtroopers surely benefited from the fire
support offered by Imperial tanks. But on a battlefield like Hoth, Imperial doctrine was
entirely inappropriate for the situation. To defeat an elusive irregular force like the
Rebel Alliance, Imperial forces needed a means to cut off their retreat. If the Empire had abandoned
its AT-ATs and embraced maneuver warfare, tank formations might have been able to sweep
through the Rebel lines and encircle their defensive formations. Instead, they relied
again on that infantry support doctrine, slowly advancing and giving the Rebels ample
time to withdrawal. If the Alliance had deeply entrenched positions stretching across
dozens of miles, this might have made sense, but there was no reason the Empire needed to be so
cautious when engaging such a lightly armed force. The military forces of the Terran
Federation could have made great use of all three of those armoured doctrines, but
on a battlefield likes Klendathu and elsewhere, using armor in an infantry support role would
have made a lot of sense. While sweeping armoured advances would have no doubt killed a lot of
bugs, against such a numerically superior foe, the risk of these elements being cut off from support
elements and overwhelmed is significantly higher. A slow methodical advance in which
counter-attacks can be repulsed by intense fire support seems the best strategy, and
here tanks could have made all the difference. Now as we reach the end of our guide,
we come to the most important part, how do you name your different tank designs?
Unfortunately, unlike naval vessels, armoured vehicles seem to lack the same
sense of tradition when it comes to naming conventions. Most nations use an alphanumeric
designation, sometimes followed by a nickname, either official or unofficial. The American
military typically names their tanks after army generals, the British seem to like words
that start with the letter C for some reason, and the Germans really love wild cats. I have
no idea what the Russians are doing. A lot of their self-propelled artillery is named after
flowers, anti-air vehicles are named after rivers, and their main battle tanks are called
things like “Slingshot” and “Banana”. But naming tanks doesn’t have to end
there. While the process of naming a ship is usually very formal and grandiose and
can intertwine with politics to ensure the ship’s name reflects the proud traditions
and gallantry and whatever of the navy, within the American army and possibly
others, the process is very different. Here tank crews are often able to name their own
individual tanks and I think this is amazing. The process seems surprisingly informal,
and varies between different commanders, but generally tank crews can name their
vehicles pretty much whatever they want. So long as the tank’s name isn’t too profane,
it’s usually accepted. In some cases, the first letter of the tank’s name has to
be the same as their Company. For example, all the tanks in A company would have names that
start with A, but this isn’t a universal rule. There are amazing lists out there with some truly
badass or hilarious names and I encourage you to seek them out, but here are some of the best
I’ve come across, feel free to pause if needed. So, that I hope, covers the basics on how
to build tanks for your interstellar army. Whether you are a veteran field
marshal or just an aspirant warlord, I hope you found this all useful. And if this
guide did indeed help you grind the natives of some alien world beneath the treads of your
tanks, feel free to name one of them after us. And even though I and I alone command
a tank known as the unassailable truth, armoured against ignorance, mobile enough to avoid
stupid comments, and armed with perfect opinions, I’d like to hear your thoughts. What types of tank
make the most sense within interstellar armies? Do twin-barreled cannons actually make sense? Are
you painfully unoriginal, and planning on naming your tank tankymctankface even though that whole
thing hasn’t been funny for a really long time? Let me know in the comments below. Oh, and if
your wondering how the Templin Flag ended up on a T-72, you’ll find a special investigation into
that very question over on the Templin Archives. And until next time, this has been incoming.
laughs in "20 superheavy tanks for every soldier deployed" doctrine
Interesting I’ll have to take a look at it
Tanks are vulnerable in urban areas and dense forests. Buildings and other obstacles will constrain their movement and prevent them from firing at longer ranges. Between the plethora of hiding places and limited views through tank optics, it's also very easy for enemies to hide and fire at the vehicle with RPGs, ATGMs, etc. At the very least, more nimble infantry soldiers will be needed in a supporting role, defending the tank, scouting ahead and along the sides of the route. You're probably better off having your heavy weapons in the air, where they'll be less constrained by the urban environment. Helicopters, fighter jets, drones, rockets, or even conventional artillery firing from outside the battlefield.
Tanks are more useful in open fields, though cover and camouflage is still useful. This can be from vegetation or topography. However, this can also leave them vulnerable to aerial bombings. If you're an interstellar army, your main countermeasure to the enemy's armor will be bombing it first. You probably won't land your own tanks until you have guaranteed air superiority. The tanks will then operate in rural areas, patrolling them and acting in tandem with air defenses or fighters to blockade urban areas into submission.
one day I'll make a video along the lines of 'dear templin institute: modern day american doctrines are not an unprecedented pinnacle of military strategy that will remain unaltered for all eternity'
not today though...
Hessenan Chronicles: Laughs in "not even care about taking over planets" and "pull a frigate down and let it act as a tank" doctrines
I just want to contend that the issue with super heavy tanks (right before the section on cruiser tanks around 38min mark) could be mitigated, if an interstellar detail saw a number of light and medium tanks tagging along for whatever such transports could accommodate. Perhaps ensure the offloading of these smaller, more agile units within seconds of touchdown to fill in gaps such as the super heavy's blind spots or its larger cannons' reloading.