![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 |
This list needs some references. For the sake of comparison to whatever the current list represents, here's how the Soviets saw tanks during the Cold War:
The Soviets saw tank generations in this manner: 1920-1945, first generation; 1946-1960, second generation; 1961-1980, third generation; and 1981-present, fourth generation. Since the last really new tank design, the T-80, came out in 1976, they feel that they have not produced a true Fourth Generation Tank Design. In comparison, they count the M1, Challenger, and Leopard 2 as Fourth Generation and the LeClerc as Fifth Generation. —Sewell (1988), " Why Three tanks?", note 1.
— Michael Z. 2007-10-15 20:04 Z
The site I mentioned earlier ( http://www.softland.com.pl/aerojac/aaa/t62/t62.htm) says that T-62 wasn't a development of T-55 but an alternative to T-55. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTank17 ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
didn't learn this from one or two sources but from all of the information I have gathered from many sources I eventually came up with a list of MBTs by generation which uses few facts to make it more reliable. For example every tank before T-62 is a first generation MBT because T-62 is believed to be world's first second generation MBT. Also on Polish Wikipedia there's MBT classification in article about tanks. It doesn't cite any sources and hasn't been deleted for a long time. SuperTank17 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
SuperTank, I suggest you start adding specific references to justify this list's existence, perhaps including quotations. You are making very specific edits, based on no references at all, and contradicting at least one other reference quoted on this talk page, above. If you don't introduce some verification, this just looks like your own original research project. — Michael Z. 2008-05-29 14:25 z
The statement actually comes from http://www.softland.com.pl/aerojac/aaa/t62/t62.htm which uses book "Czołgi Świata" by Igor Witkowski as reference.
Does the mentioned book say that the T-62 is the first 2nd-gen tank or not? Does any other book say that? So far this doesn't constitute a single useful reference. — Michael Z. 2008-05-29 14:34 z
Hi all. Looks that the classification of "MBT" leaves some vehicles out of the associated list. 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) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
ok people, when a not very famous tank to the west like the Ramses II was out of the list, i was not very angry, but where is the T-72?! the ideal soviet tank is not mentioned in the 3rd generation, and that is only one of many drawbacks in the article. I think that starting it all over again is even better than trying to solve it's problems. One last pharaoh ( talk) 20:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It's ur own problem if u think that i am better than u, or ur just feeling that i am trying to make it look like that, but i already told u that "no one is another's boss", so i really find it more weird that u insist on that idea than even thinking about it from the very first beginning.
How about you two take a break from editing this article for two days? Then come back and try to discuss changes to the content, while avoiding discussing each other's behaviour and qualities (and avoiding giving anyone an excuse to talk about you).
In the meantime, you could have a look at a book or two in the library, and try to find citations to support putting whatever tank into whichever generation. The article will still be here, ready for more improvement, when you return. Regards. — Michael Z. 2008-07-02 23:26 z
I guess trying to cool off the dispute was optimistic of me. This appears to be a waste of energy. All I see here is a lot of arguing over two editors' original research.
Please add some specific references which meet Wikipedia's requirements of verifiability and reliability, or I will find it necessary to list this article for deletion as an article “that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources” and “for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.” — Michael Z. 2008-07-03 18:00 z
Dear colleagues, IMHO this is a useful list which deserves to be kept, and for that it needs to be properly sourced/referenced as per Wikipedia guidelines/policies. Maybe the discussion could be settled temporarily if those editors who contributed to the content of the article mention the sources for each contribution, and if the article is adequately tagged so any reader that's not knowledgeable in the topic is aware of the dispute.
I'm still searching for a good reference (book) where the "MBT generations" are clearly defined, but unsuccessful yet.
Kind regards,
DPdH (
talk)
07:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There are specific problems with the cited sources, which contravene the official policy on Verifiability.
WP:NONENG says “where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.”
Please add footnotes quoting and translating the cited foreign-language sources, or I will remove them immediately.
WP:SPS says “self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.”
Please provide some evidence that the cited sources are “produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications,” or I will remove them immediately. — Michael Z. 2008-07-23 16:43 z
I'm withdrawing my deletion request, as with the prompting of User:MickMacNee I was at last able to find a single source which appears respectable. I suggest that it be added to the references and the hobby sites removed.
The Canadian Directorate of Land Strategic Concept defines three generations of Main Battle Tanks. The first generation of post World War II Main Battle Tanks includes the U.S. M48/M60, the German Leopard 1 and the British Centurion and Chieftain. The second generation includes most of the 120mm Main Battle Tanks such as the American M1A1, the German Leopard 2 and the British Challenger. As for the third generation Main Battle Tank, they include the latest ‘digital’ tank such as the French Leclerc and perhaps the American M1A2 and the German Leopard 2A5. [1]
This passage in this masters paper further cites the following. I suggest someone try to find it in a library, if it is a public document, and cite the relevant.
