Talk:Tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

	Tank is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article Milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 30, 2004.
Article Milestones Date Process Result July 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted February 3, 2007 Featured article review Demoted Current Status: Former featured article

edit - history - watch - purge To-do list for Tank:
Identify insupportable statements and remove Identify facts, sentences, paragraphs needing citations Find supporting citations and add them to the article Shorten sections: move text to more specific articles

The spoken word version of this article is part of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, an attempt to produce recordings of Wikipedia articles. To participate, visit the project page.

	This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar: criterion not met Supporting materials: criterion met This article was the project's Collaboration of the Fortnight (October 16, 2006–October 29, 2006). Related task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Related task forces (periods and conflicts): World War I task force World War II task force

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated Start-Class on the assessment scale.

Because of their length, the previous discussions on this page have been archived. If further archiving is needed, see Wikipedia:How to archive a talk page.

Previous discussions:

Archive 1 (2005-02-27 to 2005-10-10)

Missiles through the gun barrel · Tsar Tank · Tactics · This article is British English · R&D- on page or not · Article quality · Armour · New articles: T-95 and Black Eagle tank · Michael Z's nomination for adminship · Tank suspension design and engineering · MBT · Factual error concerning smoothbore vs. rifled guns · WikiProject AFV anyone? · Design/German Panzers · Design · Sloped Armour · Firepower · mobility · protection · and C4I2 · T-44 · Main Battle Tank vs. Battleship · Problem · MBT redirects here · Tanks without main guns · History and specifics; quality revisited · C3I · (Nearly) new article · New section about AFV suspension

Archive 2 (next to start)

---

Contents 1 Article should be American English 2 Replacement for infobox template 3 Specific name for 'tank vs. tank' battles 4 Speculation 5 What is the full German word for Tank? 6 Tank origins 7 Not Tanks 8 Duplex Drive Shermans 9 Calibre notation 10 Peer review of T-34 11 Empty infoboxes 12 Organization of template:WWIISovietAFVs 13 New Fuel for Tanks 14 New article: aerosan 15 "tracked" 16 Leonardo da vinci , creator of the (at least : idea) of the Tank 17 Running over Infantry 18 T-34 19 Image 20 Collaborate 21 FA? For how long 22 "Tanks dominate battlefields" 23 Disagree with "Aircraft Section" 24 Possibly a better image of Brittish WWI tank 25 How many? 26 pictures 27 Gas Turbines

[edit] Article should be American English

The first entry on "Tank" uses American English: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tank&oldid=287081.

[edit] Replacement for infobox template

M1A1 Abrams
General characteristics
Crew	4 (commander, driver, gunner, loader)
Length	26 ft (7.9 m)
Width	12 ft (3.7 m)
Height	8 ft (2.4 m)
Weight	69.5 short tons (63.0 tonnes)
Armour and armament
Armour	[classified]
Main armament	120mm smoothbore gun M256
Secondary armament	.50 machine gun M2, pintle & coaxial 7.62mm machine guns M240
Mobility
Power plant	gas turbine 1500 hp (1100 kW)
Suspension
Road speed	45 mph (72 km/h)
Power/weight	23.8 hp/tonne
Range	465 km (289 mi)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] Specific name for 'tank vs. tank' battles

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

-G

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

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

-G

[edit] Speculation

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

• Britain has historically always opted . . .

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

[edit] What is the full German word for Tank?

Does anyone know the original full German word for "Tank"?

Panzer means armour or armoured. It is used by the Germans to describe tanks in general but is only part of the original German word that was used during WWI.

That word was so long even Germans couldn't say it so by WWII it was just Panzer for short. Basically, it translated to something along the lines of, "armoured vehicle with treads designed for destroying troops hidden in trenches dug in the ground," or something like that.

I read that along time ago in an illustrated reference book by C.B. Colby. His books used to be found in just about every school library but of course it's politically incorresct to have any book dealing with weapons nowadys.

If anyone knows what this word is, please advise. It of course starts with the word Panzer.

Thanks very much.

