Talk:Tank/Archive 1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

DO NOT EDIT OR POST REPLIES TO THIS PAGE. THIS PAGE IS AN ARCHIVE.

This archive page covers approximately the dates between 2005-02-27 and 2005-10-10).

Post replies to the main talk page, copying or summarizing the section you are replying to if necessary.

Please add new archivals to Talk:Talk/Archive02. (See Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.) Thank you. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 06:47 Z

Missiles through the gun barrel

Some tanks, including the M551 Sheridan, T-72, T-64, T-80, T-90, and T-84 can fire anti-tank guided missiles through their gun barrel. One reason for doing this is to extend the effective range of the gun, since the kinetic energy round loses penetrating power over long distances. It also provides the tank with a useful weapon against slow, low-flying airborne targets like helicopters.

This section needs to be reworded considerably , since it gives the impression that this type of weapon is common when in fact all countries except the Soviet Union had abandoned (after several trials) it completely by the 1990s. There were only 50-60 Sheridan tanks working in the US army by then, and they are now being replaced by Strykers. Perhaps one day in the future some country will come up with a workable missile system, based on a Main Battle Tank (fired through the main gun or otherwise) but up to now all prototypes, series productions, etc. have proved to be useless in combat conditions and no arsenal or research and development unit is working on this kind of weapon, for deployment any time in the next decades. --AlainV 13:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't see how this could give the impression that it is common. If it said "many tanks..." or "most tanks..." then that would be understandable. But the word "some" is defined by the dictionary as:

Being an unspecified number or quantity: Some people came into the room. Would you like some sugar?
Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group: He likes some modern scupture but not all.
Being a considerable number or quantity: She has been directing films for some years now.
Unknown or unspecified by name: Some man called.
Logic. Being part and perhaps all of a class.
Informal. Remarkable: She is some skier.

Note that the first two definitions, which are the ones that apply when the word is used in this way, tell you that the word "some" refers to an unspecified number or quantity. This is on purpose, as I don't see how we could accurately assess how many of the tanks in the world today have this feature. The fact remains that there are at least some operational tanks which fire missiles from their barrels and therefore, in my opinion, it's worth mentioning. Otherwise people might get the impression that all tanks fire 105, 120 or 125mm shells as their main armament and that's it. That would be rather misleading I think. This is a lot more significant when discussing Soviet/Ukranian/Russian tanks, as they're the ones which are still using this feature in production tanks, ostensibly because they have made it work well. The fact that the US gave up on it doesn't mean the other tanks mentioned have no merit. I mentioned the M60A2 and M551 so that it doesn't sound like the USSR was the only country that tried out this weapons system. If you want, you could mention this. I didn't think it was all that important to the discussion; it's still a viable weapon system today in at last some tanks which are still being produced and sold. I didn't even mention the missile-armed "tank destoyer" concept which the Israelis seem to find pretty useful.

What exactly makes you think the Refleks (AT-11) is not a useful weapon deployed today? Nvinen 14:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because all of the evaluation reports on gun/missile systems I have read in the past in several Jane's publications and other sources (such as the now defunct publication called "Military attaché", or the books by Ogorkiewicz) were always negative. I must admit that I have not yet read a report on the Refleks in particular! But regardless of their possible usefulness in combat I think such systems are worth mentioning at least because of all the time and effort spent on them over several decades. I think in fact that other tank-missile systems such as the ones which were for a long time mounted externally on AMX-13 in addition to the main gun, should also be mentioned rapidly, though I am not in a hurry to do so personally. --AlainV 02:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I agree that the concept of mounting ATGMs on tanks, other than firing through the barrel, is also an intriguing concept and worth a small mention. I'm trying to make sure the article discusses the traditional MBT armament in detail, but also mentions many of the more successful or at least prolific variations, especially those which might prove to be popular in future (such as mortars and grenade launchers, to make tanks which are useful in supporting infantry and less stuctured wars, as this may be common in the future). Nvinen 15:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tsar Tank

The Tsar tank, while interesting belongs if anywhere under Tank history or more likely Armoured cars since

It is under 'Tank history'. Mikkalai 00:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) it doesn't meet the 'tank' definition of a tracked vehicle 2) it's an unsuccessful idea

GraemeLeggett 10:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We should leave the Tsar Tank off, even without debating details. Leonardo da Vinci designed a "tank". The Poles had metal-plated war-wagons in the Middle Ages. The Romans had shielded siege towers on wheels armed with catapults. The Assyrians had moveable barriers for bowmen. If the title of this article was "War machines" we could mention some of these, but it's "Tank". The name came from the British secret weapon design as noted. We should start the article with that, and leave the rest of these attempts in Tank history, if anywhere. --A D Monroe III 23:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

OK with me, as long as the material is not deleted, but moved elsewhere, where you seem fit better. BTW all what you wrote here would be nice to have in the Armoured fighting vehicle (not "war machine") article.

Desipite someone's comment, my adition is not about "who's first" (notice that I omitted the word "first" from my second version). My point is that in the current version "tank history" section starts out of the thin air, no any prehistory mentioned at all. Some kind of preamble is definitely missing. Mikkalai 00:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the Tsar tank paragraph to the armoured car article. There is currently a problem with the tank history section. It is simply too long for an average computer screen: Somebody consulting Wikipedia and looking for info on tanks gets more than a page (on the average screen) on tank history before actually getting any current or general or generic info on tanks. I think that there should be at most a paragraph or two on tank history in this general tank article, and that the rest should be moved to the Tank history article. But no matter how I look at it I just can't see what parts can be easily moved out to the Tank history article. There is always a serious rewrite involved. --AlainV 03:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The article starts off with two paragraphs describing what a tank is and then a table of contents which allows someone to jump to whichever category they want to read. I don't see any problems with that, and if they don't want to read the history they can scroll/jump past it. True, it is long, and it has its own article. If you're that worried about it, you could move it, it doesn't HAVE to be at the start (although it makes sense that the design of tanks should come after the history, since the design is because of the history, but that isn't the only way to determine the order of sections in an article). From a quick scan of the history section, it says everything that probably should be said initially. There's heaps of history, obviously, but we can't say it all here. Nvinen 03:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it makes more sense to put the history section at the top. But the size problem still remains. You have to remember that the table of contents is an optional Wikipedia feature which many users turn off. They say they just can't stantd it. For them, the tank article appears as if it were mainly a history article.

