![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
On another, related note, I think Main battle tank and light tank should redirect to tank classification, as medium tank and heavy tank already do. These are more specific terms, and should only be linked in an article below a link to tank, or in a context where it is already self-evident what a tank is. There are already short articles explaining tankette, infantry tank, and fast/cavalry/ cruiser tank.
If no one objects, I'll make the change shortly.
I'll also un-bold the term main battle tank in the intro of this article. The text nicely describes an MBT—its characteristics, performance, and equipment—but the concept of main battle tank is defined by its role within the context of modern armoured warfare. That definition requires some historical and technical context, and belongs later in this article and in tank classification. — Michael Z. 2005-09-29 05:34 Z
It's quite possible to have a tank without a main gun. During World War I and early World War II, there were no shortage of examples. The very first tank, the "female" variant of the British Mark I (tank), was armed with six machine guns. Going into World War II, the German Panzer I, the Soviet T-27, T-26, and BT-1, the American T16, the Polish TK and TKS, the British Mk. I and Mk. II patrol tanks, the Camden-Lloyd Mk. VI, the Italian L3/33, the Japanese Type 92 light tank, and many others were all armed only with machine guns.
Also, it was quite common for tanks to be designed for something other than fighting other tanks. The British infantry tank class and the German Panzer IV were dedicated anti-infantry tanks. Light tanks and tankettes were designed for scouting missions. The American M4 Sherman tank, the most-produced tank of the war, was not intended to engage other tanks -- that job was left to dedicated tank destroyers and antitank guns. -- Carnildo 06:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
This article is now very focused on very technical discussions of modern tanks (and even weapon systems that aren't tanks), which is entirely too specific for an encyclopedic article. Also, the sections "Design", "Sonic, seismic, and thermal traces", "The future of tanks through research and development" and to a large extent "Vulnerability" have the following problems:
Overall there's a tendency to extreme detail in every single section except "History" and the article is a massive 59 kB long, way more than my own 50 kB limit on any article topic. There are also major problems with the prose, which in certain sections is nothing but single- or double-sentence paragraphs. If this article was nominated for FAC in its current state, I would object quite sternly. And I can't help pointing that out of the pictures in the article only two are of WW II-tanks and all but three are of only two basic types of Israeli and American tanks. Do we really need four different photos of Abrams models when we even have one that's right up there in the lead? And the T-34, which was far more important to both tank development and the outcome of WW II than any other single tank model, doesn't get one measly picture. Peter Isotalo 12:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
A battleship is an historical artefact. There are no battleships in present day navies. It is thus normal that the main battleship article be an historical article. There is already an article on tank history History of the tank, which is already too long and getting bloated with things like speculation on the tank of the future. I agree that there whould be at least a bit on tank history in the general tank article, but the current history section is already too big since it forces a general user to scroll down to see that there is more about this particular article than historical aspects. Many users have the content bar option turned off so they will not realise how much more there is. -- AlainV 06:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be insufficient emphasis on the early developments. "Little Willie" just appears out of nowhere, without reference to the problems of infantry vulnerability to MG, the inability of armored cars to operate cross-country, the footed wheel, & so on. Also, I question "thousands" of tanks; my reading indicates "hundreds" is generous (418 at Cambrai?), & "dozens" actually in action. More, I'd say something needs to be said about the very early Brit tac deployments, penny packets without regard for reliablity, mass, or surprise, & the influence on WW2: infantry reliance on tanks in WW1 led directly to the slow tanks of WW2. I'd also say it needs a reference to the fact Brit tankers and infantry did not share a common doctrine or train together before WW2. (Auk tried to develop "combined arms"; when he took over 8h Army, Monty threw out his reforms.) Trekphiler 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing the following wordy section and replacing it with a short paragraph. — Michael Z. 2005-10-1 09:11 Z
I just refurbished Antonov A-40, the "flying tank". — Michael Z. 2005-10-2 04:45 Z
I created a new section at Suspension (vehicle)#Armoured fighting vehicle suspension. Please make sure I haven't omitted anything important there. — Michael Z. 2005-10-10 23:01 Z
Shouldn't there be a section or even a sub heading about the phycological effects of tanks. I mean, I'd be terrified of fighting a tank no matter what kind of anti-armour weapons I had - Wardhog 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The first entry on "Tank" uses American English: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tank&oldid=287081. So the britsh made the first tank and it should be written as such. im american and egree( Esskater11 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
M1A1 Abrams | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Specifications | |
Mass | 69.5 short tons (63.0 tonnes) |
Length | 26 ft (7.9 m) |
Width | 12 ft (3.7 m) |
Height | 8 ft (2.4 m) |
Crew | 4 (commander, driver, gunner, loader) |
I've created a proposed replacement for Template:Tank: template:AFV. It gets around some of the limitations of that template (hard-coded units), changes the order of fields a bit, deletes the arbitrary off-road speed, and adds power-to-weight ratio and ground pressure. Here's an example of how it could be used for M1 Abrams, where (most of) the figures are originally non-metric feet/inches/miles/hp.