Forrest Ward

"Panzerkampfwagen", which translates approximately as "armored fighting vehicle". Because of the way the German language builds compound nouns, it's quite possible to expand this indefinitely. --Carnildo 00:04, 29 October 2005 (UTC)

And the abbreviation: PzKw. --Wernher 02:44, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

Be careful: "AFV" would translate as Panzer :o). Panzerkampfwagen literally means "armoured chariot". In WWII the normal abbreviations were PzKpfw or Pz Kpfw.--MWAK 08:02, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Not really. If you want the definite literal translation, there is none:

Panzer: armour (less appropriate: mail, carapace, shell, casing...)

Kampf: fight, combat, battle, struggle, campaign...

Wagen: car, cart, carriage, auto, trolley, vehicular, waggon, coach ...

Kampfwagen is a compound that does not (officially) exist in the German lanuage (there's no entry in the Duden and there's also no entry in the German wikipedia or wictionary, or http://dict.leo.org/, IMHO the best English<->German dictionary online). But it's sometimes used to describe any military vehicle, not only chariots (German for those would be Streitwagen (in compat) or Triumphwagen (on parade)).

Compounds don't need to be "official". The German language allows the creation of nearly ANY compound word "on the fly".

BTW: To disguise the developement of tanks after WWI, the terms Großtraktor (great tractor) and Neubaufahrzeug (new construction vehicle or (IMHO wrong) newly buil(d|t) vehicle) had been used. - Alureiter 13:54, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

You're right: Kampfwagen is the more inclusive term. But not even the Duden covers everything; for an indication that the word exists with a broader meaning, see http://www.fleischerei-zimmer.de/KampfwagenTalk.htm ;o). And I agree with your preferred translation of Neubaufahrzeug.--MWAK 14:45, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

This, perhaps, is a good moment to say that the German for "chariot" is "Streitwagen" or "Kampfwagen". German Wikipedia has de:Streitwagen. Shinobu 14:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tank origins

I question the intent expressed the tank was to break the deadlock. As I recall, the objective was to provide armored cover; breaking the deadlock was incidental. Also, I'd be inclined to add something about improving the mobility:firepower relationship; just as cavalry suffer lower casualties under fire from archers, armored units take fewer casualties to fire, because of superior mobility. Comment? Also, I'm inclined to include a mention of the morale effect of the first tanks on the Germans. I'd almost say it broke von Ludendorff; too strong? Comment? Trekphiler 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Certainly the intention was to provide armoured cover — but to break the deadlock :o). Most British WW1 tanks did not have a higher mobility than foot infantry. Apart from the very first use on 15 September 1916 the morale effect on the German soldier was very limited. But in the summer of 1918 the Germans, bled white by the spring offensive, could no longer block large armoured concentrations. Each Allied offensive made them lose artillery and manpower they were unable to replace. Despite a horrific attrition on their side also the Allied infantry was swept on by the tanks. The military situation of Germany was desparate — and Von Ludendorff's giving up to despair was thus entirely rational.--MWAK 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, IIRC, "breaking the deadlock" wasn't the objective, it was the result; I confess I'm not intimately familiar with the planning connected to tank development, but what I've read doesn't support it as an objective. "Higher mobility" followed WW1; wasn't limited to walking pace of WW1. And, as for Ludendorff, I relied on common wisdom (often wrong, I know); I bow to superior information... Trekphiler 02:24, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Not Tanks

I deleted this:

"The continued need for vehicles that could carry and protect infantry, resulted in the development and use of combination vehicles, Cavalry Fighting Vehicles and Infantry Fighting Vehicles (CFVs and IFVs) such as the M2 Bradley, which combines the roles of a light tank and an APC."

APCs, IFVs, CFVs, MICVs, or XYZs aren't tanks, & don't belong here. Put it on an APC page. Trekphiler 09:50, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

It may be appropriate to mention changing roles of tanks; e.g. light tanks being phased out in favour of special-use recce vehicles. But in principle I agree with you. —Michael Z. 2005-11-28 15:57 Z

[edit] Duplex Drive Shermans

I understood that one of the principal reasons for the loss of most duplex drive tanks on D-Day at sea was adverse currents running parallel to Omaha beach rather than rough weather.