Tactics

Well I added a section on tactics, main reason being that there were some things I thought it was odd that weren't mentioned (such as the vulnerability of the running gear, a severe limitation and something that tankers have to always be aware of), but adding it to the existing sections seemed to make them too long, so I added a new one. Also, it seemed odd to devote the whole article to history and design of tanks and never talk about how they are actually used, especially since it's a current topic. The article is now around 32kb and I think it's just fine but I have a large monitor. Others may not feel the same way. I added a couple of little photos to the bottom, to balance it a bit better, so the photos weren't all jammed up the top, and because these two are fairly appropriate for the lower sections. Hopefully I haven't annoyed anyone by doing all this, if you're not happy with it and have a good idea how to improve it please let it be known. Nvinen 07:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because tank warfare involves many other vehicles at the same time it merits its own article outside of this one. I have created it with what was the Tactics section. I have made a link to it (Armoured combat) in the "see also" section at the bottom of the tank article and have also made links to it in several other relevant articles. I have added a few elements to it but there is still much work to be done involving helicopters and land reconnaissance units.--AlainV 02:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree it merits its own article. I'm worried that the Tank article itself says none of this stuff though. Maybe it could have a teensy bit on tactics (mentioning how tanks fill several roles - in fighting other tanks, fighting and supporting infantry, etc.) with a link to the new article? Like I said, I felt it was bad form to talk about how tanks are built but have nothing about how they are used. I agree, we don't want the article to get much bigger. However I still feel like there's important stuff it doesn't talk about, and to fit that in we'll have to come up with some kind of solution. I personally don't want to break it up into totally separate articles, I'd rather have the main article at least touch on everything and say the most important stuff, then the details can be elsewhere.... For example we probably should also talk about what it's like to fight in a tank unit and some of the challenges which still need to be faced. Since I've never been in the military and have only read about it, I don't feel like I'm qualified to talk about what it's like to fight in an armoured vehicle, so I'm hoping someone will come along who will give a first (rather than second or third) party account of it. Nvinen 14:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The reference to armoured warfare shouldbe higher up than just the see also list. It could with some justification go right at the start as if in a disambiguation comment GraemeLeggett 15:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The primary goal of the tank in most armies is to kill other tanks, but it is so versatile that doctrines and rules call for it destroying just about anything else, from trains to low-flying aircraft. This is the kind of thing that can be mentioned as long as the focus stays on the tank. Same thing for tactics. There are no tank-specific tactics. Tank warfare always involves other vehicles or weapons, so not much can be said on tank tactics per se. There are quite a few number of books on what fighting in a tank is like (noisy, bruising, scary and hot)and also biographies of "tankers" like General Abrams. I wish I had them on hand because it's been a long time since I have read some of them, and do not remember enough to write some reliable paragraphs, distilled from them. Having a first hand account would be nice but this encyclopedia article should not be a collection of reminescences, however interesting they might be. --AlainV 03:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

What??? "There are no tank-specific tactics". That makes no sense. Are you saying that people who fight in tanks merely copy the tactics developed for other vehicles or situations? I'd say that there are a lot of tactics developed SPECIFICALLY to take advantage of the combination of properties of tanks which is what makes them so useful on the battlefield. Hell, the Israelis (not very successfully) fought major battles using nothing much other than tanks and aircraft. I hope they were using tank-specific tactics. And in that case, the warfare may have involved some other vehicles but it was pretty much an all-tank show, with anything else being in support.

I don't fully agree with "The primary goal of the tank in most armies is to kill other tanks" but I can't say that it's not at least partially true. However, this is misleading. Just because that's the primary goal, doesn't mean that there is not a significant role for tanks doing other things, such as protecting/engaging infantry. In fact, there have been many tanks built specifically to engage infantry! Take the Churchill series for example. The M60 is an example of a tank which was fully capable of engaging other tanks but which had many features built into it to make working with and engaging infantry more successful, like the exterior telephone so that accompanying infantry could talk to the occupants. What about flame thrower tanks? Killing an enemy tank with one of those would be pretty unlikely.

I'm not convinced the "noisy, brusing, scary and hot" really applies across the board any more. Noisy, probably so. Hot? I'm pretty sure the M1 has a nice air conditioning system. I suppose it won't be on all the time, but I also suspect that fighting in an M1 is not really that scary (it's pretty safe), not all that hot as mentioned before, and it also has lots of soft edges to avoid the bruising aspect. This is why I don't want to go ahead and say what it's like based on what could possibly be out of date information.

In short, I think the view expressed above is missing the point. Just because tankers spend most of their time training to engage enemy tanks doesn't even mean that that's their #1 role. More than anything else, it is because this is their most difficult task, and if they screw up they're dead. How many of the hundreds of tanks in Iraq have been engaging enemy tanks recently? What about in Chechnya? I'm sorry but I don't think NATO and the USSR are going to be fighting for Western Europe any time soon. I'm sure there are still tank battles to be fought but in future I'd say the majority of fighting that tanks do will be against light vehicles, infantry and fortifications. To avoid mentioning things like how effective certain tank features are against these kind of threats, how these threats influence tank design, etc. is missing an important aspect of tanks. Nvinen 05:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Also your argument is somewhat self-defeating. You say that tanks always work with other vehicles, yet this was the first paragraph of my tactics section which was removed - explaining the importance of that. On the other hand, I also don't agree that something is not "tank tactics" just because the tactics incorporate accompanying IFVs too. Nvinen 05:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with most of what you say, but this is an article on current tank forms, not on the immense variety of mine-uncovering tanks, flame-throwing tanks, british "infantry" tanks of WWII, swimming tanks,(I have a particular fodnness for the prototype that was fitted with rockets during WW II) etc. etc. which have been produced in the past but are no longer in use. There is the Tank history article for dealing with such extinct types, and there are articles on other types of armored vehicles to deal with those specialties which have gradually migrated away from the MBTs. The air conditioning is efficient only when the tank is completely buttoned up, and most of the time you don't want to be buttoned up because it reduces visibility too much, making the terrain and potential ennemy more difficult to see. The sophisticated vision systems are still inferior to human eyes, during daylight. The moment a tank leaves a road everybody (and everything) in it gets jostled in a major way. No matter how soft the edges are if you bump into them you get a bruise. The Leclerc has sophisticated safety harness systems which minimise this. I admit that my mentioning that the interior of a tank is scary is probably redundant since there is no such thing as safe and secure place for any type of soldier (infantry, armour, artillery...)in combat. You could argue that all of combined operations or armoured combat is in a way tank centered since so much effort is put into protecting the tank, by the concerted actions of IFVs, dismounted infantry, armoured anti-aircraft vehicles. And the place for describing this orientation should be in the armoured combat article, or in yet another new article, such as one which could chronicle the evolution of tank tactics in a given period of time. The examples you give are spread out between WW II and the last war so you could have something like "tank warfare from 1939 to 1999" or something of the sort. The current tank history article does not have such a focus and it is already very long. --AlainV 01:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I would say that pretty much all tactical warfare is centred around infantry. No matter how large-scale their operations, all other land forces essentially support the infantry, since they are still the only arm of service that can take and hold ground. —Michael Z. 2005-03-4 05:37 Z

Don't say that to a really old cavalry officer! Or to somebody who has studied the comparative roles of knights and "la pietaille" in Medieval warfare. Or to those who are involved in replacing tanks with lighter armored vehicles. Just joking! I really do not want to argue over this, at least not in a Wikipedia talk page. But nevertheless this is an interesting argument that has been going on in a nearly continuous fashion since 4 thousand years or so ago when it seemed that horse drawn chariots had displaced infantry in importance, in the wars of several early civilisations. I wonder how many articles we could squeeze out of it. First we would need to survey the existing ones on Hittites, Egyptians... Arghh! I need sleep. I have to get up early tomorrow and I still haven't worked on the SOHO article.--AlainV 00:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"This is an article on current tank forms" - I think this is where we disagree. I'd like the subject of the article called "Tank" to be Tanks. Not the history of tanks necessarily, but not just their forms either. It's like saying in an article called "Bird" it's OK to talk about wings, feathers, etc. but not about, say, migratory habits (which are possible because birds can fly long distances), ecological niches that birds fill, etc. I think a well-rounded article about a given object talks about the physical form of that object and how it came to be that way but also why it is that way, how it is used, what advantages that gives, etc. Like somebody on #wikipedia said, "Dictionaries define words, encyclopedias define concepts" - hence I'm trying to discuss the concept of tanks, not just the physical objects. Oh well, I'm not going to change the article any more, there are plenty of other articles I need to work on more badly, so it's up to others whether they want to do this. Nvinen 03:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was just throwing out talking points. I was a reservist in armoured reconnaissance, myself. Tanks may be the major offensive force on land, but the article text mustn't treat them too much in isolation. It's important to maintain the impression that they virtually always work with other tanks and in combined arms formations. —Michael Z. 2005-03-5 14:44 Z