Please have a look at the notes at template talk:AFV, and comment here or there. — Michael Z. 2005-10-12 07:22 Z
I'd like to get on with implementing this template. Please comment at template talk:AFV#Open questions. — Michael Z. 2005-11-9 21:36 Z
Is there a specific name or phrase used when only tanks are slugging it out? I mean no infantry or airplanes, just tanks.
-G
-G
Well?
-G
A battle of tanks is a "tank battle", or even "tank vs tank battle" if you want to describe the action—why do you need a fancier term? Perhaps a "tank duel", if there are only two involved. An armoured battle/engagement/skirmish could very well involve armoured vehicles of other types. — Michael Z. 2007-07-04 06:42 Z
By 'four Abrahams' you mean four Shermans, right? 86.136.25.127 ( talk) 10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In the tank#Design section, the examples following that line seem to consist of unsupported speculation, oversimplification, and tenuous logical conclusions. Would someone like to take a crack at improving it or cutting it down? If not, I'll replace it. — Michael Z. 2005-10-17 14:07 Z
![]() | 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 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 | → | Archive 8 |
On another, related note, I think Main battle tank and light tank should redirect to tank classification, as medium tank and heavy tank already do. These are more specific terms, and should only be linked in an article below a link to tank, or in a context where it is already self-evident what a tank is. There are already short articles explaining tankette, infantry tank, and fast/cavalry/ cruiser tank.
If no one objects, I'll make the change shortly.
I'll also un-bold the term main battle tank in the intro of this article. The text nicely describes an MBT—its characteristics, performance, and equipment—but the concept of main battle tank is defined by its role within the context of modern armoured warfare. That definition requires some historical and technical context, and belongs later in this article and in tank classification. — Michael Z. 2005-09-29 05:34 Z
It's quite possible to have a tank without a main gun. During World War I and early World War II, there were no shortage of examples. The very first tank, the "female" variant of the British Mark I (tank), was armed with six machine guns. Going into World War II, the German Panzer I, the Soviet T-27, T-26, and BT-1, the American T16, the Polish TK and TKS, the British Mk. I and Mk. II patrol tanks, the Camden-Lloyd Mk. VI, the Italian L3/33, the Japanese Type 92 light tank, and many others were all armed only with machine guns.