I also suggest that User:MickMacNee deserves some thanks. — Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:13 z
This is a rather silly article. In the first place it does not provide a definition of a generation in respect to the "tank". Secondly, clearly the first generation was the original designs of tanks that appeared during the First World War.
Why did the Soviet historiographers begun with 1920? Because there were no Soviet tanks built before 1920s.
What makes one generation different enough from the next to be so defined? This would probably require writing an introduction to the generation section, making it an encyclopaedic article rather than a list!-- 60.229.48.79 ( talk) 09:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Some changes have been made to this article in the last few hours. Because of those changes the article changed from "List of main battle tanks by generation" to "List of tanks by generation". Thus the info currently displayed in this article doesn't belong here and should be made into an entirely different article. Regards. - SuperTank17 ( talk) 19:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Firstly As of means from, and there have been no new tank generations, or indeed tanks since January 2010. So, the statement - As of
2010 there have been three
generations of
main battle tanks. - is highly wrong.
2. In reality the story of the 'main battle tank' begins with the First World War since at Cambrai all 374 tanks of the British Army's Tank Corps were Mark IVs, i.e. literally the main tank to go into battle! At Amiens the vast majority of British tanks were Mark Vs, which were along with Mark IVs, versions of the Mark I 'tank'. These were 'heavy' tanks and so 'medium' tanks were also produced to complement them. What is termed the first generation 'main' battle tank in this article is in fact referring to the 'heavy' Allied tanks of the Second World War redesignated 'main' when the much lighter 'medium' M4 Shermans were retired. In this sense apples are being compared to oranges since the Soviet designers retained the medium tank design as the main tank, and were therefore severely constrained compared to the NATO vehicles.
3. "while Canadian strategists organize main battle tanks into three generations." - how can strategists define what is clearly either a tactical or an engineering, or both, concept? Moreover, while Canada is a NATO member, it's army is hardly an authority on tanks, or free from bias.
4. How is a generation defined? Usually a military system is considered to be obsolescent at about 20-25 years. Design on the replacement begins at half-life, i.e. 10 years into the field service of the system. From 1944 to 1993 the Soviet designers produced seven medium tank designs that can be termed 'main' in 49 years: T-44, T-54/55, T-62, T-72, T-64, T-80, and T-90. This is a new design every seven years. The United states in the same time had five tank models as its 'main' tank: the M26 Pershing, M46 Patton was an improved M26, M47 Patton, M48 Patton, M60 Patton, and the M1 Abrams, i.e. two new designs. One can claim that the T-90 is really a version of T-72, and that the M60 was very different from M26, but that still means that the Soviet designers produced one new design every 9 years or so (allowing for integration issues), while the US designers did so every 17 years! And, when Abrahms entered service, it did so with a British 1959 gun, a 27 year old design (regardless of its success). During this time the Soviets introduced three different main tank guns, including an automatic loader for the last and gun-fired ATGW for the last two.
So I'd like to ask, what is this list about, or what should it be about? Is it informing the reader without bias? 120.18.218.180 ( talk) 12:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
My latest edit includes following changes:
Some users have added the Type 10 MBT as 4th generation tank citing Japanese sources. It seems very probable, especially since the Japanese Type 10 tank includes only features which can at least partially be found on tanks of former generations, that this Japanese source(s) uses another definition of tank generations than the current main source (the only source cited dealing with tank generations per se) - there the author names some features which he expect to be found in a 4th generation MBT and names some examples of tank projects. The Japanese source might see it another way: the Type 10 is the fourth tank model developed in Japan post-W2 (following the Type 61, Type 74 and Type 90), which would be similar to [[Rheinmetall]'s definition of tank rounds generation (DM53 = 5th generation, DM43 = 4th generation etc.). Therefore I assume that there shouldn't be opened a "4th generation"-category in the list page, since they probably use another definiton (which has not be posted by anyone in the list page or here in the disscussion). Else the latest Soviet/Russian/Ukranian tanks also would belong in the fourth generation (based on their definition of generations). -- User:EndlessUnknown ( talk) 09:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
If there is a Tank which would qualify for the 4th generation it would be Turkey's Altay. It is the only tank in the world to eventually feature an electric engine. This is a quantum leap from Diesel engined MBT's. The Altay also features a digitally controlled stabalization system similar to fly by wire in aircraft and has other additional state of the art technologies such as laser warning and designation system incorporated in its active protection system. The Altay can also engage rotary aircraft and has Link-14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 ( talk) 15:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the Type 10 is a 4th generation MBT. It has new type of armor Nano-crystal steel, better engine with a continuously variable transmission, one of a kind hydropneumatic suspension, better autoloader, and a C4I system. It could be a 3/4th generation in-between type of tank or a early very 4th. This tank's features were designed with the latest Technology than having a upgraded variant of past tanks with newer systems. Also, it is the only new tank that was built 8 years later from the last new tank. Rasseru ( talk) 05:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Just because you THINK it is better doesn't mean there IS a 4th generation. Wikipedia operates on sources, not on personal opinion. TheFuzzyOne ( talk) 13:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you THINK I was stating personal opinion than the facts? Then I THINK you don't want to chat about the subject and not be a little open minded. Rasseru ( talk) 10:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,I cant find Vijoyanth tank of India.Please add this 2nd generation tank list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.228.167 ( talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that there is an "Under development" section. When these MBTs enter service, will they be considered part of the third or fourth generation of MBTs? Thanks! Illegitimate Barrister ( talk) 05:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The change to put the "Advanced 3rd" and "4th" generations in has been removed. There are NO sources that there is any such thing considered by any military in the world. The Japanese source for the Type 10 is not saying it is a 4th Generation tank, it says that it is the 4th generation OF main battle tank that the Japanese have made (Type 61 -> Type 74 -> Type 90 -> Type 10) and this source is NOT justifiable citation for having a separate generational element on this page.