I question the intent expressed the tank was to break the deadlock. As I recall, the objective was to provide armored cover; breaking the deadlock was incidental. Also, I'd be inclined to add something about improving the mobility:firepower relationship; just as cavalry suffer lower casualties under fire from archers, armored units take fewer casualties to fire, because of superior mobility. Comment? And should it be covered in this section? Trekphiler 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added mention of Fuller; was his original concept 1918 or 1919? (Somebody add the correct date?) I've also mentioned Hobart, Guderian, deGaulle, Chaffee, & Tukhachevskiy. Trekphiler 09:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is British English

Some people are changing existing British English spellings in this article to American English. That's against WP policy, right? If no true Brit is available, I'll use my limited knowledge of BE to set it back in the next day or so. --A D Monroe III 23:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure it isn't Canadian English? I'll have a look through it tomorrow and fix that up. —Michael Z. 2005-03-21 23:38 Z

There is no coherent, perfectly uniform set of Canadian English spelling because editors, schools and other corporations or governments at several levels in Canada have been switching between British and U.S. spelling over decades, back and forth. However, there is a coherent British spelling, and I thought that this article followed it or tried to follow it. Wikipedia policy is to remain consistent within any given article.

I've been working in British English. GraemeLeggett

It's totally untrue that there's no uniform Canadian English. Just because some company chooses to use Microsoft's lame spelling checker, doesn't mean Canadian English doesn't exist. The article may describe it as a mixture of different national conventions, but it's always perfectly clear when spelling and vocabulary is or is not Canadian. —Michael Z. 2005-03-22 20:51 Z

This article is made of various contributions as far as I know some are Swedish, some are German, some are French and some are I don't where.... So, it's written in some form of Globish ? As for myself, I can't make any difference between British English and American English. Thus makes it in any form of English you will agree on...

Ericd 21:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To quote from the "Spelling" section of the very article on Canadian English linked to a few lines above, "There is no universally accepted standard of Canadian spelling". Which is why when I look at one standard I get one view and another standard another view. In the end things are not perfectly clear for me, so I would rather stick with British English.--AlainV 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

R&D- on page or not

I have moved the R&D material back, as I discovered the material wasn't actually being moved but also heavily edited in the process. Im not adverse to trimming it back in this article, or to even having a dedicated page- but not when its down like this. As for the merits of r&d stuff on this page, r&d is very important to what tanks have been and understanding tanks so I think its important to have mention of future systems in development etc. Certainly that one section needs summarized down though, perhaps with a link to the new page. Muchenhaeser 05:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Speculation on what might have been is not encyclopedic

The section I removed offered no explanation, no facts, just suppositions that fuel cells and electric drives might be the way to go in the future. Why not suppose nuclear propelled tanks might be the way to go? I know that given a few days in a public library I could find many 1950s and 1960s articles suggesting this, since I remember reading many abou this back in the 1960s. But would this be useful to understanding the modern tank? I do not see how. I could also write about the idea of a nuclear propelled tank equiped with a scoop used to gather dirt and a sorting and compressing machine which would take the most suitable portions and create pellets or bullets. These slugs would then be fired at the ennemy with an electro-magnetic gun. The famous physicist Richard Feynman notes in one of his autobiographical writings that he was once approached by a US army officer who wanted his support in developing such a device, so I could even reference what might, for some, be viewed as a totally nutty idea. I could also write about dozens of cleft turret tank prototypes which were never produced and were incredibly advanced compared to the moderately "clefted" Merkava of Israel and IKV of Sweden, and speculate that this might still be the wave of the future. And there are dozens more of "might have been" tank configurations which appeared in specialised publications in the last twenty years. All of them are redundant to an article which deals about reality and is already too long. All of these items are speculations that have no place in an encyclopedia article.

Speculation on what might be should go to other articles::

There is still a great deal of research going on around the reality of armoured warfare , and this might make for several interesting articles instead of the single one I just started. There is room for links to any given number of such useful future articles, but the current article is already too long to deal competely with these topics. --AlainV 03:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I was hoping you would have actually read it, as I included examples of things already done. This research is important to understanding tank development and needs to be in the article- these are things that have already occured. Just because more outlandish examples of experimentaion has been done, neither means those examples should be include nor does it effect the importance of giving a brief mention of the matter. Muchenhaeser 22:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have read several times the paragraph I have removed, trying to extract something usable out of it. And I did, and placed it in a relevant article. What is the basis for the broad statements you are making on the evolution of power consumption (and why not state clearly that you are talking about electrical power consumption growth phenomenons?) What are your sources? Is it a book, a perioddical article, a Web page? When did the research on tracked armoured vehicles powered by hybrid systems take place? Where did it take place? Who funded it? Was it linked to the research done by the US Marines on wheeled armoured vehicles? Was it independent? How can you say that any example I bring in is "more outlandish" than what you bring in (note that I brought it into the talk page, and not in the article), if you offer no form of reference or source or link of any kind? --AlainV 04:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Ok im not really sure how to respond here as this is pretty basic stuff, im not even sure your being serious or just trying to waste my time. First off, nearly nothing in most articles in wikipedia is referenced, especially basic points that already site examples (not even yours). Also, I would indeed venture to say mentioning thing like thermal scopes increasing power requirements is less "outlandish" then "nuclear propelled tank equiped with a scoop used to gather dirt" because unlike the latter, tanks actually have thermal scopes. Regardless, a couple of example-

I mention hybrid electric M113 - http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2001/Jan/Hybrid-Electric.htm

A good example is the M113” armored personnel carrier, he said. A hybrid-electric M113 test vehicle was developed by United Defense LP, the M113 original manufacturer. The company said the technology could be available for production within five years.

I mention electromagnetic cannons - http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2000/Sep/Twenty-Ton.htm

For FCS, the Army is considering several firepower options, ranging from electromagnetic guns and directed energy weapons, to kinetic energy missiles and conventional cannon for direct and indirect fire.

