Talk:Tank/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 8

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

Phycological effects

Shouldn't there be a section or even a sub heading about the phycological effects of tanks. I mean, I'd be terrified of fighting a tank no matter what kind of anti-armour weapons I had - Wardhog 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Article should be American English

The first entry on "Tank" uses American English: http://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Tank&oldid=287081. So the britsh made the first tank and it should be written as such. im american and egree(Esskater11 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC))

Replacement for infobox template

M1A1 Abrams
Specifications
Mass	69.5 short tons (63.0 tonnes)
Length	26 ft (7.9 m)
Width	12 ft (3.7 m)
Height	8 ft (2.4 m)
Crew	4 (commander, driver, gunner, loader)

I've created a proposed replacement for Template:Tank: template:AFV. It gets around some of the limitations of that template (hard-coded units), changes the order of fields a bit, deletes the arbitrary off-road speed, and adds power-to-weight ratio and ground pressure. Here's an example of how it could be used for M1 Abrams, where (most of) the figures are originally non-metric feet/inches/miles/hp.

Please have a look at the notes at template talk:AFV, and comment here or there. —Michael Z. 2005-10-12 07:22 Z

I must say that I like the fixed position of units (metric first, then imperial). It allows for an easier comparison of various AFVs at first glance, without having to read through and check whether in this particular case the feet are first or second. It is of course a matter of personal favour, but such a solution seems really helpful.

As to other issues - I thought of implementing ground pressure as one of the factors in my early version of this template. However, I decided not to for two reasons. One is that such data is mostly unavailable for many (if not most) pre-cold war tanks and even if it is, the track width often varied from model to model and even from tank to tank. And so the ground pressure also varied greatly. The other reason is that ground pressure does tell the reader more about road fatigue rather than tank's performance. Power-to-weight ratio seems a better choice to me.

As to off-road speed - it is indeed arbitrary, but it's one of the factors often used in serious literature to compare the efficiency of tanks on the field of battle. As such, it is as arbitrary as the horsepower (based on measuring the prototypes rather than an average of all tanks and also disregarding the quality of fuel, which also affects the actual hp) or the weight (different factories often count the basic equipment - such as ammo racks or external fuel tanks - in or not, depending on their own preference). So, I see nothing wrong in it. Halibutt 08:20, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Regarding units, I thought that their placement would inform the reader which is the actual measurement, and which the conversion. I expect that apart from U.S. and older Commonwealth vehicles, most would have the metric first. It just feels wrong to see something like "3.01 m (10.00 ft)". I see your point about taking it in at a glance, but since we only see one infobox at a time and don't usually compare them directly, I thought that it wouldn't be a problem. Where infobox data is assembled into a table to compare models, they should definitely have the same units, or at least the same units first.

Of course this is just the recommendation; you can type anything you want in the box. But I was influenced by the fact that other editors have already been independently subverting the infobox to these ends (e.g., Churchill tank), or sticking with handmade tables (e.g., M1 Abrams, M2 Bradley).

Also keep in mind that an unqualified [short/long/metric] "ton" is somewhere within a 23% range of where you think it should be (a long ton may be 12% heavier than an unspecified ton which happens to be a short ton, but a short ton could be 11% lower if yours happens to be a long one).

Regarding ground pressure, I also thought it was a strong indicator of mobility over mud and snow. Just look at the difference between German tank tracks before and after the spring of '42. I hadn't considered the variability, but I think we'd generally be comparing the most advantageous figures available for a particular model. It is an esoteric figure which can be hard to find, but in many cases so are the engine and suspension type.

Power-to-weight is a natural: meaningful and easy to derive. Unless you don't know which kind of ton(ne) you are using.

Horsepower is variable under practical conditions, but at least we'd be comparing theoretical best figures. Weight too, and we would prefer "combat weight" if it is available, but at least we know we're in the ballpark.

But off-road speed is either a marketing fantasy or a product of a one of a hundred different theoretical and empirical formulae. I can't see how comparing this figure for two different vehicles could have any meaning at all. I've got significant experience driving military wheeled vehicles off-road, and I state authoritatively that a vehicle's off-road speed is between 0% and 100% of its road speed. I know many AFV books publish figures (and others wisely resist the temptation), but do you know of any source that actually says how off-road speed was determined?

Thanks for the comments. The template design is flexible; we could make it identical to the old one, except for the added flexibility of not having hard-coded units (which I think is necessary, having seen the way template:tank has been [ab]used). But as long as we're willing to change it, it's good to consider the options. —Michael Z. 2005-10-12 10:07 Z

I'd like to get on with implementing this template. Please comment at template talk:AFV#Open questions. —Michael Z. 2005-11-9 21:36 Z

Specific name for 'tank vs. tank' battles

Is there a specific name or phrase used when only tanks are slugging it out? I mean no infantry or airplanes, just tanks.

-G

"Damned unlikely"? "Nonexistent"? "Video game"? Trekphiler 02:17, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

So you're telling me there is no term? Then what the hell do you call all these documentaries that show four Abrahams face off against at single Tiger tank with only one allied tank left? There’s obviously some name for the battle. It can’t simply be “tank battle”. Armoured skirmish?

-G

Well?

-G

A battle of tanks is a "tank battle", or even "tank vs tank battle" if you want to describe the action—why do you need a fancier term? Perhaps a "tank duel", if there are only two involved. An armoured battle/engagement/skirmish could very well involve armoured vehicles of other types. —Michael Z. 2007-07-04 06:42 Z

By 'four Abrahams' you mean four Shermans, right? 86.136.25.127 (talk) 10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Speculation

Examples of how different countries are influenced in their decisions are as follows:

• Britain has historically always opted . . .

In the tank#Design section, the examples following that line seem to consist of unsupported speculation, oversimplification, and tenuous logical conclusions. Would someone like to take a crack at improving it or cutting it down? If not, I'll replace it. —Michael Z. 2005-10-17 14:07 Z

File:MTGTank.jpg