Wikipedia operates off of clarified information, not internet rumourmill and mythology to put it in "to make way for people to start calling it that." Until there are sources or citations we cannot simply add things that we want to try and make certain elements look "better" than others in some cheap element of country boosting. The same goes for "advanced 3rd generation", how advanced any vehicle is would be an entirely subjective term, especially as we know nothing of these. The only official military stance is that they are all 3rd generations and that is as far as it has gone. Defining them deeper than that is entirely unsourced and thus cannot be worked with wikipedia. We are NOT a list of tanks by strength or ability. We are a factual documentation.
Until sources appear to state that they have a higher "generation" that are clear and accepted by militaries worldwide, there can be no change.
Furthermore, K2 is still in development and thus has been kept to the "in development" section. Thats what its there for. Instead of simply undoing, please discuss it here before anything else is done to avoid this becoming an edit war. Everything must be cited on wikipedia or it risks becoming a country arguement. If this goes further, wikipedia will be brought in to resolve the issue until proper citations are found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE:
Deleting a user's talk from the talk page is not due process. Article has been redone to original specification. The only cites of "4th gen" are overly vague and not corresponding to the generational requirements and historical specifics of this article, two are simply from hobby sites and third is a dead link. This is not proper sourcing, until a "4th generation" description and globally recognised source is found as per the same requirements as of those on the top of the page, there can be no further generations added. A tank may be a new and extremely good one, but that is subjective to a tank by tank basis, personal opinion is not a factor in whether it is new or not, which is all the sources given are based on. TankNutDave for example, is a hobby site akin to a very fancy blog, not a mainstream defence source such as Janes or NATO. The same goes for "advanced 3rd generation", that is simply a push for trying to sound bigger and is based on no element. This is not a list of what tanks are advanced or not advanced. This is a list of where tanks fill into the generations fulfilled as per the article's description in the Rolf Hilmes source. I quote:
"In 1983 Rolf Hilmes saw three tank generations and three "intermediate generations", which consisted mainly of upgraded vehicles.[3] The first generation of main battle tanks were based on or influenced by designs of World War II, most notably the T-34 and the Panther tank.[4] The second generation was equipped with NBC protection (only sometimes), IR night vision devices, a stabilized main gun and at least a mechanical fire control system.[4] The third generation is determined by the usage of thermal imagers, digital fire control systems and special (composite) armour.[4]"
That is the one that is used for this page as the defining one that it has been organised by. The Soviets 4 generations is totally different, referring to even the original Challenger as a "4th gen".
Until such a source is found, no generations can be added. Please stop adding your own personal opinions as fact. Now, please discuss here before just editing on the fly.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
What happened to the K2 Black Panther? It was moved from the Advanced and Third Generation MBTs section to the Third Generation Table. If anything, there are numerous references to the K2 being one of the most recently developed tanks around with the DAPA of SK explicitly referring to it as a "Next Gen Tank". Also, why is the AMX Leclerc of all things and the Merkava IV in the section too? While the APS systems of the Merkava may give credence to its classification here, the AMX Leclerc of all thing should not be there, a design dating to the early '90s, latest upgrades notwithstanding. Clarification? Thanks. 60.229.146.141 ( talk) 11:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—
cyberbot II
NotifyOnline
21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This tank belongs to the 3rd generation of tanks. It has all the criteria needed for it.