Im sure you know many interesting things, but I reccomend you back off when its in area may not know as much about, as you have demonstrated here. I dont pretend to be an expert, but in this case it would have been good to do a little more research before being so confrontational. Muchenhaeser 07:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. Do not view my questions as confrontations. I am not trying to get you to prove your ignorance or to inform me personally, I am trying to get you to integrate your knowledge of the sources in an article (preferably not this one), so that readers will not have the impression that you, and I, and all the other editors of Wikipedia are not simply making this all up, or stressing trivial happenings. Also, the article is too long already, and you are adding anaysis to it without backing it up in any way, and also adding more elements which should be linked to from this article but expanded outside of it, in other Wikipedia articles. The national defense magazine article you mention proves in my eyes that the future hybrid power plants in question are possible developments out of a myriad of other ones. They are serious enough to merit an article (or several) by themselves given that there are many other such R and D projects going on, the most important being the US Marines RST-V Hybrid Tactical Vehicle (see http://www.gizmag.com/go/3477/) (or http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/lookupstoryref/200312199133) which is already being tested in realistic conditions in battle units. --AlainV 10:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didnt view your questions as confronational, rather your actions as whole such as removing etc. Anyway you make a valid point, which is that the article is rather long. This is why I kept it short in my example, and did not go on to list other projects or things for example, certainly a more in depth over can be done on another page with just the brief mention here. Thanks for the links as well. Muchenhaeser 19:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Btw alain " I am not trying to get you to prove your ignorance or to inform me personally" - no what I did there was prove your ignornance; as those sources demonstrated. Again, I don't think we need anything extensive just a short mention, as r&d is important to understanding tanks so it does need mention. Muchenhaeser 03:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

If you would bother to spell correctly, always use complete sentences, and follow the basic rules of grammar, then your contributions might be approached with less skepticism. Avoiding speculation and incorrect statements would probably help, too. —Michael Z. 2005-04-4 08:17 Z

Article quality

Hey guys, the quality of this article has really gone down the drain since being a featured article... right now, it looks like crap -- being too long and with lots of bad grammar and spelling errors. Don't just add more text to the article, THINK about what you're adding and make sure it MAKES SENSE. europrobe 11:04, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)

There is not much on tank tactics, and their cultural impact such tiananmen square either. I will add some info about that I think, and run some spell check. Muchenhaeser 19:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Part of the reason is because large parts of the original featured article have been expanded and split off into their own articles, such as Tank history and Tank classification. The grammar and spelling errors are because one of the major contributers has a relatively weak grasp of such things. --Carnildo 00:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Actually, I did a spell check and there is hardly any mispelled words in the article. Ill give you the benfit of the doubt in this case as to who your refering to, but I notice you have made your share of errors as well. 24.170.145.97 03:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

That's because, yet again, someone else has run through the article and fixed a lot of errors in spelling, grammar, and ambiguous or misleading wording. —Michael Z. 2005-04-4 06:58 Z

Yes you deserve a medal for the error checking you do. Muchenhaeser 21:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

You deserve something, too. —Michael Z. 2005-04-5 00:06 Z

No not as much as you. :) Muchenhaeser 00:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

anon- There are indeed a number of errors, Carnilo is refering to me- though I do have a good grasp, I tend not to check for errors and type rather poorly. Carn- yes you have a point there I need to check things better. Muchenhaeser 03:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is alas what happens all too often when an article has been featured. --AlainV 23:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've made a few deletions from the article... before putting it back, please consider whether they help the reader understand what a tank is (rather than, perhaps, what a tank was during WWI). europrobe 08:58, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)

I disagree that the article is too long. In fact, I would prefer it to continue far further. An expansion in the discussion of powerplants would be welcome, perhaps even requiring a new article. I see no reason to limit the amount of knowledge provided in Wikipedia on any given subject, so please include as much as you can if it is relevent.

While I don't see (much) reason to limit the total amount of knowledge in Wikipedia, there are some sound advice regarding individual article size in Wikipedia:Article_size. Splitting the article, as has already been done with Tank history for example, is a good way of managing article readability and conciseness. europrobe 15:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Armour

I see passive armour, chobham armour, and reactive armour mentioned, but what about the slat armour being used on the Stryker? Would that go under the regular passive armour, or could it be mentioned, as well? Ryan Salisbury 00:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could certainly go in the armoured car article. Has it been used on tanks? Come to think of it there is no mention of the "ball and chain" armour or protection (since it is not quite armour in the strict sense) such as the one used on the turret on some of the advanced Merkavas. --AlainV 23:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think the slat armour is in principle a type of spaced armour, similar to the big plates bolted on to late WWII panzers for protection against bazookas. The Swedish S-tank has something similar on the front. —Michael Z. 2005-04-6 00:08 Z

The soviets also used space armor to prevent holow charge weapons. In their case, the example I saw used a wire fence held away from the armor. The us also covered a number of tanks in concrete, and also sandbags somtimes to prevent holow charge weapons. In the latter case, it increased the likely hood of a round burrowing into the armor though. Muchenhaeser 00:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Sounds interesting. What Soviet vehicle had the wire fence? Was it an improvised job, or factory-made? —Michael Z. 2005-04-6 18:28 Z

Unfortunetley information is hard to come by on soviets use of the screens, but there is some scattered around. Battlefield.ru has a mention of them here, on the T-34/85: http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_85_2.html I think the screens were factory made but the installation was in the field, however I do not know this for certain. Muchenhaeser 00:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is an overabundance of prootypes using slat armour, even the Canadian army tried it on its tanks. (http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-leo.htm) what I would like to know is do we have any production, even limited production tanks somewhere using slat armour. That would justify placing it in the article. --AlainV 00:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I was talking about the T-34/85, and in its case its not really slat armor anyway. As for your question, the TUSK kit for the M1A2 inlcudes some slat armor in the rear. Muchenhaeser 01:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From the cited page, it appears that CASR suggests Canada adopt screens for specialized urban Leopards, but I haven't seen any evidence that the Canadian army has ever tested or considered them. —Michael Z. 2005-04-7 03:45 Z

The Stryker uses slat armor, and the Stridsvagn 103 had a metal screen in the front to protect against shaped charge warheads. The slat armor for the Abrams isn't in use yet, but it's likely to show up in the next few months. --Carnildo 03:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didn't mention those because the stryker is not really a tank, and the 103 was just spaced armor not really slat armor. Muchenhaeser 04:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It really is slat armour. Did you look at the picture at S-Tank? —Michael Z. 2005-04-7 05:17 Z

Its more a series of poles then it is slats, so I did not think of it as actual slat armor. Also, I have not heard it called slat armor in its case. However, I will agree with you that it is similar enough to probably just be called slat armor or at least grouped with it. Muchenhaeser 17:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Slat armour" is not a special class of armour. It's just another material used to make anti-shaped charge spaced armour), such as was applied to many WWII German tanks (I don't mean modern composite armour. It just happens to be a lighter and transparent version. It can be mentioned wherever spaced armour, zimmerit, appliqué armour, etc. is discussed. I agree that this is specialized enough to belong in vehicle armour, probably not here in tank. —Michael Z. 2005-04-7 03:45 Z

I added small section about spaced armor in between traditional passive and reactive armor, and I mentioned some examples. However, I kept it real short at just 3 sentences. Muchenhaeser 04:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New articles: T-95 and Black Eagle tank

Hey tankers! Add these to your watchlist: T-95 and Black Eagle tank. —Michael Z. 2005-06-7 06:33 Z

Michael Z's nomination for adminship

Hello, tankers. I've been nominated for adminship. Some of you have probably seen me in action or collaborated with me on AFV articles. If you have a minute, please have a look at my nomination and leave a comment. Regards. —Michael Z. 2005-06-24 17:21 Z

Tank suspension design and engineering

I would like to see someone with the requisite knowledge add an article on tank suspension and design. I am fascinated by the methods tanks use to traverse over rough ground, and in particular would like see an article included describing the different types of tank running gear designs.