I think it's both/ [superknijn]

[edit] Calibre notation

This has been discussed inconclusively before. I just found the following in the Economist's style guide. —Michael Z. 2005-12-18 01:29 Z

The style for calibres is 50mm or 105mm with no hyphen, but 5.5-inch and 25-pounder. [1]

[edit] Peer review of T-34

The article "T-34" about the famous tank from Kharkov is up for peer review, with the intention of nominating it for a featured article. Please comment at Wikipedia:Peer review/T-34. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 06:34 Z

[edit] Empty infoboxes

Please comment at Template talk:AFV#Empty infoboxes to help resolve an edit-war over the use of practically-empty infoboxes in articles, including PPG tankette, ZiS-30, KhTZ-16, NI tank, ANT-IV, NKL-26, RF-8, and others. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 20:41 Z

[edit] Organization of template:WWIISovietAFVs

We could also use some comments about the organization of the big navbox, at template talk:WWIISovietAFVs. Specific questions concern the KV-2's role as tank or support gun, the roles of the various early-war light tanks, the English translation of aerosan. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 22:43 Z

Aerosan translates to "Aerosled" I would translate it as "Combat Snowmobile" with aerosled in brackets --Korona 23:17, 9 January 2006 (UTC)

That's definitely better than snowmobile, which means something else. But aerosan is used in Zaloga's writing on AFVs, and it gets twice as many English-language Google hits as aerosled. I'd favour just linking aerosan. —Michael Z. 2006-01-11 18:07 Z

[edit] New Fuel for Tanks

Wouldn't you believe that a tank being one of the most fuel inefficient vehicles today would have a better fuel source like hydrogen? If you have seen the stats of the Abrams tank, you should see that it is a very thirsty vehicle. I am not necessarily trying to bring up the fact that diesel or regular gasoline power is not quite as efficient as the following.

Propane is a very efficient source of energy. You may think that you cannot convert a petroleum based vehicle to use propane, but it is very possible. It has been done before by a man who converted an old fire engine into an automobile. He said that the mileage on his car was terrible because it weighed around 7 or 8 tons. This man converted his engine to propane. I can only imagine what the difference was with propane. Although i saw this on TV, it was still there, and they still showed you what was under the hood of that car. It was amazing. The he drove it. That is proof that it is possible to convert a petroleum based system to propane, which as I have said is more efficient.

If tanks had a hydrogen based engine, then they would be 25% more efficient. There is no reason not to convert a petroleum based system to hydrogen because the fuel is more concentrated, and it is more efficient. There would be no difference in the speed of the tanks. The only difference would be in the efficiency of them. Another prospect of this form of energy is that the exhaust is water vapor, and water. I will let you expand on that one.

The newest, and perhaps the quietest system comes from AIR. I am not making this one up people. If you are a frequent watcher of the Science channel, then you must know of the show that comes on there called "Beyond tomorrow". This show recently presented that a company in France has invented a new way to travel that is based on air. It is not quite as efficient as gasoline based engines, but innovations in chemisrty may prove to stand in favor of this one day. The system works as follows: Two or more Carbon fiber tanks are compressed with air up to 5000 psi. The air is now potential energy. The energy stored in these tanks can very easily be uncapped electronically, and the air that is stored inside can be let out at either a very slow rate, or a very quick rate. The engine however, is the real miracle. It does not have to be made of metal. I could be made of plastic. today, they come in 2 cylinder to 6 cylinder. The compressed air is let out into the engine. The mileage in these cars is not so good because they are only cars that move around within the city limits. With a tank however, you could easily have 10 or 15 air tanks, and the more, the merrier. Guess what the best thing about this system of energy. It doesn't even combust! This means that if someone had shot an rpg at it, it would not blow up! It wouldn't even burn!(Well unless the rpg hit the munitions storage.) This greatly increases the chances of soldiers surviving artillery fire at a small cost of efficiency. These engines today are capable of traveling at a distance of 43-50 miles (or approximately 100 km). In addition, the cost of refuelling these engines is equivalent to buying a snack(It is $3.25 but that is only for the car model prototypes today). The cost of refuelling would be something like $25-$30, and everyone knows that that is much less than if you were refuelling a tank with gasoline.

