Talk:Tank classification

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)

But the Maus isn't a modern tank. While real protection on modern tanks is much higher than LOS thickness of the armour, some tanks DO have a pretty thick armour frontally, at least on the turret. My Leo2A4 certainly has a pretty thick slab of armour on the turret front, easily half a metre, if not more. Dig up some photos on modern tanks, if you look at them from a birds perspective, you can see the seams indicating armour thickness. I'd guess most modern tanks has got at least half a metre of LOS thickness on the frontal turret. Andrimner (talk) 18:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)

Armour thickness is not directly related to its weight or protection, thanks to various kinds of composite and spaced armour. How about a general statement plus a specific example, like "a tank can afford to have the most armour on the front (for example, about a half metre of spaced armour on the Leopard 2A4's glacis plate)..." —Michael Z. 2008-06-21 20:58 z

How about "Because of the heavy weight of the armour, it is not practical to protect all sides of the tank against the most potent threats. Most tank designs put the heaviest armour in front, to ensure maximum protection in conventional head-on duel-situations, but this also means that the tank is more vulnerable from attacks from the flanks, rear, or from above" Andrimner (talk) 20:20, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "head-on duel-situations" are not conventional. AFV crews always keep the front armour facing the expected or known direction of enemy contact. —Michael Z. 2008-06-23 15:04 z

Then how are they NOT conventional? Head-on duels means front-to-front, and is what happens when 2 tanks face eachother, both trying to present their frontal armour to the enemy. What you said is exactly what I said, except for the "not conventional" bit, which I do not understand. Andrimner (talk) 06:10, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Come to think of it, this doesn't apply to the definition of a main battle tank at all, and has little to do with tank classification. Some slash-and-burn editing of this article seems to be in order. —Michael Z. 2008-06-23 15:58 z

Guderian: Guderian is again referred to in a manner that makes it sound he was the main tank strategist in pre-war germany. There are a number of sources which indicate that this was not the case - instead he was the most bragging german tank strategist after the war. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.109.151.179 (talk) 21:37, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Needs to be extended

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

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)

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)

i also disagress with the language descripting the M1 MBT being between the medium and heavy tank, it clearly weights more than a heavy tank! being the MBT doesn't have anything to do with your weight, it just means it is the main battle tank, replacing the previous mix of multiple kind of tanks. also i am surprised the example of israeli tank is not raise, given it's revolutionary concept for urban fighting. Akinkhoo (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

I've moved MBT to modern roles, as its a role, not a weight classification. I've corrected the end of Cruiser and Infantry tanks in the 1st paragraph of the role section, leading through Iniversal to MBT. To replace MBT in the weights section, I've added the end of medium and heavy tanks. Lkchild (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

The definitions of light, medium and heavy tanks can be found in Martel's book from the end of ww1 and his paper from 1916. To summarise - heavy tank was required to be big to cross trenches, and consequently weighed a lot. Medium tanks were smaller and needed help to cross trenches so weighed less. Light tanks were much smaller and lightweight, allowing transport on lorries. The 1916 paper assigns these to roles on the battlefield, along with proposing armament, armour and weight for the category, but all contemporary and later uses of the terms come back to a weight based classification before the roles and doctrine had properly been defined. (hope that helps) Lkchild (talk) 22:02, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Very helpful for WW1 - interwar era for the British Army. Doesn't necessarily apply to what other armies were thinking. The French, for example, obviously saw a breakthrough role for heavy tanks at least by the 1920s. DMorpheus2 (talk) 01:48, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm reasonably certain that these are the definitions that all of the other armies based their own definitions on as the information was shared post ww1 with other nations, much like the definition of the name "tank". Unless anyone comes up with alternative period reference sources on the derivation of the names light, medium and heavy? Lkchild (talk) 19:29, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

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)

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

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

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)

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)

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)

See Pokemon?

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

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).

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)

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)

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)

Please note that the "TAM" (based on the german "Marder" IFV chassis) also follows the "Merkava" layout, in this case with the engine at the front right and the driver sitting at its left. Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:09, 13 June 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)

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)

What about tanks not so clearly MBTs, as the argentinian TAM?