For example, in one rather old library book I once read it explained how a Sherman tank's running gear worked, with each wheel being provided with about 10% of the power from the engine with the drive wheel getting the remainder of the power. It also explained how the bogies on the running gear worked, using diagrams.

I would like to see something like this added in Wikipedia for a range of tanks and suspension types, including hydrogas suspensions etc. As far as vehicles are concerned, I would like it to cover the S-Tank, the Challenger 2 etc.

I appreciate there is an article on the Christie suspension design, but this is only a tiny part of the history of tank suspension design and one limited only to the WWII era. I am more interested in modern designs. Please create a whole new article or at least as an addition to this article.

MBT

What is the reason MBT is directing here ? Not all tanks are MBTs. And MBT is used several times in this article but in the whole artice it isn't explained what MBT means or stands for.

It's explained in passing in the first paragraph "A modern main battle tank (MBT) is distinguished by . . .". In modern usage MBT is almost synonymous with "tank", since other types of tanks and tank-like vehicles now tend to have more specific names applied, e.g. "Cavalry Fighting Vehicle", "Airborne Fighting Vehicle", "CVR(T)", "CET", etc. —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 19:47 Z

Factual error concerning smoothbore vs. rifled guns

There was a factual error in the article (which I removed) stating that only smoothbores can fire KE rounds. This is absolutely false. Smoothbores are often considered BETTER for this sort of round, but KE penetrators for rifled tank cannons date back to World War II. Modern APFSDS rounds are used in the British 120mm rifled cannons, and were widely used in the British/US 105mm rifled tank guns. Furthermore, it states that rifled guns are kept in service based on the use of HESH rounds, but as far as I know there is no technical reason why a HESH round couldn't be made for a smoothbore gun.

Sources:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/index.html http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m900.htm

WikiProject AFV anyone?

There are many AFV articles to add Template:Tank to. It might also be nice to discuss the standard organization of article sections, which is widely but not universally used. Would anyone participate in Wikipedia:WikiProject AFV? —Michael Z. 2005-09-10 05:23 Z

What little discussion there has been is part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Weaponry. It's probably best to move discussion there, to try to revive the project. --Carnildo

Sounds like a really good idea. It could be awfully interesting. Trekphiler 02:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Design/German Panzers

Good article. In the design section one could add for the German tanks that many Panzers had to be abandoned and selfdestroyed at the Eastern and Western front due to lack of the correct fuel available. As a result, German tanks now have Diesel engines, not like Americans gas turbines (very special fuel). The Diesel engine can use a wide variety of different fuels. Longbow4u 11:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I thought it was the other way around: Diesel engines are restricted to diesel fuel (but have the advantage that diesel doesn't explode when the tank catches fire), while turbines like the Abrams uses can handle any liquid hydrocarbons. In any case, the German WWII tanks, like all German WWII vehicles, used gasoline because the Germans could produce it from their extensive coal deposits. --Carnildo 20:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

Wrong comparison. Heavy (well, really medium sized) Diesel engines (as in tanks) can burn very nearly everything that has enough caloric content and can be made to flow. In particular, they can run on heavier (less distilled) hydrocarbons, or even on vegetable oil. I don't know about gas turbines, but I suspect they have different and stricter requirements. But in WW2, the alternative is not the gas turbine, but the plain 4-stroke gasoline engine. That one requires a sufficiently volatile, high-octane, low viscosity, and clean burning fuel (think carburator, spark plugs).--Stephan Schulz 20:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I question the statement diesel has lower flammability. I've read this is a myth perpetuated as a result of Soviet successes with diesels in WW2. Comment? Trekphiler 11:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Take one saucer of petrol and stick a match to it. Take one saucer of diesel and stick a match to it. Discuss. (Don't try this at home). GraemeLeggett 11:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Yup, gas is not just flammable, it and its fumes are explosive. —Michael Z. 2005-11-28 15:54 Z

Design

I added this:

"* Soviet tanks are traditionally rugged and simple, exemplified by the T-34. Since crews are expected to be of low education, the ability of tanks to take abuse and continue functioning was and is essential. Extensive maintenance is expected to be done in specialized depots. Simplicity also increases production for replacement of losses (crucial in WW2)."

I'd also suggest mentioning the high complexity of American tanks as a negative to operational effectiveness and overall military functioning; keeping such complicated machines running strains the logistic pipeline... Also, I'd suggest a section on future trends: use of RWRs against homing missiles suggests need for chaff, jammers, & FTI systems. Trekphiler 10:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sloped Armour

I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that sloped armour is used at least as much for the fact that it's effective thickness is much greater than the same amount of flat slab armour as it is for it's effectiveness at deflecting incoming projectiles. It's more of a case of simple geometry than making rounds bounce off.

See diagram below:

If this is correct, feel free to include this graphic if you feel it is of use. I was a gunner, not a tanker. :)

Gabe 14:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I think you're right. This image could also go in the article about sloped armour (which should probably be merged into vehicle armour). —Michael Z. 2005-09-15 15:43 Z

This is a common misconception. If you want a 429mm thick "vertical equivalent" armour it's much more effective to simply use a 429mm thick real vertical armour: The armour plate weights the same (volume formula of a prism), but the vehicle is much easier to shape and so will weight less in the end and smaller so it will be harder to hit.

Also blunt penetrators (if they don't bounce off) "turn into" the armour so a sloped armour is actually less effective than a non sloped of equivalent thickness - if the projectile is not deflected (see [1]). Since deflecting modern KE penetrators is getting more and more difficult and modern composite armour just isn't hard enough for this task you see less sloping on the latest generation of MTBs than on the WWII era T-34. Alureiter 21:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

A bit too focused on the modern aspects in my opinion. This image is extremely helpful in explaining why sloped armor was very effective before the advent of various modern counter-measures.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Actually not at all, if you have read my first paragraph. The only advantage of sloped armour is in deflecting projectiles, the picture doesn't show this. Alureiter 17:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I always understood the benefits were mutual, & deflection helped make the effective thickness work. Trekphiler 02:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Of course both effects have to be multiplied; but Alureiter is completely correct in asserting that the increase in LOS thickness offers no weight advantage. His statement that modern composite armour is, of all things, not hard enough, is completely wrong however :o).--MWAK 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Firepower, mobility, protection, and C4I2

...some argue that a fourth metric should be added to the measurement of tank capability: that of C4I2 (Command, Control, Communications, Countermeasures, Information and Intelligence).

Can anyone provide a reference or quote a military theoretician? By whom is this considered a new "metric" added to the pyramid of three factors influencing tank design, rather than a characteristic of the modern battlefield in general. Does improving a tank's C4I2 capability detract from its firepower, mobility, or protection? —Michael Z. 2005-09-16 22:01 Z

It's not new, in fact it seems to have been replaced gradually over the last 10 years by C4ISR in contractor documents, and since it applies more to the battlefield in general than specific artefacts, it should be in the armoured warfare article instead of the Tank article. I've tried looking for it with no results and I have the impression it must be from a US only position paper meant to justify the move towards lightly armored vehicles, started under general Shinseki. --AlainV 04:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

I've renamed this section Tank#Command, control, and communications, and added a historic overview to the front. Still needs work.

