Talk:Tank classification

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tank classification article.
Article policies
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

Contents

[edit] Wrong information

From the article - "While a tank can afford to have half a metre of armour on the front, it can't have such a thick slab of metal guarding all of its sides without losing major maneuvering ability." Modern tanks don't have half a meter of armor on them - they have advanced types of armor like Chobham armour which offers the same protection as a foot and a half of steel armor. This is corroborated by most other Wikipedia articles and all military literature written by folks with any idea of what they're talking about.--70.108.76.24 (talk) 02:20, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

True. The Maus only had a quarter of a meter. --Carnildo (talk) 03:34, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Needs to be extended

This obviously needs to be extended quite a bit... --Martin Wisse 11:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Redundancy

the introduction and the "classification"-part are quite redundant. someone care to merge these two and write a new intro? 84.129.179.29 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] I don't think splitting into 'weight' and 'role' works

I have to say I don't think splitting it into 'weight' and 'role' classifications works at all. 'Light', 'Medium' and 'Heavy' are all role classifications - late-war light tanks weighed more than early war medium tanks. At one stage every different army had different tank classifications based on its doctrine. And in the present day your tank is an MBT, or it's obsolete, or it's a cavalry fighting vehicle... The Land 15:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Where did the section on tank destroyers go?

Where did the section on "tank destroyers" end up? It's not here, and it's not in the article on tank history you moved the rest of this from. --Carnildo 07:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

  • I deleted it from the article, as it did not belong in either the original or the new article. Tank destroyers not being tanks and there already being an article about tank destroyers.

--Martin Wisse 10:42, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] I give up

Hey, Muchenhaeser.

Your enthusiasm for editing tank articles in awesome, but I just don't have the energy to keep cleaning up after you. Don't you have a spelling checker in a text editor on your computer? Repeatedly cleaning up after you is getting really tiring. And please remember, this article is written in British English.

  • Plurals are not formed with apostrophes (APCs, 1980s, types, not APC's, 1980's, type's)!
  • Similar, not similair.
  • Fulfil, not fulfill.
  • There is a place. their is a second-person plural possessive.
  • British forms: specialised, armour.

Please read what you've written before posting. Avoid using phrases like

  • ...IFVs have often been used in the place of armoured personnel carriers but tend are combination of of more heavily armed.
  • Their even heavier designs as well such as the, the Israeli Merkava...

Finally, please don't add opinion to this article which is not supported in any literature. Notably:

  • Self-propelled guns are not tanks.
  • The Bradley does not fulfil the role of a medium tank.
  • The Marder cannot be used as a light tank. The BMD and BMP are not light tanks.

I may be tired, but I'm going to continue removing patently false assertions. —Michael Z. 2005-03-24 15:54 Z