Hi all. Looks that the classification of "MBT" leaves some vehicles out of it. For instance, the argentinian "TAM" seems to be a "medium" tank (hence the "M" in the acronym, from the spanish word "Mediano"), however it's currently Argentine Army's "MBT". How do you think it should be listed? Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Unfocused

This article is starting to lose focus. A detailed examination of survivability of MBTs doesn't contributes directly to the topic of tank classification. There was once a thought that helicopters may make tanks obsolete, but not that they would fulfil the same role, so a direct comparison of the two is beside the point. Etc. —Michael Z. 2008-06-23 15:41 z

This article is also starting to become redundant with History of the tank. It only needs enough historical context to make the classification clear. It should focus on characteristics and definitions, and avoid uncited ramblings. —Michael Z. 2008-06-23 16:01 z

Weight comparison of light tanks wrong?

At light tank it says that "the M24 Chaffee was a purpose-built light tank of late WWII, but weighed more than the Panzer III, a mainstay medium tank from 1939-43".

However in the respective articles' Infoboxes, it gives the weight of the M24 Chaffee as 18.4 tonnes and the Panzer III as 22 tonnes.

Either this article is wrong or those two are wrong. Anyone able to fix this? FerdinandFrog (talk) 15:44, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

According to the tables at the AFV database,[1] different models of Pz III weighed between 15.4 and 23 tonnes. It's accurate if you consider the pre-production Pz III Ausf A or B of 1937–38. Maybe we can find a better example. —Michael Z. 2008-09-26 16:59 z

Panzer III was not designed as a light tank, but rather what the British called the cruiser or the French the cavalry tank. However it also had an infantry support version. The M24 was designed during the war when weights and classifications of tanks had shifted substantially. In retrospective PzIII can be classified as a light tank I suppose. What would have made the PzIII a medium tank was if the 50mm gun was selected as initially intended by Guderian since a medium tank is represented by the combination of three factors in tactical-operation consideration, and not just overall weight. The Ausf A, B, C and D were all in the under 18ton range--mrg3105 (comms) ♠♥♦♣ 23:25, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

Michael, at [2] I only seem to see information on US tanks. Am I missing something?

Different models of any piece of kit having different weights does not surprise me at all. Do you think that the Infobox on the Pz III should be changed? Perhaps to say which model the weight refers to (cf. the Primary armament) or give a range.

FerdinandFrog (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, I found the home page from the Pz III page, so I didn't realize there were no links back. Yes, the infobox has a spec_label parameter to indicate the specific model. I usually like to show the specs for a fully-developed early version of a tank, if you know what I mean. —Michael Z. 2008-09-27 14:28 z

Thanks for the new link to afvdb.50megs.com. Very odd that the home page does not have any links downwards.

"Yes, the infobox has a spec_label parameter to indicate the specific model." I'm sorry but I have no idea what you mean by that. I am relatively new to editing but, knowing something about software & wikis, I looked on the wiki source and the html source and cannot see 'spec_label' anywhere. Also the infobox seems generic to me (apart from specific parts as noted above).

"I usually like to show the specs for a fully-developed early version of a tank, if you know what I mean." Yes that makes sense. FerdinandFrog (talk) 14:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Add a line to the navbox template like “| spec_label = Pz III ausf. D”, and the table header will read “Specifications (Pz III ausf. D)”. You can see the wikitext in another article like T-34 for an example. Detailed documentation is at Template:Infobox Weapon. Or give me the details, and I will enter it into the article. —Michael Z. 2008-10-01 15:32 z

Oh I see. You mean that the infobox can take a spec_label parameter. I thought you meant that this infobox already contained one. FerdinandFrog (talk) 15:45, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I find it interesting that a tank considered "medium" at the beginning of WW2 (the Panzer III) would have been considered "light" at the end of it (as was the M24 Chaffee). The same can be said with regards to armament (37mm in the first case, 75mm in the second). So this example is probably a good one, depending how it is used.
Cheers, DPdH (talk) 02:40, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

The comparison is perfectly reasonable. My original comment was that the article specifically says that the M24 Chaffee weighed more than the Panzer III when the data in the infoboxes contradicts that.

