Talk:Main battle tank

Move?

 * The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

User:Marcus Aurelius Antoninus/Main Battle Tank → Main Battle Tank —
 * Userspace draft --> article Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
 * Or merge with Tank classification or Tank? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * We have an articles on female tanks and super-heavy tanks which were only used in small quantities for a brief period of time. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image?
Perhaps a more widely used tank could be used as the image? The Leo2 would do nicely. 96.55.192.119 (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)
 * Image will probably keep getting changed to the favourite of a particular editor. As long as it is a clear image of a notable MBT, I don't see a problem. The Type 10 is at least notable for being new. Leopard 2 is widely known, but so is Abrams, Challenger, Merkava, T-80, T-72, Leclerc, T-55, Chieftain, Centurion, ... etc. ( Hohum  @ ) 17:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Tank speed
It specifies the speed of Main Battle Tanks in the article "about 65 km/h (72 for the Abrams M1)" and also that their weight"(60-70 tons)" typically limits their mobility. However, this seems to be written from a very US centric position as numerous other countries field lighter vehicles that travel at slower or faster speeds. Specifying the M1 Abrams speed does not seem neccessary and in fact I think it would be better to give a range of speeds eg. 55km/h to 80km/h (note this is a guess) as well as a range of tonnage. This would give the reader more relevant information.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Replacing the duplicate Abrams
Well, in the caption of the Duplicate Abrams, it states that the Abrams TUSK has been outfitted for Asymmetrical warfare. Unfortunately, if you look right above that picture, there's a picture of a Leo 2 that's also been outfitted for Asymmetrical warfare. So, there's 2 pictures for one section and then there's the 2 pictures of the same tank. IMO, I think the Counter-measures section should have a picture of the T-90 next to it, as the T-90 features many innovative counter-measure solutions, that the Abrams doesn't have, and so would be a better and broader representation of such category.

Victory in Germany (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)
 * How to Make War rates the M1 Abrams' protection and firepower as better than the T-90. Marcus Qwertyus   21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, but in terms of which tank represents the farthest outlets of armor designs, the T-90 takes the cake. Really, the Abrams doesn't have armor too different from other MBTs, composite ceramic armor with hard backing plate (DU), spall liner, some speculate NERA, etc. The T-90 has composite ceramic armor, spall liner (was an anti-neuron layer), NERA, ERA, Passive protection system, occasionally seen with an Active protection system, camouflage, etc. Victory in Germany (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)
 * If Russia ever puts out anything that is not a descendant of Cold War technology I will not hesitate to put it up. Marcus Qwertyus   17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the discussion? Do explain how the Abrams exactly features more protective technologies than say, the T-90.

Victory in Germany (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * More isn't necessarily better. If a tank uses 60 types of countermeasures and none of them work then why would we display it? Marcus Qwertyus   19:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)


 * Truly so. But the thing is, the T-90 uses a multitude of defense measures that have since been also used around the world. For example, the Shtora missile counter measure system, has since been used by Chinese tanks and has been copied by the U.S. MCD which is on the Abrams tank. The Leopard also uses a similar device. Another example, ARENA-APS, which has since gave birth to other APS system, such as the Israeli Trophy, which made a successful in-battle defense of a Merkava IV not too long ago. Another example, the Soviet Combination K was the first composite type armor to be used in tanks, composite armors has since been used for every modern tank design so far. Another example, Kontakt-5 ERA, a unique ERA that also protects against Kinetic energy weapons, originally derived from the Kontakt-1 ERA, which was the first ERA to be produced (however, Israeli ERA was the first to be fielded). List goes on. The T-90 overall provides more examples of protection systems than the Abram does, which means that T-90 represents the epitome of tank defenses, and thus, would be a prime candidate to represents MBTs in general on this page. Victory in Germany (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
 * Let me add a vote for the T-90, for its variety, as well as for being non-U.S., for a change.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)