These are both 2 srouces of energy that the military seriously needs to start looking into if they have not already done so. What I have written is based purely on research and watching educational television. If you do not believe me, then you should look further than this page that I have written and find out for yourself. I remember when I had to present the topic of new fuel types to my colleagues and they didn't exactly catch what I was trying to tell them.

5000 psi of "potential energy" sounds like it could explode quite nicely if penetrated by weapons fire. —Michael Z. 2006-01-28 16:36 Z

Yes it would make a great big kaboom. I've been following the developments of this compressed air storage and propulsion scheme for more than a year now, in French as well as in English magazines as well as on the Web. It's very interesting (otherwise I would not be jumping eagerly on every article about it) but the vehicle ranges are extremely limited, even with the ultra light vehicles they are using. It's not efficient at all and this is very bad for a tank because you cannot pile on reservoirs endlessly on it. It makes a bigger target. Also, a tank must absolutely fit within certain dimensions, for transport purposes. The same thing is true for hydrogen or propane schemes: They make any vehicle bulk out too fast because of the size of the storage containers. --AlainV 18:36, 28 January 2006 (UTC)

I would not use hydrogen in a tank because it is too volitile. Diesel is much better. dudtz 4/21/06 11:03 PM EST

[edit] New article: aerosan

New article aerosan; I'll submit it to DYK shortly. —Michael Z. 2006-02-02 06:20 Z

[edit] "tracked"

Although most tanks are tracked, the French AMX-10 RC isn't, although I'm not sure that that's a tank. Could someone elaborate about this?

It's not strictly a tank, although I suppose it's an armoured car meant to fulfil a tank's role. See also Mobile Gun System. —Michael Z. 2006-02-28 01:08 Z

[edit] Leonardo da vinci , creator of the (at least : idea) of the Tank

Shouldn't we add Leonardo da Vinci as the remote inventor of the tank? there's concise evidence that he conceived the idea...... (Please see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:DaVinciTankAtAmboise.jpeg )

- Manuel

He came up with a plan for combining armor, cannons, and wheels. There's no evidence that he was the first one to come up with that combination, and he's certainly not the first person to come up with the idea of a wheeled fortress mounting projectile weapons -- medeval siege towers frequently had archers in them, and I wouldn't be surprised to find that someone had stuck a catapult or ballista on one.

Further, his plan used wheels, and one of the key features that distinguished the tank from predecessors like the armored car is the use of caterpillar tracks, which allow cross-country travel and crossing obstacles such as trenches. --Carnildo 05:28, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Running over Infantry

Throughout history tanks have directly ran-over infantry troops in very close combat where the on deck guns become inefficient; often as a last-ditch effort before the tank's crew succumbs to close combat or destruction. It was also rarely used as an offensive weapon, but more to disperse and scare the enemy than to actually run them over. This is however rare and virtually impossible today, due to the hidden, mobile, and urban conditions of the battlefield today. Should this be mentioned somewhere or would it be seen as being comical and unnecessary(due to its use in fiction, ie Command & Conquer games). I was just wondering on this point and dont really know the facts about it or feel that strongly on it.

I'm pretty sure a man could fit under the tank, they used dogs with bombs to crawl under tanks to blow them up. Didn't work that well =) --mboverload@ 06:07, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

I've read descriptions of tanks spinning their tracks over enemy trenches to collapse them, but I don't think this is an established tactic. Indeed, since tanks are most vulnerable to experienced infantry at closest range, this would be a desperation tactic used by crews in tanks without proper infantry support of their own. —Michael Z. 2006-05-23 12:53 Z

During World War 2 the russians deployed specially trained dogs with explosives attached to them to run up to a tank and crawl under it with the explosive to explode under the tank to destroy it or at least disable it. --User:Mr. Yooper 2006-06-22 9:31