I too admire your enthusiasm, and I apologize for the spelling errors!! Heh, not for not using British spellings though. As for if acronyms should use apostrophes for plural- yes, technically it is wrong but it is habit picked up from it commonly being done in some places(usually so as not to confuse what are the letter of the acronym and not). I actually abandoned this practice for the wiki though, after you pointed it out (those were left). However, I do take issue with some of your information.
"Self-propelled guns are not tanks." - I didn't say they were- just that they have often abided by most of the qualifications of a tank. Its important to note this, as what may have qualified for a tank in one era, doesn't mean it qualifies in another.
"The Bradley does not fulfil the role of a medium tank." The Bradely fills the roll of a US medium tank and APC. This why the US no longer fields a dedicated medium tank.
"The Marder cannot be used as a light tank. The BMD and BMP are not light tanks." I did not say that about the marder, it is a APC. Nevertheless, the armed one can take on some light tank jobs, due its 20mm cannon and ATGM. As for the BMD and BMP-1, again I did not say they are light tanks, its just that they can take on many of the functions of light tanks.
I though it important to try and compare and relate the different classifications, so I added those section. The idea being to give a better idea of a new name in relation to older ones. Muchenhaeser 20:58, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Okay; sorry for my exasperated tone. I see that some of that was caused by my misunderstanding of some wording in the article.
But the previous roles of medium and heavy tanks are pretty much 100% tied together into the Main Battle Tank today. The M2 Bradley serves as an IFV (which includes the infantry fire support role that has been often done by tanks), and the M3 as a reconnaissance vehicle (also a common role of light tanks).
You might say something like IFVs have also taken on the infantry fire support role, previously served by tanks or assault guns. But I would definitely not use wording implying that the Bradley in any way serves as a medium tank, which classification includes many roles that cannot be filled by an IFV.
I also don't see any specifically different roles for lighter or heavier IFVs. None of them are protected against a tank's main gun fire, so they all fall into the lightly-armoured vehicle category. The Bradley has an unusually sophisticated fire control system for an IFV, but I think most are capable of firing on the move to some degree, so that's not a qualitative difference either. —Michael Z. 2005-03-24 22:57 Z
Interesting points, but I do disagree with some of these. As for the bradlely, technically it is not a light tank either, but it is a bit more different the then the others as it weighs much more and does traditional medium tank jobs such as some anti-tank work and infantry support- more so then most of the smaller ifv's because of more armor, ammo etc. (hence the CFV renaming for the M3, as you pointed out)
"But the previous roles of medium and heavy tanks are pretty much 100% tied together into the Main Battle Tank today." - not at all. MBT's do not have the role of heavy tank at all, its just that nobody fields heavy tanks any more, or uses traditional heavy tank tactics. Neither medium or heavy tanks were specifically centered on anti-tank or infantry roles, and the heavier modern IFV's follow nearly the same use pattern as many older mediums. IFV may be more of a function based term, with its own characterization for vehicle type, but I think its still reasonable to compare to the jobs vehicles with older non-function based names did. Muchenhaeser 20:32, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Sorry, this is not entirely accurate. The "light, medium, heavy" terms were always function-based rather than weight-based (this is a common misunderstanding). But heavy tanks absolutely have been gone since the 1960s because of the rise of the MBT - there is just no question about that. There have been no new designs for heavy tanks since then. The AFVs since then that take on the heavy tank's tactical roles are mostly MBTs. The tactical role of the heavy tank was breakthrough (an MBT role since the 1950s) anti-tank overwatch (a role fulfilled since the 1950s by MBTs and/or specialized missile vehicles such as the M901 ITV, BRDM-3, etc) and, to a much lesser extent, Infantry support. Infantry support was always a medium tank *and* heavy tank role. Now it is done by MBTs and, to a very limited extent, by IFVs. Still, no IFV has a gun that can throw big HE projectiles like a tank can. And no IFV can really survive in a high-intensity tank vs tank environment, but we haven't seen much of that lately. So I am not sure how the IFV is taking on many medium tank roles. The best thing an IFV does is move the squad's gear around, provide a ride, and provide nice (but specialized) firepower. The development of the Bradley has nothing whatever to do with the demise of US medium tanks. The US adopted the MBT concept in the 1950s, many years before the Bradley or even the M-113. Medium tanks died out because firepower improved so much in the 1940s and 50s that no practical heavy tank could survive. In the 1950s it was realized that a 'medium' tank that can kill everything else on the battlefield, and thus take on all traditional tank roles, is an MBT.
I am in complete agreement with you that it is useful to compare how roles have evolved, but it needs to be done carefully.

DMorpheus 03:36, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Reorganization

I've reorganized the article in a more historical order, and done some editing. Some of the sections need to be harmonized with their main articles: I think each section should be a brief overview to keep this article managable, and some material may be removed to flesh out the individual articles. —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 06:34 Z