If the Panzer III reference was changed to say which models are being thought of (and preferably what years those models were produced in) and it was easier to see what the weight of those models were, I don't think there would be any ambiguity.

BTW, AFAIUI the gun size comparison is not as lopsided as you imply, as the Panzer III was intended to have a 50mm gun but was given the 37mm gun for compatibility with the German towed anti-tank guns. FerdinandFrog (talk) 11:48, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

At least two specific things happened to change the tank and gun balance during the war. Before the war, most countries equipped themselves with 37mm and 45mm high-velocity antitank guns, and low-pressure 75mm guns for lobbing HE shells, partly thanks to the cavalry tank/infantry tank theories of the time. When Germany invaded the USSR, they were unprepared to face tanks which outclassed theirs with shell-proof armour and 75mm antitank guns. The response was to first match them, and then surpass them with higher-velocity 75s and 88s. They also increased the armour, but their planners didn't quite catch on to the liability of extreme weight. By the end of the war, a “medium” Panther's 45 tonnes matched the 1930s' heavy T-35's weight and nearly doubled that of the proposed Neubaufahrzeug, and German heavies pushed 70 t (while the Soviets' continued to build much lighter tanks in every class). —Michael Z. 2008-10-07 14:12 z

Missing pic of K2 "Black Panther" tank

Hi All, I've just noticed that the pic about the South Korean Army's K2 "Black Panther" tank (File:444kc1.jpg) is now a "red link" (and the same is true for that tank's wikiarticle). I assume that it was a non-free image... can anyone please provide a "free" one? I'll place a "tag" in this article as a reminder.
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

21st century

The 21st century section should be removed or moved to a different article as it is totaly off topic. username 1 (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a note

For editors who work on this article more regularly, may I suggest broadening the study of the different nationalities? Currently the article appears to focus disproportionately on the British, their principal allies (American and to a lesser extent, French), and their historic enemies (Nazi Germany and to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union), to the detriment of all other nations that have ever fielded armored forces: principally Italy, Japan and China. In particular, the Soviets and Japanese have come up with some interesting light amphibious designs. India, Iran, Israel, Spain, Hungary and Poland have also produced some indigenous designs.

This is not the British Wikipedia, or even the NATO Wikipedia. Please consider including some of these designs in your discussion in the article mainspace. If you need help, let me know on my User Talk page. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)

Original research

A comment on original research as suggested by the tag that's been in place for some months, and also in light of the "Just a note" comment, just above.

This article *is* largely original research, it's an excuse for an extended history of tanks, and for an informal analysis of the historical use of words. Consider this existing sentence:

"There were many names given to different tank types, and similar names did not assure similar design goals. Some light tanks were relatively slow, and some were fast. Some heavy tanks had large-calibre, low-velocity, anti-infantry bunker-busters, and some had high-velocity anti-tank guns."

What it says in essence is that the meaning of various tank terms changed frequently and were inconsistent.

The point made by Phoenix and Winslow above highlights that this is, in the main, an appreciation of WWII Western tanks.

It's also centered on cutting-edge tanks, as opposed to surplus tanks fighting any number of battles elsewhere, under any number of other military doctrines.

Not much of the article content isn't better covered in the Tank article and the ones linked directly to that. There's no compelling reason to have a long article that doesn't have any particular point to make, except that tank classifications change regularly and aren't consistent between countries.

Just about that same point could be made for any taxonomy, any classification system. This is an encyclopedia, not a historical dictionary. About 3/4 of the article could be removed, and what remains should be tied to reliable references making points about tank classification, and not synthesis on the part of Wiki editors quoting authors who are not specifically talking about classification. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)

I've removed much of the "history of tank" cruft as a start. The rest of the article is still crappy original research in a dire need of a complete rewrite. --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

I've put in some bald facts of the British "heavy", Medium and Light (back to Medium) tank naming up to mid-1920s. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, enough with the T-34 fanboyism.

Anytime the T-34 is mentioned on wiki, someone always takes the liberty of adding words like "great" "revolutionary" "shocking" "Excellent" to it. This is neither a neutral statement, nor historically correct. It is popularisti myths that can be easily disproven and has no place on wiki. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Bt2.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)