I'd still like to get rid of the weasel words "In fact, some argue that ...". If this is a U.S. doctrine or military procurement rhetoric, I'd like to say so, otherwise tone it down to something we know is true. —Michael Z. 2005-09-20 20:10 Z

T-44

New article T-44 is on the Main Page with a photo today, under Did You Know. —Michael Z. 2005-09-23 14:43 Z

Main Battle Tank vs. Battleship

In the article Battleship I tried to hint to the similarity of the consepts of a battleship and Main Battle Tank

The battleship article now starts:

In naval warfare, battleships were the most heavily armed and armored warships afloat. They were designed to engage enemy warships with direct or indirect fire from an arsenal of main guns. As a secondary role, they were capable of bombarding targets on and near an enemy coast to support infantry assaults. In the mid-20th century they became obsolete by the greater range and striking power of the aircraft carrier...

An article on Main Battle Tank might read something like this:

In land warfare, main battle tanks are the most heavily armed and armored fighting vehicles. They are designed to engage enemy tanks with direct fire from a main gun. As a secondary role, they are capable of bombarding targets in support óf infantry assaults. In the end of the 20th century they may have became obsolete by the greater range and striking power of the helichopters and other ground attack aircraft...

Similarity between MBTs and battleships extends to the design rules:

Only big guns and only one type of gun (the biggest possible)
The armor must be thick enough to survive direct hits from its own guns

(Do these rules have names? Should we have separate articles on them?)

The similarity is also expressed in the names main line of battle ship (or battleship for short) vs. main battle tank. These similarities arises from fundamental principals of armored warfare.

The problem is that this is simply not the case. An MBT operates as part of a tank platoon, as much as possible in combined arms operations with infantry, and supported by artillery, engineers, and other combat support arms. Modern land operations are organized in a combined-arms combat group which includes a company or two of tanks, but does not revolve around them.

MBTs don't bombard a target, artillery batteries do. MBTs and mechanized infantry co-operate closely, with the tanks leading in open terrain and infantry leading in close terrain and in the assault. I think the MBT's role has been reduced because of the recent emphasis on light operations and irregular warfare, but the idea that they have been rendered obsolete by helicopters was more of a 1970s theory than anything.

The concept of the tank did originate in the British "Landships Committee", but even during the First World War most tacticians were not taking the idea seriously. The Soviets were building multi-turretted tanks inspired by battleships into the 1930s (T-28, T-35, the experimental SMK), but their best designers redirected efforts into conventional designs (KV-1 and T-34). I don't think you'll find a serious source written after about 1930 that compares tanks to battleships. —Michael Z. 2005-09-28 22:42 Z

You missed the point. Tanks with multiple turrets are like pre-Tsushima battleships with multiple types of guns. The process that removed the extra turrets and created the modern main battle tank is similar to the process that created the Dreadnoughts. The fundamental understanding is that tanks, like battleships, must be designed to battle tanks or ships of their own kind. This calls for the biggest guns possible, on a battleship only a few turrets, in a tank only one gun. -- Petri Krohn 00:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Well, I would definitely agree that both tanks and battleships are ruled by the same economics of gunnery; fewer bigger guns are more powerful and longer-ranged than many small ones. But I would be very cautious about formulating any deeper analogy between tanks and battleships. If you do so, at least provide a reference. —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 04:06 Z

Problem

In trying to bring out this point I have run into technical problems. At first I tried to add Main Battle Tank to the list of "See also" articles. This got changed to Tank as there is no article about Main Battle Tank and policy calls for listing articles by their primary title.

Should we have a separate article on Main Battle Tank?
Or should this article be renamed to Main Battle Tank?

Now this article seems to be about tanks in general (including all kinds of armored vehicles) and not about what makes a tank a MBT.

For starters I will change main battle tank to bold in the introduction.

-- Petri Krohn 19:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I don't recommend changing the name of the article to main battle tank as the term "Tank" encompasses MBTs, light infantry tanks, medium tanks, etc. If MBT deserves its own article, then I expect it would either remain very short (barely above dictionary entry size) or evolve into a list of MBTs. In fact, perhaps List of Main Battle Tanks is appropriate. Thoughts? - CHAIRBOY (☎) 21:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Please keep in mind that the tank has a much longer history than the term MBT. The latter is a specific type of tank and this is supposed to be a general article about tanks in general. As for bolding MBT, this is pretty inappropriate. Bolding is supposed to be reserved for the article title in the lead and synonyms in English, something which MBT clearly isn't.

Personally, I can't see any problems with a separate article called main battle tank as long as it's made very clear that it's a sub-article of this one and not a concept separate from just "tank". Oh, and avoid capitalizing the term since it's not a proper noun.

Peter ^Isotalo 21:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

I disagree! This is the article about the main battle tank and it's predecessors. The intro should say so, in bold.

For other types of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles we have the article Tank classification. For WW I tanks and history we have Tank history.

I looked at older versions of this article; main battle tank and MBT were in bold until 5 March 2005 when the intro was partially rewriten by Mzajac. The bold was removed without discussion. I am restoring the bold.

I will also make an addition to the intro, it misses the the whole raison d'être of the MBT and it's WW II predecessors, namely combat with enemy tanks. -- Petri Krohn 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

We've already got an article on tank classification, with a reasonably good section on main battle tanks. Main battle tank should redirect there. --Carnildo 22:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)

Preferably the other way around: Tank should redirect to Tank classification and this article should be renamed Main battle tank. Most references to this article are in fact either references to MBT or they are general references to armoured fighting vehicles. An article about something as unspesific as a "tank" does not belong in an encyclopedia. (There is no article about warships either.) -- Petri Krohn 00:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

MBT and Main Battle Tank are technical terms. This is a general encyclopedia where the run of the mill user will expect "Tank" to be the principal article. All the general print encyclopedias I consult more or less regularly at libraries have their tank article titled as "tank", with any number of terms (such as MBT) leading to it from their indexes. --AlainV 01:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"An article about something as unspesific as a "tank" does not belong in an encyclopedia."—I strongly disagree. This article is about tanks; if you limit it to MBTs then you have to wipe out the first forty or fifty years of tank history. As someone wrote above, there could be a very short article explaining the technical meaning of "main battle tank" and referring to the main tank article (there are already short articles explaining tankette, infantry tank, and fast/cavalry/cruiser tank). In the mean time, more specific terms like medium tank, main battle tank, etc., could profitably point to the article on tank classification. —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 05:21 Z

The reason this article discusses mainly the MBT is historical: originally, tank history, tank classification, tank research and development, and armoured warfare were all part of this article, but got split out when the respective section got too large. --Carnildo 06:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Petri, it's very wrong to force the modern miliatry-technical terms on all types of tank history. The tank has been around for far, far longer than the MBT concept and if you count pre-industrial precursors in the form of armored vehicles, it's still in its infancy. Forcing modern term straightjackets on historical encyclopedic terms is very anachronistic. As already pointed out, "MBT" is a sub-classification of "tank", not the other way around.

Peter ^Isotalo 10:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

MBT redirects here

On another, related note, I think Main battle tank and light tank should redirect to tank classification, as medium tank and heavy tank already do. These are more specific terms, and should only be linked in an article below a link to tank, or in a context where it is already self-evident what a tank is. There are already short articles explaining tankette, infantry tank, and fast/cavalry/cruiser tank.