Also, it was quite common for tanks to be designed for something other than fighting other tanks. The British infantry tank class and the German Panzer IV were dedicated anti-infantry tanks. Light tanks and tankettes were designed for scouting missions. The American M4 Sherman tank, the most-produced tank of the war, was not intended to engage other tanks -- that job was left to dedicated tank destroyers and antitank guns. -- Carnildo 06:04, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
This article is now very focused on very technical discussions of modern tanks (and even weapon systems that aren't tanks), which is entirely too specific for an encyclopedic article. Also, the sections "Design", "Sonic, seismic, and thermal traces", "The future of tanks through research and development" and to a large extent "Vulnerability" have the following problems:
Overall there's a tendency to extreme detail in every single section except "History" and the article is a massive 59 kB long, way more than my own 50 kB limit on any article topic. There are also major problems with the prose, which in certain sections is nothing but single- or double-sentence paragraphs. If this article was nominated for FAC in its current state, I would object quite sternly. And I can't help pointing that out of the pictures in the article only two are of WW II-tanks and all but three are of only two basic types of Israeli and American tanks. Do we really need four different photos of Abrams models when we even have one that's right up there in the lead? And the T-34, which was far more important to both tank development and the outcome of WW II than any other single tank model, doesn't get one measly picture. Peter Isotalo 12:09, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
A battleship is an historical artefact. There are no battleships in present day navies. It is thus normal that the main battleship article be an historical article. There is already an article on tank history History of the tank, which is already too long and getting bloated with things like speculation on the tank of the future. I agree that there whould be at least a bit on tank history in the general tank article, but the current history section is already too big since it forces a general user to scroll down to see that there is more about this particular article than historical aspects. Many users have the content bar option turned off so they will not realise how much more there is. -- AlainV 06:17, 1 October 2005 (UTC)
There seems to be insufficient emphasis on the early developments. "Little Willie" just appears out of nowhere, without reference to the problems of infantry vulnerability to MG, the inability of armored cars to operate cross-country, the footed wheel, & so on. Also, I question "thousands" of tanks; my reading indicates "hundreds" is generous (418 at Cambrai?), & "dozens" actually in action. More, I'd say something needs to be said about the very early Brit tac deployments, penny packets without regard for reliablity, mass, or surprise, & the influence on WW2: infantry reliance on tanks in WW1 led directly to the slow tanks of WW2. I'd also say it needs a reference to the fact Brit tankers and infantry did not share a common doctrine or train together before WW2. (Auk tried to develop "combined arms"; when he took over 8h Army, Monty threw out his reforms.) Trekphiler 08:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
I'm removing the following wordy section and replacing it with a short paragraph. — Michael Z. 2005-10-1 09:11 Z
I just refurbished Antonov A-40, the "flying tank". — Michael Z. 2005-10-2 04:45 Z
I created a new section at Suspension (vehicle)#Armoured fighting vehicle suspension. Please make sure I haven't omitted anything important there. — Michael Z. 2005-10-10 23:01 Z
Shouldn't there be a section or even a sub heading about the phycological effects of tanks. I mean, I'd be terrified of fighting a tank no matter what kind of anti-armour weapons I had - Wardhog 15:23, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
The first entry on "Tank" uses American English: http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Tank&oldid=287081. So the britsh made the first tank and it should be written as such. im american and egree( Esskater11 23:05, 23 May 2007 (UTC))
M1A1 Abrams | |
---|---|
![]() | |
Specifications | |
Mass | 69.5 short tons (63.0 tonnes) |
Length | 26 ft (7.9 m) |
Width | 12 ft (3.7 m) |
Height | 8 ft (2.4 m) |
Crew | 4 (commander, driver, gunner, loader) |
I've created a proposed replacement for Template:Tank: template:AFV. It gets around some of the limitations of that template (hard-coded units), changes the order of fields a bit, deletes the arbitrary off-road speed, and adds power-to-weight ratio and ground pressure. Here's an example of how it could be used for M1 Abrams, where (most of) the figures are originally non-metric feet/inches/miles/hp.
Please have a look at the notes at template talk:AFV, and comment here or there. — Michael Z. 2005-10-12 07:22 Z
I'd like to get on with implementing this template. Please comment at template talk:AFV#Open questions. — Michael Z. 2005-11-9 21:36 Z
Is there a specific name or phrase used when only tanks are slugging it out? I mean no infantry or airplanes, just tanks.
-G
-G
Well?
-G
A battle of tanks is a "tank battle", or even "tank vs tank battle" if you want to describe the action—why do you need a fancier term? Perhaps a "tank duel", if there are only two involved. An armoured battle/engagement/skirmish could very well involve armoured vehicles of other types. — Michael Z. 2007-07-04 06:42 Z
By 'four Abrahams' you mean four Shermans, right? 86.136.25.127 ( talk) 10:16, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
In the tank#Design section, the examples following that line seem to consist of unsupported speculation, oversimplification, and tenuous logical conclusions. Would someone like to take a crack at improving it or cutting it down? If not, I'll replace it. — Michael Z. 2005-10-17 14:07 Z