Yes, but since the dogs were tranined on Soviet tanks, didn't they usually wind up taking out T-34s instead of Panzer IVs? --Carnildo 07:20, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

But, with that the dogs were trained with food placed under the tank, but this became a hazard because the dogs would run to the familiar noises and smells of the russian tanks and that would cause some trouble. The germans found out this and told their troops to shoot the dogs on site so the dogs were mostly taken out of this type of fighting around the end of 1942. There is a picture of a dog in training on this page:(http://www.soviet-empire.com/arsenal/army/anti-tank/dog_mine/dog_mine_001.php) User:Mr. Yooper 2006-06-23 10:32

[edit] T-34

In the section titled The Cold War and beyond it is stated that "The first tank to 'get it all right' is generally considered to be the British Centurion tank".

However the Soviet T-34 medium tank also had an excellent combination of armor, speed/mobility and fire power. It also combined many of the design features still used today, such as the angled armor to deflect incoming rounds.

I agree that the Centurion was important development and that it did get it all right, but the T-34 may have been the first to do this.

Nick

The T-34's revolutionary balanced design had a more dramatic effect, considering any period. One might argue that the Centurion was the first tank of its generation to get it right, but another might propose the T-54 as a counterexample (from the article, I can't tell exactly when the Centurion entered production). —Michael Z. 2006-08-20 04:52 Z

The T-34 had a two-man turret. --Carnildo 06:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Fixed in the T-34-85, in 1943. —Michael Z. 2006-09-01 17:30 Z

The T34's gun was not up to the job. In particular Soviet and Western WW2 tactics identified a need for a large HE round for tanks. An 85 mm barrel was simply not big enough. See Dyer's books. That's why JS3 and Centurion used such large guns.

Greglocock 08:09, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Some heavy tanks like the JS-3 had superior armour and armament, but their poor mobility made them a dead-end concept on the modern battlefield—hardly 'getting it all right'.

And it seems odd to dis the T-34-85's 85mm gun of 1943 as inadequate in favour of the post-war Centurion, armed with the smaller 76.2mm 17-pounder, then 84mm 20-pounder. Although the UK started arming some Centurions with a 105mm gun in 1952, I'd submit that it showed up about to the party about five years late, as the T-34's 100mm-armed successor, the T-54, had started production by the thousands in 1947. The Centurion's mobility was also not so hot for a tank that "gets it all right", with a road speed of only 35 km/h and low range of 100–185 km (although a fuel trailer was used to help compensate for this deficiency!).

Anyway, for the purposes of this article there's not much point in comparing our own opinions, I'm going to remove that statement with the weasel words "...is generally considered to be". Let's replace it with one or more citable quotations from a real expert.  —Michael Z. 2006-09-14 18:57 Z

I suppose two things come to mind: one is that the immediately preceding claim many consider the turning point to be the Panther is no more specific and just as weasel-worded as the one attributed to the Centurion, yet it doesn't seem to have attracted the same objection for some reason; the other is that gun calibres don't tell the whole story. I doesn't help that I don't know what the performance of the 85 mm or 100 mm guns were offhand, but what I do know is that the 17 & 20 pdr had very high performance considering their calibres, often exceeding guns with much larger bores, so drawing conclusions based on calibre alone is fraught with error. That aside, I have heard the claim that the Centurion was the first "universal tank" on more than one occasion, although that's also not terribly helpful in the absence of a citation, which I don't have because I can't remember where I've read it!
—Chris (blather • contribs • e) 11:43, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I was responding to Greglocock's comment about HE performance, which I think is closely related to gun calibre.

I think the Centurion was the first British 'universal' tank—it took them longer than other nations to abandon the idea of infantry tank and cavalry/cruiser tank. The T-34 was the exact Soviet counterpart: in 1937–39 the army wanted Koshkin to design an advanced BT fast tank (the A-20 prototype) to complement an infantry tank, and he offered a superior alternative: the A-32, with the same mobility, a superior 76.2mm gun, and "shell-proof" armour, not just protection against small arms and shrapnel. Then he added even more armour to make the T-34.

