Talk:List of main battle tanks by generation
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. | ||||||||||
| Stub | This article has been rated as Stub-Class on the quality scale. | ||||||||||
|
|||||||||||
[edit] Soviet tank generations
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 generations system used in this article are MBT generations. SuperTank17 11:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- I 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)
-
-
- Looks very arbitrary to me. I see why the LeClerc is considered the first of a new generation. I don't see, for example, how the T-62 is. It's an "improved" T-55, frankly. With no sources this whole article is really questionable. DMorpheus 18:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Well, we need some real indication that this concept exists, and of who holds to it (not everyone I think, since I don't recall Zaloga or Foss classifying tanks in these terms). For categorical statements, like that the T-62 is the first second-generation MBT, we need real book references. We should also state what defines these generations: is it quantitative characteristics like gun calibre, particular technologies like smoothbore guns, or simply dates of introduction?
-
-
-
- A good article or list needs the support of references to show that it is more than just hearsay.
-
-
-
-
- An example of why this needs improvement: a statement like "it is considered the world's first second-generation main battle tank" in the article T-62 falls under the description of weasel words. The passive verb "is considered" is carefully avoiding saying who considers it to be the first 2nd-gen MBT, presumably because the author doesn't know. So we're not saying that it is the first, and we aren't saying who says it's the first—so what are we saying? —Michael Z. 2007-10-26 01:58 Z
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Acually I added that one to the Wikipedia and someone changed it using "it is considered" instead of "it is". 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.
-
-
-
-
-
- Yet the wikipedia T-62 article describes the T-62 as an improvement of the T-55. How then is it a new generation - what innovation does it have, and who says so? DMorpheus 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
- 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)
-
-
-
-
-
-
- Both T-55 and T-62 came out of Kartsev's design bureau, and both were based initially Morozov's T-54. The T-55 was essentially an improved T-54, while the T-62 incorporated more dramatic design changes. One can certainly say that the T-62 was based on and went beyond the T-54/55. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 14:50 z 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
-
-
-
[edit] References
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
The text on the cite is basing it's information on the said book.
The hole list bases itself on this: T-62 is the first second generation MBT and Leopard II is the first third generation MBT.
The first generation MBTs are tanks made immediately after WWII like the T-54 or the M46. The second generation MBTs are improved designs featuring better sights, laser sights and rangefinders and APFSDS rounds like the T-62 and M60. The forth generation is composed of MBTs that are currently in development.
Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
- You don't need to explain this to me.
- You need to cite references as the basis for specific information in this list, which will allow readers to see where the information comes from, what inferences have been used in creating this list, and how widely this view is accepted by experts.
