However in the book 'Key Weapons of The World' By Chris McNab on the M48 Patton's page, there is no mention of the term 'Main Battle Tank'. Wikipedia ( See Here), last I have looked, has classified the M47 and M48 Pattons as Main Battle Tanks. There also seems to be a lot of debate on which tanks were MBTs and which ones weren't, particularly in the early days of the Cold War.įor example, the M60 US MBT is unanimously agreed that it was an MBT, however there seems to be some blurred lines on the M60's predecessors, like the M47 and M48 Patton tanks. Sounds pretty vague, and honestly most tanks in the modern age can just fit this definition, so it leaves you to think 'So it's a tank.' Often heavily armoured, the MBT has remained integral to ground force doctrine for the last half-century.' 'The main battle tank (MBT) refers to a design concept that consists of an armoured vehicle that provides direct fire and manoeuvrability. When I look on Google and search up 'what makes a tank an MBT?', I get this response as the first result: So I have been questioning what truly makes a tank labeled as an MBT.

TL DR: This was a bit of a ramble meant to spark discussion and debate, so if my title is too vague: Is deciding which tanks is an MBT based on doctrinal or technological requirements?

Main battle tank and concept art