If no one objects, I'll make the change shortly.

I'll also un-bold the term main battle tank in the intro of this article. The text nicely describes an MBT—its characteristics, performance, and equipment—but the concept of main battle tank is defined by its role within the context of modern armoured warfare. That definition requires some historical and technical context, and belongs later in this article and in tank classification. —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 05:34 Z

I disagree with your judgement, I think this is, and should be, the article about main battle tanks.

I believe your changes have significantly reduced the value and of the article from its state as a featured article. However, this is not my turf, so I will not ever try to push things around. As far as I am concerned, this article is all yours to spoil. Use your best judgement :-) -- Petri Krohn 21:50, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

This has always been the article about tanks in general. It had a substantial history section when it was made featured article, and changed significantly before my first edit.

Since then I've put in a lot of work to make this article better, and so have many other editors. You showed up a couple of weeks ago with the new assertion that this article is only about MBTs, and now you claim that I've been ruining it, in response to a couple of minor edits I made mere hours after you first commented. I haven't given you any offence that I know of, but your language stinks of sour grapes ("this article is all yours to spoil"), and I resent having to defend my hard work against your unfounded criticism. If you're going to put forward such a hurtful accusation after the fact, at least have the decency to point out what it is I've written that's gotten stuck in your craw. —Michael Z. 2005-10-11 23:40 Z

All I want is a place for main battle tank to link to. Now I feel I have been unfairly attacked for linking, or trying to link, to main battle tank. In the featured article main battle tank was bolded in the introduction. After your changes this is no longer the case.

I do not care which of the multiple articles on armoured fighting vehicles is about modern tanks i.e. MTBs. Just make main battle tank stand out in bold somewhere!

If you seriously believe that MBT deserves no article, even that is OK for me. I will just remove any attempt of referring to them in the "See also" section of Battleship. -- Petri Krohn 00:27, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

So I have "significantly reduced the value and of the article from its state as a featured article" by changing the term main battle tank from bold to roman font? You should think twice before you denigrate people's hard work over trivia. And if you actually feel you are being attacked somewhere, just point it out. A number of editors disagree on this page that this article is about the specific concept of main battle tank, but I don't see anyone attacking you. If you are going to continue editing Wikipedia then you should learn to accept disagreement.

Why don't you just start a short article about the history and meaning of the main battle tank concept, as was suggested elsewhere on this page? It can focus on what is special about MBTs and how they fit into modern armoured warfare, and link to this article for all the details. I'm sure there are many editors who would contribute. —Michael Z. 2005-10-12 01:46 Z

Tanks without main guns

It's quite possible to have a tank without a main gun. During World War I and early World War II, there were no shortage of examples. The very first tank, the "female" variant of the British Mark I (tank), was armed with six machine guns. Going into World War II, the German Panzer I, the Soviet T-27, T-26, and BT-1, the American T16, the Polish TK and TKS, the British Mk. I and Mk. II patrol tanks, the Camden-Lloyd Mk. VI, the Italian L3/33, the Japanese Type 92 light tank, and many others were all armed only with machine guns.

Also, it was quite common for tanks to be designed for something other than fighting other tanks. The British infantry tank class and the German Panzer IV were dedicated anti-infantry tanks. Light tanks and tankettes were designed for scouting missions. The American M4 Sherman tank, the most-produced tank of the war, was not intended to engage other tanks -- that job was left to dedicated tank destroyers and antitank guns. --Carnildo 06:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I would stress the second point; very few vehicles and weapons today can be considered purely anti-tank. Practically all modern tanks are designed as general-purpose weapons, for engaging heavy and light armour, soft vehicles, infantry in the open or well dug in, in buildings or bunkers, and even helicopters and fixed-wing aircraft (anyone seen the tank turret with a tank gun plus twin 30mm AA guns?—Hungarian or Bulgarian, I think). —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 07:07 Z

Aside from some dodgy wiki linking above - Tankette, Light tank, Carden Loyd Tankette Mk IV. I note that the Matilda Infantry tank was equipped with a 2 pdr anti-tank gun. - hardly an anti-infantry tank. Infantry tanks support infantry, cruiser tanks work alone. Also if the Sherman and its predecessor the M3 Lee weren't for fighting other tanks what did the UK buy them for. GraemeLeggett 09:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

The 'main guns' issue was effectively settled by the start of WWII. All those you refer to were obsolescent. Obviously, in historical context, it's important - but I don't think so otherwise. I also don't think anyone disputes the differences in intended role between WWII tank models - see Tank classification. The Land 09:52, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

Machine gun–armed tanks may have been viewed as obsolescent even then, but don't forget that some of them were spearheading the Blitzkrieg. Anyway, the introduction of this article has a general introduction to all tanks, so it should be kept general enough to apply to them all. —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 14:53 Z

Carnildo: Then what would you call the German Panzer I, the Soviet T-27, the Polish TKS, the British Mark VI, the American T16 tank, or the "female" model of the Mark I (tank)?

In todays terminology these would most likely be called infantry fighting vehicles. The Panzer I was a light tank, the T-27 a tankette. As the Mark I (tank) was the first armoured fighting vehicle, it is difficult to categorize in any of the modern categories. It is more like a tin can with tracks than a modern tank.

In any case, I belive this article should be about armoured vehicles designed primarily to engage enemy tanks by the use direct fire from its main gun.

-- Petri Krohn 06:56, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

To be fair to the Panzer I it was mainly designed as a cheap and quick training tank for the Heer to use to get a grip on tank tactics, training, and infantry cooperation. While it was used in the invasion of Poland it was never meant to be. I think that one has to accept that some 1920s tanks were equipped with MGs as their main armament (and, indeed, a heavy MG at close range was perfectly capable of penetrating the paper-thin armor on an early light tank). I think an Infantry Fighting Vehicle is very different in concept to any interwar light tank. The Land 12:09, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

In any case, the Panzer I was a tank armed with a machine gun; but a tankette is not a tank, it's an infantry support weapon and I hope no one ever tried to use them as tanks.

But Petri, this article is about tanks, and not about, for example, self-propelled antitank guns. A tank destroyer is not just a tank without a turret. This is an impression too easily supported by articles and books that just present the technical specs of a bunch of AFVs and don't say much about armoured operations. A tank destroyer can support armour, but it cannot fulfil the role of a tank. This article needs a little more meat at the top about armoured operations (that is tank operations, not just armoured warfare in general) to show where tanks belong and why they are different from anything else.