It has an advanced SUV with a dual-axis meteosensor (first 55 examples had A20XMBL, later ones had A10XMBL), advanced day-night sight (DNNS-2), laser rangefinder, allowing fire on the move.
Most important difference is a 735 kW (1000 horse powers) engine, significantly more powerful than any T72 offshoot in current use.
Armor on ALL M84s is composite. Turret has a non-metallic inlet with corundum spheres and silica sand. Frontal hull armor is made of multiple layers of steel, ceramics and non-metals. A series have an additional 16 mm of steel plate on the front. Total thickness of frontal armor of the A series is 247 mm, while its RHA equivalent is still secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HrcAk47 ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not use 4th generation or any other generations above. There is no 4th, 5th, 6th and etc. listed for worldwide sources. If by nation source, please call these new tanks "Next Generation". Upgraded tanks should be known as 3th generation or Advanced 3rd depending on their upgrades. Newly built tanks are not always the next generation. Rasseru ( talk) 17:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not call something a 4th or 5th generation MBT? Just because the occidental world has not published something recently about new generations of MBTs, does not mean that they do not exist. When the US made a 5th generation fighter, people accepted this. They did not need the rest of the world's permission to call it what they wanted to call it. I will revert T-14 Armata back to 5th generation, because that is what the designer claims. Brovich 18 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brovich ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
What Rolf Hilmes wrote in his 1987 book is this; "If the Soviet Union was to maintain its 7 to 10 year cycle for the introduction of new tanks, the tank speculatively named "T80" could be expected to enter service in or after 1983. At the time of writing it remains to be seen whether this move to a new model will be an evolutionary one...(skip)...According to one source, a new tank with a welded turret employing spaced or compact array armor, and with large skirt plates, has been in service for some years." In reality, T-80 didn't have evolutionary features compared to previous T-64, nor it was equipped with a welded turret. The main difference was just an engine; the new SG-1000 gas turbine. T-80B in equipped with a new fire control system, but it has no big difference with the one installed on T-64B. So early model T-80 can't really categorized as a 3rd generation main battle tank. 14.33.19.154 ( talk) 13:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I tried adding "Challenger 2" with its corresponding colour to the image displaying MBT exporters, as the picture showed the UK and Oman as exporting it, but the key didn't. Everything looked fine on the edit page:
But when I looked at the page after, it wasn't there. I looked at "recent changes" and saw my edit, but the actual page was still the same.
Due to Wikipedia being remarkably un-user-friendly, I have no idea what all the technical stuff means (everything has random punctuation and things, even inserting the picture to the right has, like, 4 brackets and a bunch of nonsense instead of a simple preview on the edit page, ugh). Someone who knows how to Wikipedia, please make the edit. The colour for the Challenger 2 on the legend is #90b2fc. Widgetdog ( talk) 22:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
First of all, stridsvagn 74 was a light tank, secondly it also was an early WWII-construction with a new turret. BP OMowe ( talk) 00:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The Al-Khalid tank is the Pakistani built variant of the tank which differs from the other models produced in China.
I can see many examples on the list which only have one flag despite being based on/upgraded models of other tanks from different countries:
The STR-122 tank despite being based on the Leopard 2 only has a Swedish flag next to it and not a german one too.
The T-72M4 CZ only has a Czech flag next to it despite being an upgraded variant of the T-72. There is no Soviet flag here.
The Centurion Olifant Mk 2 only has a South African flag despite being an upgraded variant of the Olifant Mk 1 Tank. No British flag is next to the South African one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.37.131.208 ( talk) 16:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Source to confirm the Karrar tank is a 3rd generation advanced tank and on par with others mentioned in the category?
But sources also compare it to the T-72 or an upgrade of the T-72. And T-72 is Third gen.
Sources: http://quwa.org/2016/11/27/overview-al-khalid-2-main-battle-tank-program/ http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17749/Ukraine_To_Provide_New_Engines_For_Pakistan_s_Al_Khalid_II_Tanks#.WSMLVRN95fQ http://www.armyrecognition.com/ideas_2016_official_online_show_daily_news/taxila_heavy_industries_from_pakistan_announced_the_development_of_al_khalid_2_main_battle_tank_12911165.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.183.66 ( talk) 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of main battle tanks by generation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muz20152 ( talk) 15:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I need to edit this page there is something wrong please also add Pakistan in al-khalid MBT2000 with china
If M1A2 is 3rd gen., so these tanks are clear third gen. advanced, but this is not on the page. Just did not write or is there a good reason? KiL92 ( talk) 23:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)
![]() | 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. |
Archive 1 |
This list needs some references. For the sake of comparison to whatever the current list represents, here's how the Soviets saw tanks during the Cold War:
The Soviets saw tank generations in this manner: 1920-1945, first generation; 1946-1960, second generation; 1961-1980, third generation; and 1981-present, fourth generation. Since the last really new tank design, the T-80, came out in 1976, they feel that they have not produced a true Fourth Generation Tank Design. In comparison, they count the M1, Challenger, and Leopard 2 as Fourth Generation and the LeClerc as Fifth Generation. —Sewell (1988), " Why Three tanks?", note 1.