Thanks for doing that. However, I would very much prefer to have 'Infantry' and 'Cruiser' tanks included as WWII models. The British wree producing 'infantry' and 'cruiser' marks right up until 1945. And furthermore, no other country used the same distinctions. I think with WWII we have to accept that there were no hard and fast rules about what category a tank was in, and that medium-weight tanks were called 'heavy' for morale reasons (the Pershing), the British operated their own idiosyncratic classification system, that the gun on a Russian medium tank was the same size as that on a German heavy tank, and so on. It is a difficult picture to paint but is the only accurate way of doing it. Will return to this myself later. The Land 09:59, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
Sounds good. I know most about Soviet tanks, so I tend to over-focus on that. Be bold. —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 15:06 Z
I agree that a weight-based classification will not work. Weights changed so much during WW2. Classification has to be based on doctrine and intended tactical role. So, for example, the US M-24 is clearly in the role of a light tank when fielded in 1945, even though, by weight and capability, it is in the same class as any medium tank of 1939. Likewise the Panther was employed as a medium tank (being the standard equipment of tank battalions, not grouped into heavy tank battalions) regardless of the fact that it outweighed virtually every other medium tank and was as heavy as some other "heavy" tanks. The IS-2, weighing the same as a Panther, was not used as a medium tank; clearly it was employed exactly the same way as the Tiger. The odd British classification system (I use the term loosely;) actually reveals a lot about their doctrine, so it is important to keep it without falling into the common trap of equating 'cruiser' to 'medium' or 'infantry' to 'heavy'. They were very different concepts (the article as it stands does a good job with this, I am just hoping that does not get lost in future editing).

DMorpheus 03:15, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Stryker is not a replacement for MBTs

Stryker armored infantry carrier is not a replacement for MBT, nor is it considered to be one. It is designed to equip medium brigade combat teams to provide a balance between tracked and wheeled vehicles. The Styker MGS has a 105mm gun that supports infantry combat against entrenched targets, not tank to tank fighting. There is a Stryker tank-destroyer armed with TOW missiles; it provides defense against armor attack, not the capability to initiate one. -Chin, Cheng-chuan

Would these combat teams have M1s too, or would they only have Strykers instead? Do they belong to the infantry or armoured organization in the combat team? —Michael Z. 2006-03-01 18:48 Z

The LAV-III/Stryker is not a great design for going up against enemy MBTs,it has touble with 40 mm HEAT rockets. The LAV-III/Stryker was probably ment to supplement rather than replace existing Canadian forces. The armour on The Leopard 1 is thinner than most MBTs,so I would not choose either of these vehicles as my main force. Dudtz 4/21/06 10:50 PM EST

The MGS was meant to be adopted while the Leopard C2 was completely dropped, but now with half the tanks gone, the Canadian government has decided to send a squadron to Afghanistan.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-15 00:33 Z

[edit] Canada mothballing tanks?

" Canada has shelved its Leopard tanks." - This needs a source! 84.64.254.16 18:11, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

This was in progress, but was stopped after about half the tanks were gone. I'll have a look and correct it.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-15 00:31 Z

[edit] Super Heavy Tanks

Should there be a new section dedicated to "Super" Heavy Tanks? I mean after all the T-28's title does say it IS a Super Heavy Tank and the Char 2C's article even says it was a Super Heavy Tank. Although in fact the Super Heavy Tanks were mostly self-propelled guns don't they deserve their own section? Also the Panzer Maus should be included in the Heavy Tanks section, even though it was still experimental, it did see action though. 72.197.133.100 23:13, 21 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps just a paragraph under heavy tanks mentioning that various nations have flirted with the idea when they got too carried away in the heavy-armour arms race now and then would be sufficient for now. Superheavies aren't so much of a useful or used class, as a smattering of questionable one-off models which were mothballed once real soldiers had a chance to express how stupid is an armoured vehicle which can't be transported or cross a bridge. —Michael Z. 2006-08-22 01:25 Z
I agree that the "Super Heavy Tank" concept deserves a section for itself, as it has been considered by (AFAIK) at least 3 countries that were heavily involved in tank development: Germany (several projects/prototypes in WW2; among them: Maus, E-100 , "Monster" P.1500), USA (the T-28) and Great Britain (A39 Tortoise, usually classified just as "Heavy"). I'm not aware of any URSS tank in this category. And I'm unsure if they were "officially" classified as self-propelled guns, as these usually are under the Artillery branch and not the armored forces (IMHO). Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 07:22, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Although I agree with you about a SH tank's immobility. However though the shock factor of some of this tanks could have intimidated the average soldier quite alot. While I maybe exaggerating a bit there really should be a tiny section under heavy tanks explaining these rare "breed" of armored fighting vehicle. 72.197.133.100 00:27, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. It is a quirky and interesting aspect, especially with the high-tech Nazi Maus and Hitler's fantasy extra-super-heavy tanks. It would be nice to summarize all of it elegantly in just a couple of sentences, as this article is already very long, and granted that perhaps some other sections should be substantially pared down.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-15 00:36 Z