 * So if there's only going to be 3 debaters, then I think the T-90 comes out at 2 votes v.s. 1 to the Abrams. Anyone else want to add anything? Victory in Germany (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

lol I know I'm late on this but I would choose the T-90, for variety, decent all-around armor protection, the active protection systems some have, and the better mobility due to overall lower weight. So now, after 5 months, the vote rests at T-90 (3), Abrams (1).--170.185.165.19 (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

insignia question
The merkava and the challenger tanks pictured both have inverted vs on them (e.g. >). Is it just a chevron? There are a wide range of tymbols used in heraldry, and it seems odd to fix on just this one. Then again, this does not seem to appear on all tanks, or at least, not always (the German tank pictured has a cross; the photos of Sherman tanks have white stars). Do we have any article that covers the history and use of this insignia or designation? Slrubenstein  |  Talk 18:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)


 * AFAIK it is/was only British and Israeli tanks that had the chevron, and the earliest vehicles I can remember it adorning were the IDF's Centurions back in the 1960s. IIRC, it was merely an improvised tactical recognition sign that could be easily recognized by friendly forces, but I may be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I wish I knew a proper source on this. So far you are the most informative person I have met on the topic. Slrubenstein   |  Talk 13:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)


 * the chevron has appeared a few times as an IFF marking among multinational allied forces. i heard that they were in use in world war 2 during the d-day landings. i know they were used in gulf war 1 to reduce the chance of friendly fire deaths. gulf war example.Cramyourspam (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)


 * here's another from the gulf war. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

wha?
this line "The adoption of ceramic armor as well as greater armor coverage necessitated by non-frontal attacks from combat helicopters also resulted in an effective counter to nuclear explosion radiation" might mean something, but the syntax is so muddled that i can't figure it out. can someone who understands what the author was getting at please rephrase it so it makes sense? Cramyourspam (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Technology is reducing the weight and size of the modern MBT...
The article states that 'Technology is reducing the weight and size of the modern MBT'. That simply isn't true, but since it is sourced to a book, I won't just delete it.

Leopard 2 went from about 55 tons to about 62 tons Le Clerc went from about 52 tons to about 57 tons T-72 went from about 42 tons to about 47 tons M1 Abrams went from sbout 62 tons to about 69 tons


 * Also, the size has been increased as most 3rd gen MBT have added modular armour, and some longer or larger guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.233.72 (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)


 * -Leo 2 is 35 years old and weighs the most. Leclerc is 25 years old and weighs less than Leo 2. Type 10 is 2 years old and weighs ~17 tons than original Leo 2 with modular armour. K2 is 0 years old and weighs 7 tons less than Leo 2 with modular armour. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.102.61 (talk) 13:08, 20 September 2014 (UTC)


 * Probably attributable to feedback bloat that has accumulated over time. All-new designs are better at weight management. The U.S. military at least has been keen on buying back weight lately. Mark Schierbecker (talk) 02:05, 21 July 2015 (UTC)

Tech description of MBT in lede
An IP has twice added a technical description of main battle tank to the lede, which I've twice removed. Per WP:BRD, I've brought this to talk.

Per WP:INTRO, we should avoid "over-specific descriptions" in the lede. Besides, I don't think the definition given even fits the more usual use of "main battle tank"; it's only meant to legally define MBTs for the scope of that treaty. Also, it's a WP:PRIMARY source; we're supposed to rely on secondary ones. However, since it is sourced, I've currently moved it under "Design". --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:29, 21 September 2014 (UTC)


 * The description is pithy, accurate, informative, relevant, and agreed upon by the authorities on the subject. Those 2 lines deliver more information to a person completely ignorant on the subject (that would most likely be visiting this page and not a specific tank) than the entire rest of the lead put together, which at present doesn't tell the reader what a tank is, or how it provides a direct fire role.  If the lead were properly written and formatted it would include all the information in those two lines, however it's unlikely it could defeat the quote in terms of brevity or readability.  I believe the quote would be a valid inclusion even if there were some lack of consensus as to what a main battle tank is, but there isn't, which is just further reinforcement. I could understand the hesitation if it were a legal definition within the boundaries of a nation, like the definition of assault varies from district to district - but the CFE treaty has been signed by every builder of main battle tanks in the world, excluding the Chinese, who would probably agree anyway.  It is an impeccably written piece of legislation that would be a valuable addition to the article in verbatim, even without the quotes, and sourced from a place as reliable as this just compounds the effect. Complyte (talk) 09:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

for real?
You explain the history of tanks starting with: In World War I, tanks were classed into light, medium, and heavy based on weight, and its impact on speed and mobility. That's a bad joke.--WerWil (talk) 22:32, 2 September 2016 (UTC)