— Michael Z. 2007-10-15 20:04 Z
The site I mentioned earlier ( http://www.softland.com.pl/aerojac/aaa/t62/t62.htm) says that T-62 wasn't a development of T-55 but an alternative to T-55. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTank17 ( talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
didn't learn this from one or two sources but from all of the information I have gathered from many sources I eventually came up with a list of MBTs by generation which uses few facts to make it more reliable. For example every tank before T-62 is a first generation MBT because T-62 is believed to be world's first second generation MBT. Also on Polish Wikipedia there's MBT classification in article about tanks. It doesn't cite any sources and hasn't been deleted for a long time. SuperTank17 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
SuperTank, I suggest you start adding specific references to justify this list's existence, perhaps including quotations. You are making very specific edits, based on no references at all, and contradicting at least one other reference quoted on this talk page, above. If you don't introduce some verification, this just looks like your own original research project. — Michael Z. 2008-05-29 14:25 z
The statement actually comes from http://www.softland.com.pl/aerojac/aaa/t62/t62.htm which uses book "Czołgi Świata" by Igor Witkowski as reference.
Does the mentioned book say that the T-62 is the first 2nd-gen tank or not? Does any other book say that? So far this doesn't constitute a single useful reference. — Michael Z. 2008-05-29 14:34 z
Hi all. Looks that the classification of "MBT" leaves some vehicles out of the associated list. 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) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
ok people, when a not very famous tank to the west like the Ramses II was out of the list, i was not very angry, but where is the T-72?! the ideal soviet tank is not mentioned in the 3rd generation, and that is only one of many drawbacks in the article. I think that starting it all over again is even better than trying to solve it's problems. One last pharaoh ( talk) 20:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)
It's ur own problem if u think that i am better than u, or ur just feeling that i am trying to make it look like that, but i already told u that "no one is another's boss", so i really find it more weird that u insist on that idea than even thinking about it from the very first beginning.
How about you two take a break from editing this article for two days? Then come back and try to discuss changes to the content, while avoiding discussing each other's behaviour and qualities (and avoiding giving anyone an excuse to talk about you).
In the meantime, you could have a look at a book or two in the library, and try to find citations to support putting whatever tank into whichever generation. The article will still be here, ready for more improvement, when you return. Regards. — Michael Z. 2008-07-02 23:26 z
I guess trying to cool off the dispute was optimistic of me. This appears to be a waste of energy. All I see here is a lot of arguing over two editors' original research.
Please add some specific references which meet Wikipedia's requirements of verifiability and reliability, or I will find it necessary to list this article for deletion as an article “that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources” and “for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.” — Michael Z. 2008-07-03 18:00 z
Dear colleagues, IMHO this is a useful list which deserves to be kept, and for that it needs to be properly sourced/referenced as per Wikipedia guidelines/policies. Maybe the discussion could be settled temporarily if those editors who contributed to the content of the article mention the sources for each contribution, and if the article is adequately tagged so any reader that's not knowledgeable in the topic is aware of the dispute.
I'm still searching for a good reference (book) where the "MBT generations" are clearly defined, but unsuccessful yet.
Kind regards,
DPdH (
talk)
07:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)
There are specific problems with the cited sources, which contravene the official policy on Verifiability.
WP:NONENG says “where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.”
Please add footnotes quoting and translating the cited foreign-language sources, or I will remove them immediately.
WP:SPS says “self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.”
Please provide some evidence that the cited sources are “produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications,” or I will remove them immediately. — Michael Z. 2008-07-23 16:43 z
I'm withdrawing my deletion request, as with the prompting of User:MickMacNee I was at last able to find a single source which appears respectable. I suggest that it be added to the references and the hobby sites removed.
The Canadian Directorate of Land Strategic Concept defines three generations of Main Battle Tanks. The first generation of post World War II Main Battle Tanks includes the U.S. M48/M60, the German Leopard 1 and the British Centurion and Chieftain. The second generation includes most of the 120mm Main Battle Tanks such as the American M1A1, the German Leopard 2 and the British Challenger. As for the third generation Main Battle Tank, they include the latest ‘digital’ tank such as the French Leclerc and perhaps the American M1A2 and the German Leopard 2A5. [1]
This passage in this masters paper further cites the following. I suggest someone try to find it in a library, if it is a public document, and cite the relevant.
