YES WE HEARD YOU. My point has always been that even though the land raider is the better suited and is officially designated as an mbt IT IS NOT USED AS ONE. It is used like the super-heavies of the ImpGuard. The Predator (while more akin to an AFV) is the mbt of the SM's because that's how they use it. This isn't a debate about what it officially is, it is over how they are used and my preference to calling tanks based on how they are used. Why hasn't that sunk in yet?

Fine.
It is your opinion.
I do not agree with it.
And GW's IP doesn't agree with it.

Now can we move on.

Actually I have never seen GW refer to the Land Raider as an MBT at all. They've called it a "Tank" in the generic sense, as well as a "Transport", "Assault Vehicle", and "Linebreaker", but I've never actually seen them refer to it as an MBT and they have never treated it as if it was intended to fill that role.

Besides that'd be like IG getting a Baneblade as their "MBT" instead of a LRBT.

Where as for the Predator, the codex states that, in its exact words, "The Predator is the main battle tank of the Space Marines".

So I really don't know where you're getting this whole thing about the Land Raider being the SM MBT and the Predator being an IFV. The Space Marines just prefer their MBT in an infantry support role, because they have some of the strongest infantry in the game.

I guess you missed the Imperial Armour quote I posted a few days ago that covered the Land Raider as an MBT.
It's also the one where I posted the Predator's full paragraph quote from the old Codex: Space Marine.

Maybe you should read them.

Was that the one where it called the predator the "main battle tank of the Space marines" and called the land raider a "battle tank"? The word main is used for one and not the other for a reason

Yes.

But it doesn't mention that it's a super-heavy.

Space Marines mainly use three tanks from their armoury, the Predator, the Vindicator, and the Land Raider.

I would also point out that Super Heavy tanks have greater endurance than normal battle tanks about 2-4 times that of the Land Raider.
Even the Malcador has half-again the endurance of a Land Raider.
And by Endurance I mean they can take more punishment from enemy fire due to size and armour.

Plus here's another quote from the Index Astartes article on the Land Raider:

I can't get behind no exploding vehicles if i hit a tank in rear armor wear the engine and gas tank are with a rocket launcher how is that explosive rocket volitile fuel and ammo inside that tank not going to explode and only make it fume and kill the guys inside ? It doesn't work your other points are quite sound and I wholely agree with them. I can see you yourself have dealt with tanks a lot in video game a but it's a part of reality and well everything that if you punch open a tank it goes boom creating an explosion capable of killing anyone inside or in the immediate proximity of the vehicle. Destroying an enemy vehicle and taking out groups of infantry is a very good strategy and can help just having the tank blow up asthetically in a ball if fire that should kill anyone in the immediate vicinity of it and watch as people are completely unfazed by a large explosion nearby is ridiculous everything else you said is alright exept infinite repair kits even if there is an overheat you have 2-4 guys behind a tank and it's virtually immortal because they can just take turns repairing whilst one cools down while having extras on stand by

If you're talking about the Predator, the engine isn't in the back nor is the fuel.

The Predator, like the Rhino, has four engines each one at the base of exhaust pipes on the side. It uses a thermal reaction to power electric drive motors.

Penetrating the rear armour would probably cause it to "Brew-up", namely immobilise it and set it on fire until the fuel/ammo detonated.
Though a Lascannon could penetrate and detonate the volatile contents with one shot.

But you see what I'm getting at penetrating the armor causes it to go boom it doesn't hurt sit there or explode and do nothing.

Here's the downside with vehicle area of effect detonations....Physics...it requires the devs to implement a destruction system for the vehicle revolving around an detonation that consumes it from the inside out and sens both shrapnel and larger debris in all directions. That means players have to worry about both being hit by the initial explosion, the detonation of the vehicle, and the remains of the vehicle trying to splatter them across the ground or paint their viscera across the battlefield.

With everything else already going on, I am in favor of them not implementing it. I've been the victim of way too many decapitations from destroyed vehicles and so have my men. Never again should people have to witness an aircraft destroyed in midair sever in twain and splatter over 100 people as it crashes across the battlefield and then explodes.