The Panther tank: who in their right mind would ever call it the "most immediate and arguable predecessor of the MBT"
''The most immediate and arguable predecessor of the MBT is the Panzer V or Panther tank. Designed to counterbalance the Soviet designed T-34, it had frontal armour that was not only thick but also sloped, making bullet deflection and absorption of shots more likely. It also was equipped with the long-barreled 75 mm KwK 42 L/70 gun that is able to defeat the armor of all but the heaviest Allied tank at long range. The powerful Maybach HL230 P30 engine and robust running gear meant that even though the Panther tipped the scales at 50 tons[3] - sizeable for its day - it was actually quite maneuverable, offering better off-road speed than the Panzer IV. Despite these traits, only 5,976 were built between 1943 to 1945,[4] compared to the 55,660 T-34s and 48,980 M4 Shermans the Allies were able to produce in the course of the war.[4]''

Whatever source is used here is a joke. The Panther was one of the most unreliable tanks of the war, as well as extremely overspecialized, and had little influence compared to the T-34 or Sherman. I have no idea how one would possibly think that the Panther is a predecessor of the MBT much less the main one.

Source: http://www.benning.army.mil/armor/earmor/content/issues/2016/OCT_DEC/4Prescott16.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.233.100.34 (talk) 17:40, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The reliability of the Panther has no barring on it being an influential design.


 * However, the claim that its influence was of primary significance on MBT development does need a reliable source (not YouTube). If none are provided soon, I'll delete the section.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:22, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Read David Fletcher on the British experience with poor tanks, particularly his books The Great Tank Scandal and Universal Tank. The T-34 and the Panther were some of the first tanks to achieve this goal, neither an infantry tank, nor a cruiser tank incapable of engaging AT guns, nor an infantry support tank with a short fat howitzer and little ability to engage other tanks, but the first universal tanks, capable of fulfilling all roles to some degree and the precursor of the modern MBT. It doesn't even matter if the Panther had failings, the point is that its failings were as a generalist, not as a specialist. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:55, 9 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Citing is the only issue here. If Fletcher can be cited stating the Panther (and T-34) led to the MBT, and the statement isn't contradicted in other RSs, great!  Add that cite, tweak the wording as needed to conform to the cite, and we're done.  Nothing else needs discussion.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:36, 10 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The cited youtube video (in the article) contains a discussion among experts. It wasn't Fletcher that mentioned Panther, I think it was Doyle.  T-54, Centurion, Panther and M60 are all mentionned with no clear bias or conclusion.  There is clearly no agreement. If covering, we should be equally unbiased, less this starts to turn into a my favourite tank top-trumps game. Lkchild (talk) 22:22, 12 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Regardless of the reliability etc. I still don't see the connection with the MBT. Panther looks to me like a medium tank that was fielded with a lot of other types - it didn't replace, or intend to replace, the vast array of other types of armour.  We're getting ambiguous in confusing a good medium tank with an MBT.  Lkchild (talk) 20:50, 9 September 2017 (UTC)

I've removed the paragraph per this discussion: Panther influence on MBT development is not properly sourced. (Youtube not a good RS, and it doesn't conclude Panther influence on MBT. The other sources given are for merely for Panther characteristics -- not sufficient for MBT influence.)

I've left the T-44 and Pershing paragraphs that follow; even though their sources for MBT influence aren't great, they at ;east have something plausible for at least having a more direct historical connection to MBTs. This could stand review and a separate discussion. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:39, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Well done. Lkchild (talk) 22:12, 14 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The first MBT was the Centurion when it was up-gunned with the 105mm L7 firing APDS. With this gun it could knock out the heaviest tank in service at almost any range, thus making the Heavy Tank as a tank class obsolete overnight. Prior to this no 'Medium Tank' carried a gun capable of doing this.