I also suggest that User:MickMacNee deserves some thanks. — Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:13 z
This is a rather silly article. In the first place it does not provide a definition of a generation in respect to the "tank". Secondly, clearly the first generation was the original designs of tanks that appeared during the First World War.
Why did the Soviet historiographers begun with 1920? Because there were no Soviet tanks built before 1920s.
What makes one generation different enough from the next to be so defined? This would probably require writing an introduction to the generation section, making it an encyclopaedic article rather than a list!-- 60.229.48.79 ( talk) 09:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
Some changes have been made to this article in the last few hours. Because of those changes the article changed from "List of main battle tanks by generation" to "List of tanks by generation". Thus the info currently displayed in this article doesn't belong here and should be made into an entirely different article. Regards. - SuperTank17 ( talk) 19:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)
1. Firstly As of means from, and there have been no new tank generations, or indeed tanks since January 2010. So, the statement - As of
2010 there have been three
generations of
main battle tanks. - is highly wrong.
2. In reality the story of the 'main battle tank' begins with the First World War since at Cambrai all 374 tanks of the British Army's Tank Corps were Mark IVs, i.e. literally the main tank to go into battle! At Amiens the vast majority of British tanks were Mark Vs, which were along with Mark IVs, versions of the Mark I 'tank'. These were 'heavy' tanks and so 'medium' tanks were also produced to complement them. What is termed the first generation 'main' battle tank in this article is in fact referring to the 'heavy' Allied tanks of the Second World War redesignated 'main' when the much lighter 'medium' M4 Shermans were retired. In this sense apples are being compared to oranges since the Soviet designers retained the medium tank design as the main tank, and were therefore severely constrained compared to the NATO vehicles.
3. "while Canadian strategists organize main battle tanks into three generations." - how can strategists define what is clearly either a tactical or an engineering, or both, concept? Moreover, while Canada is a NATO member, it's army is hardly an authority on tanks, or free from bias.
4. How is a generation defined? Usually a military system is considered to be obsolescent at about 20-25 years. Design on the replacement begins at half-life, i.e. 10 years into the field service of the system. From 1944 to 1993 the Soviet designers produced seven medium tank designs that can be termed 'main' in 49 years: T-44, T-54/55, T-62, T-72, T-64, T-80, and T-90. This is a new design every seven years. The United states in the same time had five tank models as its 'main' tank: the M26 Pershing, M46 Patton was an improved M26, M47 Patton, M48 Patton, M60 Patton, and the M1 Abrams, i.e. two new designs. One can claim that the T-90 is really a version of T-72, and that the M60 was very different from M26, but that still means that the Soviet designers produced one new design every 9 years or so (allowing for integration issues), while the US designers did so every 17 years! And, when Abrahms entered service, it did so with a British 1959 gun, a 27 year old design (regardless of its success). During this time the Soviets introduced three different main tank guns, including an automatic loader for the last and gun-fired ATGW for the last two.
So I'd like to ask, what is this list about, or what should it be about? Is it informing the reader without bias? 120.18.218.180 ( talk) 12:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)
My latest edit includes following changes:
Some users have added the Type 10 MBT as 4th generation tank citing Japanese sources. It seems very probable, especially since the Japanese Type 10 tank includes only features which can at least partially be found on tanks of former generations, that this Japanese source(s) uses another definition of tank generations than the current main source (the only source cited dealing with tank generations per se) - there the author names some features which he expect to be found in a 4th generation MBT and names some examples of tank projects. The Japanese source might see it another way: the Type 10 is the fourth tank model developed in Japan post-W2 (following the Type 61, Type 74 and Type 90), which would be similar to [[Rheinmetall]'s definition of tank rounds generation (DM53 = 5th generation, DM43 = 4th generation etc.). Therefore I assume that there shouldn't be opened a "4th generation"-category in the list page, since they probably use another definiton (which has not be posted by anyone in the list page or here in the disscussion). Else the latest Soviet/Russian/Ukranian tanks also would belong in the fourth generation (based on their definition of generations). -- User:EndlessUnknown ( talk) 09:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)
If there is a Tank which would qualify for the 4th generation it would be Turkey's Altay. It is the only tank in the world to eventually feature an electric engine. This is a quantum leap from Diesel engined MBT's. The Altay also features a digitally controlled stabalization system similar to fly by wire in aircraft and has other additional state of the art technologies such as laser warning and designation system incorporated in its active protection system. The Altay can also engage rotary aircraft and has Link-14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 ( talk) 15:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)
I think the Type 10 is a 4th generation MBT. It has new type of armor Nano-crystal steel, better engine with a continuously variable transmission, one of a kind hydropneumatic suspension, better autoloader, and a C4I system. It could be a 3/4th generation in-between type of tank or a early very 4th. This tank's features were designed with the latest Technology than having a upgraded variant of past tanks with newer systems. Also, it is the only new tank that was built 8 years later from the last new tank. Rasseru ( talk) 05:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)
Just because you THINK it is better doesn't mean there IS a 4th generation. Wikipedia operates on sources, not on personal opinion. TheFuzzyOne ( talk) 13:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
Do you THINK I was stating personal opinion than the facts? Then I THINK you don't want to chat about the subject and not be a little open minded. Rasseru ( talk) 10:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
Hi,I cant find Vijoyanth tank of India.Please add this 2nd generation tank list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.228.167 ( talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
I noticed that there is an "Under development" section. When these MBTs enter service, will they be considered part of the third or fourth generation of MBTs? Thanks! Illegitimate Barrister ( talk) 05:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)
The change to put the "Advanced 3rd" and "4th" generations in has been removed. There are NO sources that there is any such thing considered by any military in the world. The Japanese source for the Type 10 is not saying it is a 4th Generation tank, it says that it is the 4th generation OF main battle tank that the Japanese have made (Type 61 -> Type 74 -> Type 90 -> Type 10) and this source is NOT justifiable citation for having a separate generational element on this page.