Regarding the Panther, I don't think it was a turning point as much as it was a benchmark, which other nations used to design their post-war tanks against. The IS-3, Pershing, Centurion and T-54 were designed in response to it. —Michael Z. 2006-09-15 15:57 Z

I see what you mean; I'd forgotten about the point made regarding HE and was thinking more in terms of AP performance. I agree with what you say about the Panther and think that the text would benefit from being reworded accordingly; as for the Centurion, I still like to think that it has a prominent place in the history of tank development, but I (or someone else) will have to find a credible reference to it being "the first" of whatever it was the first of, I guess.
—Chris (blather • contribs • e) 16:22, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I think the interesting thing about the Centurion was that it managed to get heavy armour into the equation, alongside gunpower and mobility. Whereas the Panther and T54 had frontal armour in the 100mm thick range, the Centurion had 150mm thick frontal armour. Also, although it's road spped wasn't especially high, the Centurion had excellent cross country performance. Incidentally, I've had a little tinker with this section to address some contentious statements (such as, for example, the comment that the Panther was inadequately armoured). Getztashida 14:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

Why use a copyrighted image Image:Leopard2A6.jpg? — HenryLi (Talk) 03:59, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

It would be better to use a pd or copyleft alternative. Shinobu 00:14, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Collaborate

This article needs some serious fat-cutting. Please vote to make it a fortnightly collaboration of the Military History Wikiproject. —Michael Z. 2006-09-26 23:00 Z

[edit] FA? For how long

This article is a mess.A long bulletin list and a section that is in construction. This is now more than a few months and the "collaboration" didn't help much.I wonder how long it can stay clear of review and ultimatly FARC.--Technosphere83 00:11, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Tanks dominate battlefields"

Regarding this edit. The idea of tanks dominating battlefields is a poetic image, but I don't think it's factually supportable. If there is a lesson in WWII, it is that tanks can't operate successfully without infantry support. The battlefield was dominated by infantry, with the combined-arms support of artillery, aircraft, anti-tank guns, engineers, and tanks.

If you disagree, please cite some supporting sources here, or add relevant material to the article before reverting again. —Michael Z. 2006-11-28 18:42 Z

Right you are. The Soviets even changed armored doctrine to dismount troops and advance armor under an infantry screen. Armor is EXTREMELY vulnerable to both anti-tank infantry weapons and air power. Cheers. L0b0t 18:55, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To clarify my view, tanks definitely became one of the dominant elements in much of the WWII land war, but the proposed section subtitle promotes an impression skewed to the point of unreality. —Michael Z. 2006-11-28 19:19 Z

You are taking this way too seriously. Of course tanks are not (nor were) the end-all of warfare. Of course they had counters. But you seem to imply that tanks were just one new weapon. They were not. They revolutionized warfare for a whole generation - by reintroducing the whole concept of fast, decisive hits around and behind the enemy and into their weak spots - which had gotten lost in the trenches of WWI. MadMaxDog 05:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

German infiltration warfare was developed at the end of the First World War, without tanks, and developed further in the joint German-Soviet exercises of the 1920–30s. The application of tanks to this did revolutionize warfare in WWII, but "tanks dominate battlefields" reinforces a simplistic, video game-like view of armoured warfare, where tanks roam around invulnerably and shoot other tanks, while infantry cower helpless in their trenches. Also significant is that the Soviets outnumbered the Germans in tanks by 12,782 to 3,350 at the Front in June 1941, including some models of dominating superiority (T-34, KV-1), yet it was superior German planning, tactics, training, and resupply that dominated the battlefield, not their obsolescent tanks.