To be clear, this article should not be about "armoured vehicles designed primarily to engage enemy tanks by the use direct fire from its main gun." —Michael Z. 2005-09-30 15:41 Z

History and specifics; quality revisited

This article is now very focused on very technical discussions of modern tanks (and even weapon systems that aren't tanks), which is entirely too specific for an encyclopedic article. Also, the sections "Design", "Sonic, seismic, and thermal traces", "The future of tanks through research and development" and to a large extent "Vulnerability" have the following problems:

"Design"; contains several bolded words, a long bullet list and "examples by country"-list, all very inappropriate for any article
"Sonic, seismic, and thermal traces"; why the long name? Why not just "Camouflage" or join it with "Design"?
"The future of tanks through research and development"; highly speculative section which might as well be covered in the separate sections or simply linked to in "See also"
"Vulnerability"; this needs one summarized paragraph at most and does not require sub-sections for every type of weapon class

Overall there's a tendency to extreme detail in every single section except "History" and the article is a massive 59 kB long, way more than my own 50 kB limit on any article topic. There are also major problems with the prose, which in certain sections is nothing but single- or double-sentence paragraphs. If this article was nominated for FAC in its current state, I would object quite sternly. And I can't help pointing that out of the pictures in the article only two are of WW II-tanks and all but three are of only two basic types of Israeli and American tanks. Do we really need four different photos of Abrams models when we even have one that's right up there in the lead? And the T-34, which was far more important to both tank development and the outcome of WW II than any other single tank model, doesn't get one measly picture. Peter ^Isotalo 12:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I have to agree on every point. Peter, much of the speculation was exiled to tank research and development a while ago, but too much still remains. There's also some too-general discussion that perhaps belongs to armoured warfare. It may be useful to go through this with a fine-toothed comb and mercilessly remove paragraphs that aren't clearly supported by an authoritative source. —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 14:59 Z

Yes, the article is now bloated. A few months ago somebody came in and filled up what was a rather concise and encyclopedic text with detail and speculation. I tried diverting some of it to a new article, on tank research and development, but it was a neverending fight. This is what got me sick of the whole process, more than tje happenings around any other article, and changed me from a 8-10 hour a week contributor to a 1-2 hour a week contributor. --AlainV 01:11, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

The article, as it now stands, is about modern tanks, or as they are generaly known, main battle tanks. It is quite natural to focus the article on the modern interpretation of tank and have tank history in a separate article. This is no different on an article on computers or automobiles that focus on modern designs with separate histories.

Also, there is a fundamental difference between WWI and WWII (and later) tanks. Modern tanks are primarily designed to survive on the battlefield agains their opposite numbers. Pre-WWII tanks were infantry-support vehicles intended to break through fortified defenses.

I fully agree with the present scope of the article, we do need an article on modern tanks. Whether it should be called tank, main battle tank or something else is an other issue

On the quality of the article: There is too much emphasis on western tanks, Soviet tanks are completely ignored although they make up the largest portion of tanks ever produced.

-- Petri Krohn 05:57, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

This article has to be appreciated by the widest possible audience, not just experts or aficionados. While there is much flexibility here at Wikipedia, this one is non-negotiable. Just like battleship explains the pre-steam and iron origins of the modern battleship, so should this article be about not only modern tanks, but about tank history and development. It would be like dictating that airplane to be only about modern airplanes and not pre-modern airplane precursors or early airplane development. Please keep in mind that what you're suggesting is strictly your own point of view (POV) and therefor a violation of the principles of NPOV, one of the cornerstones of Wikipedia.

Peter ^Isotalo 06:18, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

A battleship is an historical artefact. There are no battleships in present day navies. It is thus normal that the main battleship article be an historical article. There is already an article on tank history History of the tank, which is already too long and getting bloated with things like speculation on the tank of the future. I agree that there whould be at least a bit on tank history in the general tank article, but the current history section is already too big since it forces a general user to scroll down to see that there is more about this particular article than historical aspects. Many users have the content bar option turned off so they will not realise how much more there is. --AlainV 06:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)

That an article subject is in modern usage and is different from what it was, say, fifty or a hundred years ago doesn't mean its history is less important. I strongly oppose anything but a minor shortening of the history section, especially in the article's currently bloated state. The placement of the history section may certainly be debated, but anyone who isn't a modern tank buff will most likely want to read tank history before getting completely submerged in the super-specifics of modern tanks.

I urge those of you who want to turn this into an MBT-article to please take some consideration to readers who don't have tank warfare as a hobby or major interest.

Peter ^Isotalo 07:43, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

There seems to be insufficient emphasis on the early developments. "Little Willie" just appears out of nowhere, without reference to the problems of infantry vulnerability to MG, the inability of armored cars to operate cross-country, the footed wheel, & so on. Also, I question "thousands" of tanks; my reading indicates "hundreds" is generous (418 at Cambrai?), & "dozens" actually in action. More, I'd say something needs to be said about the very early Brit tac deployments, penny packets without regard for reliablity, mass, or surprise, & the influence on WW2: infantry reliance on tanks in WW1 led directly to the slow tanks of WW2. I'd also say it needs a reference to the fact Brit tankers and infantry did not share a common doctrine or train together before WW2. (Auk tried to develop "combined arms"; when he took over 8h Army, Monty threw out his reforms.) Trekphiler 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Why not put this in the History of the tank article? And while there, you will notice a red "future" link to a non-existing article (just waiting to be written and linked to, from there, and possibly from this Tank article too) on Little Willie, in the caption under a photo of this precursor.--AlainV 02:42, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"Fielded" is of course ambiguous. There were thousands of British and French tanks during the duration of the war. Most of the 476 vehicles at Cambrai were committed at the first day, so "dozens" is a bit pessimistic.--MWAK 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

C3I

I'm removing the following wordy section and replacing it with a short paragraph. —Michael Z. 2005-10-1 09:11 Z

A very important recent development in AFV equipment is the increased integration of sensors and communications. In fact, some argue that to the traditional factors affecting of tank capability, protection, mobility, and firepower, a fourth metric should be added, namely C4I2 (Command, Control, Communications, Countermeasures, Information and Intelligence).

Modern tanks such as the M1A2 Abrams are fitted with digital computers which are connected into a battlefield networks. These networks allow tank commanders to update their situation on a digital terminal. This data, in combination with precise location information such as that provided by GPS and precise range finding as provided by laser range-finders can then be transmitted to other tanks and users within the network. This greatly improves the tank commander's situational awareness as well as that of anyone else's on the network well beyond what can be personally seen and perhaps what can pieced together from listening to radio reports. Network users are now able to 'see' every element on the battlefield that has been reported, either by other tanks or other elements such as scouts, aircraft, and drones.

The commander is still required to report enemy locations for this system to work, but he can report them in a non verbal manner, and he no longer needs to report his own location and neither does he need to "work out" the enemy location. Instead he simply "lases" the enemy position, adds unit type, numbers, composition, and activity to the locations and sends the report. The system determines its own location and determines where the laser is pointing and can therefore calculate the enemy location. Although not yet common, it is also possible for these systems to transmit images or video to other stations on the network.

In addition to easing the reporting burden, these systems also allow for orders to be given complete with graphics and overlays, via the network. Therefore physical proximity of commanders is less important for the issuance of orders, which dramatically reduces the need for units to congregate in concentrated areas of briefings. The reduced need for proximity also reduces the time required for headquarters units to generate plans and briefing materials, since the headquarters no longer need to create paper maps, orders, overlays, etc.

In addition these systems also assist the crew in more mundane tasks, such as tracking servicing requirements and logistic reports, e.g., ammunition and fuel state, mileage, track wear.

(Nearly) new article

I just refurbished Antonov A-40, the "flying tank". —Michael Z. 2005-10-2 04:45 Z

New section about AFV suspension

I created a new section at Suspension (vehicle)#Armoured fighting vehicle suspension. Please make sure I haven't omitted anything important there. —Michael Z. 2005-10-10 23:01 Z

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/a/n/Talk%7ETank_Archive_1_25a6.html"

Category: Talk archives