Wikipedia operates off of clarified information, not internet rumourmill and mythology to put it in "to make way for people to start calling it that." Until there are sources or citations we cannot simply add things that we want to try and make certain elements look "better" than others in some cheap element of country boosting. The same goes for "advanced 3rd generation", how advanced any vehicle is would be an entirely subjective term, especially as we know nothing of these. The only official military stance is that they are all 3rd generations and that is as far as it has gone. Defining them deeper than that is entirely unsourced and thus cannot be worked with wikipedia. We are NOT a list of tanks by strength or ability. We are a factual documentation.
Until sources appear to state that they have a higher "generation" that are clear and accepted by militaries worldwide, there can be no change.
Furthermore, K2 is still in development and thus has been kept to the "in development" section. Thats what its there for. Instead of simply undoing, please discuss it here before anything else is done to avoid this becoming an edit war. Everything must be cited on wikipedia or it risks becoming a country arguement. If this goes further, wikipedia will be brought in to resolve the issue until proper citations are found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne ( talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)
UPDATE:
Deleting a user's talk from the talk page is not due process. Article has been redone to original specification. The only cites of "4th gen" are overly vague and not corresponding to the generational requirements and historical specifics of this article, two are simply from hobby sites and third is a dead link. This is not proper sourcing, until a "4th generation" description and globally recognised source is found as per the same requirements as of those on the top of the page, there can be no further generations added. A tank may be a new and extremely good one, but that is subjective to a tank by tank basis, personal opinion is not a factor in whether it is new or not, which is all the sources given are based on. TankNutDave for example, is a hobby site akin to a very fancy blog, not a mainstream defence source such as Janes or NATO. The same goes for "advanced 3rd generation", that is simply a push for trying to sound bigger and is based on no element. This is not a list of what tanks are advanced or not advanced. This is a list of where tanks fill into the generations fulfilled as per the article's description in the Rolf Hilmes source. I quote:
"In 1983 Rolf Hilmes saw three tank generations and three "intermediate generations", which consisted mainly of upgraded vehicles.[3] The first generation of main battle tanks were based on or influenced by designs of World War II, most notably the T-34 and the Panther tank.[4] The second generation was equipped with NBC protection (only sometimes), IR night vision devices, a stabilized main gun and at least a mechanical fire control system.[4] The third generation is determined by the usage of thermal imagers, digital fire control systems and special (composite) armour.[4]"
That is the one that is used for this page as the defining one that it has been organised by. The Soviets 4 generations is totally different, referring to even the original Challenger as a "4th gen".
Until such a source is found, no generations can be added. Please stop adding your own personal opinions as fact. Now, please discuss here before just editing on the fly.
— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne ( talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)
What happened to the K2 Black Panther? It was moved from the Advanced and Third Generation MBTs section to the Third Generation Table. If anything, there are numerous references to the K2 being one of the most recently developed tanks around with the DAPA of SK explicitly referring to it as a "Next Gen Tank". Also, why is the AMX Leclerc of all things and the Merkava IV in the section too? While the APS systems of the Merkava may give credence to its classification here, the AMX Leclerc of all thing should not be there, a design dating to the early '90s, latest upgrades notwithstanding. Clarification? Thanks. 60.229.146.141 ( talk) 11:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)
Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.
Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:
\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklist\barmy-technology\.com\b
on the local blacklistIf you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.
From your friendly hard working bot.— cyberbot II NotifyOnline 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)
Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—
cyberbot II
NotifyOnline
21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)
This tank belongs to the 3rd generation of tanks. It has all the criteria needed for it.