A lot of new students of armoured warfare have such a view, and it is just wrong. Many WWII commanders who also adhered to such a view watched their men die in burning tanks. (And the view that Blitzkrieg warfare dominated the battlefield is not universally held; see John Mosier.) The simple fact is that tanks did not dominate battlefields, and our subheadings should not be over-enthusiastic hyperbole. —Michael Z. 2006-11-29 20:05 Z

Again, I note that my headline was not intended to indicate that tanks dominated ALL battlefields. I hope you are happier with the last suggestion. But you guys almost make it sound (at least here on the talk page) like it was more a hindrance than an advantage to have tanks! And I remain of the view that it was tanks that reintroduced flanking manoeuvres and deep thrusts into enemy hinterlands, not any other invention or tactical doctrine alone. MadMaxDog 07:05, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

The tank itself did nothing more than provide a armored pillbox that can slowly trundle about the battlefield. It was the new armored doctrine of the Wehrmacht that revolutionized warfare for a generation. L0b0t 14:08, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

That's not quite accurate. Well-designed tanks, like the T-34, were the most mobile element on the land battlefield. Infantry tank tactics which saw tanks as mobile pillboxes had never been practised by the Wehrmacht, were only championed by incompetent Soviet generals early in the war, and were abandoned by all other powers before the end of WWII. —Michael Z. 2006-11-29 20:05 Z

[edit] Disagree with "Aircraft Section"

I disagree with the "Vulnerabilty, Aircraft" section; 7.4. The author seems to be unaware of the proven anti-tank capability's of the F-15E and the A-10, (among other fixed-wing aircraft, [high and low flying],), to destroy tanks. The A-10 has a 30mm GAU-8 Avenger anti-tank gun and AGM-65 Maverick missiles. The F-15E has optical equiptment and air-to-surface missiles that are very able to destroy find and tanks, even those that are mobile, (and at night). In Desert Storm, the F-111 was a very deadly tank-killer. An examination of the Allied Air Forces in Iraqi Freedom taking on Iraqi tanks would show that the tank is very vunerable to many different types of aircraft, carrying many different types of air-to-surface weapons.204.80.61.10 17:40, 8 December 2006 (UTC)Bennett Turk

[edit] Possibly a better image of Brittish WWI tank

- Leonard G. 05:31, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

Like the image, but I have a fondness for the existing one... MadMaxDog 06:55, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

It from behind though. see Mark_I_tank#Popular_culture if you want pictures in colour.Geni 21:44, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Lol. This one IS in colour. MadMaxDog 00:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] How many?

Does anyone know how many tanks have been built since they were created? Maybe several tens of thousands? Or even hundreds of thousands? Cattus 15:48, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

It's over 100K. 95,000 t-54/55s a bit over 80K t-34s Geni 15:41, 15 February 2007 (UTC)

80,000 T-34s? The T-34 article mentiones that 64,605 were built. Zaloga mentions that around 37,000 T-54/55s were built total between the Soviet Union and Poland, not the 95,000 you mention. JonCatalan 04:06, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] pictures

[edit] Gas Turbines

Most of what this article claims about gas turbines is only half-truth. For example, fuel effeciency of a gas turbine is normally rated with the American AGT-1500, and then is compared to modern diesel engines. You are comparing 1970s technology with modern technology. The comparison is wrong. Although the fact that diesel engines are more fuel effecient than gas turbine does not mean that the dramatic difference suggsted by this article is true. The LV100, a suggested (failed) replacement of the AGT-1500, reduces the use of fuel use while idle by 50%, has 43% less parts, and increases range of the M1 Abrams by 70 miles using current fuel tanks. These statistics are right off GE's website - http://www.geae.com/engines/military/lv100/spotlight_advantages.html . Although the LV100 project was discontinued it serves the purpose of exemplifying the fact that gas turbines have improved in the past 30 years; there is a current replacement program between GDLS, Honeywell and Annison Army Depot which will rebuilt the army's inventory of AGT-1500s. A comparison should be done between modern engines, or else the comparison is not true. The Russians stopped using gas-turbines because not enough were produced as compared to the production capability of the similar diesel engine. I can't find the exact reference now, but I will get back to you all on it - the Abrams has a relatively smaller heat signature, not larger! Filter problems experienced in the First Gulf War were solved thereafter - should be considered that the Challenger 2 also had sand problems in the engine, which is diesel, until filter problems were solved. JonCatalan 04:01, 26 February 2007 (UTC)