There I added a little sub-section for the super heavy tanks. While my ideas are pretty incomplete, I believe someone can pick up where I left off. In addition, I didn't know what to do to that little sentence regarding SHT's previously. If someone could paraphrase that sentence and plug it into the main paragraph that would be quite helpful. 72.197.133.100 01:45, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've updated the Super-heavy tanks section. The section needs more "blue links". And if anybody wants to add anymore information that would be great. Seacrest...out.72.197.133.100 18:57, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Obsolete?

The tone of "The twenty-first century: decline of heavy armour?" suggests that the tank is, in fact, obsolete and only inertia keeps it in service. I think it needs some clarification that while man-portable anti-tank missiles in the 60s and 70s made people declare the tank obsolete, tactics and technology developed to counter them and the tank remained viable. Helicoptors and top-attack munitions are heralding a similar round of discussion and the jury is still out. Schwern 09:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

Well it doesn't read well, but the section suggests the fall of the tank is due to weight, not missiles. I will fix. Maury 20:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Some recent changes

Mzajac, I hope you don't take the revert personally or anything, but you removed a number of corrections to camel casing that I had put into the edit before. I'm not sure if you did this by mistake. In any event, we need to pick ONE camel casing for "infantry tank", and I believe the double lowers is correct. Maury 20:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Woah, I just looked at my edit, and I don't know how that happened. Except for my actual edit in the first paragraph, it appears I reverted to the previous version, but without knowing I had, or receiving an "edit conflict" message. Sorry for not proofing my edit.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-15 06:06 Z
May I ask what is "camel casing"? Couldn't find that in the text. Thanks, DPdH (talk) 00:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] See Pokemon?

Why is this in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turtleh (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] Abrams Main Battle Tank

Can we add an Abrams picture under the the British Challenger and German Leopard tanks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.219.241.10 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC).

[edit] References & Sources Needed...

Even though the content makes sense to me (being an enthusiast of this topic, not an expert nor scholar), I could not find a single reference to bibliographical sources that supports it. There are several books that can be included in a "bibliography" section and I volunteer to do so, although it would be very useful that the editors that contributed to this article provide their own references. Thanks for the effort! Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Tank types "Main Articles"

I've noticed that there is a "Main Article" blue link to a WikiArticle for all tank types mentioned in the classification in the section "Tank Types" of this article, except for these: "Light Tank", "Medium Tank", "Heavy Tank". Wouldn't it make sense to have also a dedicated article (even in "stub" form) for these three categories? Just to be consistent and allow for further expansion of those. Regards, DPdH (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] FT-17

I saw on a discovery channel documentary that the FT-17 was the first tank to introduce a fully reversible turret, a driver on the front and the engine on the rear, and was was therefore the pattern for most modern tanks (apart the Merkava 4 which, unless I am wrong here, put the engine on the front) yet I see no such mention here, is it true? Matthieu (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

Fully *traversible* turret. Yes, it's generally correct that the FT17 set the basic layout for most tanks that have followed. All marks of the Merkeva have the engine in front of the fighting compartment, but that pattern has not been adopted by many other tanks. A few light tanks use this pattern such as the British Scopion/Scimitar series and even some designs from the 1930s. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the headup. Do you think there should at least be a picture of that tank here? I see it nowhever yet it seems it was quite an important step in the history of tank. While I see loads of tanks which have not been influencial. Is it true otherwise than the AMX-13 was the first time to use an automatic loading system? Or was it some Soviet model? Matthieu (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Main Battle Tank vs Main Battle Tanks

I just noticed something odd, if you type Main Battle Tank you land here, but if you type Main Battle Tanks you land somewhere else Matthieu (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)