It has an advanced SUV with a dual-axis meteosensor (first 55 examples had A20XMBL, later ones had A10XMBL), advanced day-night sight (DNNS-2), laser rangefinder, allowing fire on the move.
Most important difference is a 735 kW (1000 horse powers) engine, significantly more powerful than any T72 offshoot in current use.
Armor on ALL M84s is composite. Turret has a non-metallic inlet with corundum spheres and silica sand. Frontal hull armor is made of multiple layers of steel, ceramics and non-metals. A series have an additional 16 mm of steel plate on the front. Total thickness of frontal armor of the A series is 247 mm, while its RHA equivalent is still secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HrcAk47 ( talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)
Please do not use 4th generation or any other generations above. There is no 4th, 5th, 6th and etc. listed for worldwide sources. If by nation source, please call these new tanks "Next Generation". Upgraded tanks should be known as 3th generation or Advanced 3rd depending on their upgrades. Newly built tanks are not always the next generation. Rasseru ( talk) 17:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
Why not call something a 4th or 5th generation MBT? Just because the occidental world has not published something recently about new generations of MBTs, does not mean that they do not exist. When the US made a 5th generation fighter, people accepted this. They did not need the rest of the world's permission to call it what they wanted to call it. I will revert T-14 Armata back to 5th generation, because that is what the designer claims. Brovich 18 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brovich ( talk • contribs) 23:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)
What Rolf Hilmes wrote in his 1987 book is this; "If the Soviet Union was to maintain its 7 to 10 year cycle for the introduction of new tanks, the tank speculatively named "T80" could be expected to enter service in or after 1983. At the time of writing it remains to be seen whether this move to a new model will be an evolutionary one...(skip)...According to one source, a new tank with a welded turret employing spaced or compact array armor, and with large skirt plates, has been in service for some years." In reality, T-80 didn't have evolutionary features compared to previous T-64, nor it was equipped with a welded turret. The main difference was just an engine; the new SG-1000 gas turbine. T-80B in equipped with a new fire control system, but it has no big difference with the one installed on T-64B. So early model T-80 can't really categorized as a 3rd generation main battle tank. 14.33.19.154 ( talk) 13:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)
I tried adding "Challenger 2" with its corresponding colour to the image displaying MBT exporters, as the picture showed the UK and Oman as exporting it, but the key didn't. Everything looked fine on the edit page:
But when I looked at the page after, it wasn't there. I looked at "recent changes" and saw my edit, but the actual page was still the same.
Due to Wikipedia being remarkably un-user-friendly, I have no idea what all the technical stuff means (everything has random punctuation and things, even inserting the picture to the right has, like, 4 brackets and a bunch of nonsense instead of a simple preview on the edit page, ugh). Someone who knows how to Wikipedia, please make the edit. The colour for the Challenger 2 on the legend is #90b2fc. Widgetdog ( talk) 22:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)
First of all, stridsvagn 74 was a light tank, secondly it also was an early WWII-construction with a new turret. BP OMowe ( talk) 00:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
The Al-Khalid tank is the Pakistani built variant of the tank which differs from the other models produced in China.
I can see many examples on the list which only have one flag despite being based on/upgraded models of other tanks from different countries:
The STR-122 tank despite being based on the Leopard 2 only has a Swedish flag next to it and not a german one too.
The T-72M4 CZ only has a Czech flag next to it despite being an upgraded variant of the T-72. There is no Soviet flag here.
The Centurion Olifant Mk 2 only has a South African flag despite being an upgraded variant of the Olifant Mk 1 Tank. No British flag is next to the South African one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.37.131.208 ( talk) 16:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)
Source to confirm the Karrar tank is a 3rd generation advanced tank and on par with others mentioned in the category?
But sources also compare it to the T-72 or an upgrade of the T-72. And T-72 is Third gen.
Sources: http://quwa.org/2016/11/27/overview-al-khalid-2-main-battle-tank-program/ http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17749/Ukraine_To_Provide_New_Engines_For_Pakistan_s_Al_Khalid_II_Tanks#.WSMLVRN95fQ http://www.armyrecognition.com/ideas_2016_official_online_show_daily_news/taxila_heavy_industries_from_pakistan_announced_the_development_of_al_khalid_2_main_battle_tank_12911165.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.183.66 ( talk) 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
List of main battle tanks by generation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Muz20152 ( talk) 15:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
I need to edit this page there is something wrong please also add Pakistan in al-khalid MBT2000 with china
If M1A2 is 3rd gen., so these tanks are clear third gen. advanced, but this is not on the page. Just did not write or is there a good reason? KiL92 ( talk) 23:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)