 * The main reason for the Heavy Tank class' existence was that such a heavily-armoured vehicle could survive attacks from the guns of the smaller classes of vehicles, e.g., the Medium and Light tanks, and was able to carry a gun capable of knocking out these vehicles at long ranges. When the 105mm Centurion became operational that no longer applied, as the Centurion could knock out a Heavy Tank at as long a range, or better, than the Heavy Tank could knock out its smaller opponents. In addition, the Heavy Tank was a larger target and was easier to see and to subsequently hit, while the Centurion was smaller, and less easy for the Heavy Tank to see and hit. This meant that in many engagements the Centurion was likely to fire first and destroy the Heavy Tank.


 * Once a tank like the 105 mm L7 Centurion had arrived, there was no point in building Heavy Tanks, as they no longer had any usable advantage on the battlefield, they were too expensive, too unwieldy, and too difficult to transport and deploy, as well as being just as easy to destroy on the battlefield as any Medium Tank. Thus the Heavy and Medium Tank classes disappeared, to be both replaced by the one 'Main Battle Tank' class.


 * The first vehicle purposely designed as a Main Battle Tank was almost certainly the Chieftain, which replaced both the Centurion and the Conqueror.


 * BTW, AFAIK 'Main Battle Tank' was originally a NATO classification only. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.209 (talk) 08:50, 15 September 2017 (UTC)
 * So why not the Centurion as the first purpose-designed MBT? Most sources would agree that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:52, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Centurion was designed as a Cruiser tank. It was expected to be replaced by the Universal tank, but as it proved to have enough armour to undertake the infantry role as well, work on the Universal was cancelled.  As such it became the first, it wasn't intended in the design.  Lkchild (talk) 14:00, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * As stated above the Centurion was designed as a Cruiser Tank and in addition, excellent though the 17 pdr's performance firing APDS was, the L7 firing APDS represented a quantum leap in performance over both it, and the 20 pdr, which is why the L7 was used by much of NATO for several decades. The later L11's performance BTW is still classified but in firing practice using APDS on the ranges the Danger Zone in front of the guns extended out to, IIRC, 19 miles.


 * BTW, don't quote me on this as my memory may be wrong but IIRC the idea of a British 'Universal Tank' may have originated with Montgomery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 15:31, 9 November 2017 (UTC)


 * It's not so important to identify the "first" MBT, as that's likely to be arguable and contradicted by various POV-ish (nationalistic) sources. But identifying designs that were transitional points toward the development of MBTs is good to have.  That was the intent of the Panther paragraph I removed; it's only problem was it had no RS for any notable influence on later MBT-like designs.  If the Chieftain has such an RS, I'd put it in -- even if it's only said to influence other British tanks (we'd have to state that, of course).


 * But, we already have a whole section on Universal Tank that has zero sources. Sigh.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:05, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * I've had more of a chop on the history, so we can bring out the salient points and refer to the main articles where needed. There was a lot repeated, and it was difficult follow the actual development of the MBT.  In the new format, it would actually make senses to have a bullet point bit on Panther in the Medium section. Lkchild (talk) 19:56, 16 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Note that Ogorkiewicz (Design and Development of Fighting Vehicles) states that the major difference between Panther and Centurion was the gun in 1948. I've added a note on this in the article.  Lkchild (talk) 20:55, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Yes, the history is clearer now -- thank you. Basically, there used to be infantry/heavy and cruiser/light tanks, but then more medium tanks developed that could do both roles, so on eventually toward MBTs.


 * So, that's definitely an improvement for the article, except, now that I can understand the history section... was it really that simple? I'm aware of that trend, but isn't the infantry/cruiser tank dichotomy mostly British? Did the first real medium tanks that fit this, the T-34 and Sherman, really came out of that? And didn't the Germans had their own dichotomy between Pz III and IV, but then switched them, but then jumped to the Panther to counter the T-34, an improvement on the other medium tanks, though the allies classified the Panther as a heavy tank?  Or maybe not, since the actual Tank classification article doesn't really make any of these development connections clear.


 * But let's keep this improvement going for now. I agree that the Panther now better fits into this trend as more clearly stated.  Since I was the one that deleted the Panther paragraph, I'll reinstate it, without the unsourced claim to being the most direct and influential towards MBTs -- it's just a notable good general multi-role medium tank along the trend.


 * I will then probably tone down the smug assurance that the simple Light vs. Heavy -> Medium -> MBT chain is the only story.


 * --A D Monroe III (talk) 21:04, 16 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Per above, I've restored the majority of the paragraph, less the "immediate MBT predecessor" statement. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:35, 17 September 2017 (UTC)

Section: Previous tank concepts – early World War II and prior
We have the section Previous tank concepts – early World War II and prior to set up the backstory for the general-purpose medium tank evolution in the next section, Evolution of medium tanks – late World War II. I'm good with that.

But as I noted in the above discussion, the "Previous tank concepts" section follows just the cruiser/light and infantry/heavy tank classes; this mostly applies only to the British. The Russians and Germans followed different limited-role tank classes. (It's hard to tell what the American class development plan was, if any. It seems they ended up with the catch-all Sherman only by a lucky side-effect of design-by-committee urged to make the biggest single government contract possible. They later diverted into the separate limited-role tank destroyer class, based on non-existent enemy massed tank attack concepts.  Go figure.)

I think this section's story is more accurately told by adding more than the two cruiser/infantry tank classes -- a longer list of several single-purpose classes that all proved too inflexible: cavalry tanks, breakthrough tanks, fast tanks, assault tanks, etc.

I recently summarized Tank classification to make the new section Tank in our main article. It would be easy to pick out the older limited-role class descriptions from that to expand/rewrite our Previous tank concepts section here.

Comments? --A D Monroe III (talk) 15:20, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * The problem is the potential to expand into a very large element of tank design history, which is subjective and arguable. You're in very real danger of many folks claiming their favourite tank was an important stepping stone, and they're probably right - lots of tanks were.  What tends to get lost here is the role, which to me, is the important part.  Its a multi-role vehicle forming the main battle force.  I'd be well up for an expansion of the article over the development of multi-role tactics and doctrine, and that driving changes to tank design, but I suspect we'll end up with a lof of design heavy content with everyone's favourite lump of metal in a popularity contest. Lkchild (talk) 16:39, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Ah, but this section doesn't list any advances toward MBT, just the previous tank class failures: tanks that were designed for a specific role that, when deployed, repeatedly found themselves in situations they were ill-suited for. This just highlights needs for less limiting designs, setting the stage for the next section: muddling forward by trial-and-error to more general purpose medium tanks.  Besides, this section won't list tanks by name, just tank classes.  Again, I plan to use the first 2.5 paragraphs of Tank as a base -- nothing big or detailed.  Maybe it would be easier to just boldly do rather than explain.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:28, 17 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Go for it - it sounds good. Lkchild (talk) 22:18, 18 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Done. I've also shifted the breaking point between this section and the next a bit, renaming this section Initial limited-role tank classes, and added a paragraph to the next section, now renamed Evolution of the general-purpose medium tank.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 01:47, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

Innaccurate Description
The page says a MBT has "the firepower of a super-heavy tank, armor protection of a heavy tank, and mobility of a light tank all in a package with the weight of a medium tank". This description is not accurate. A usual MBT has the same traits as a heavy tank except for the speed and maybe the weight. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:E1E1:7C25:2176:D77B (talk) 13:58, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * The "and maybe the weight" is key. The concept of a heavy tank is to gain tank vs. tank advantages at the cost of the disadvantages of some reduced transport-ability. The concept of an MBT is to have no disadvantages (ignoring production cost). Besides, the definition of medium vs. heavy evolved when based on weight alone.  Here, the emphasis is on a middle-of-the-curve role, termed "medium", applied to a distribution of light-tank vs. heavy tank roles.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  16:04, 23 November 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't say with no disadvantages as there will always be a balance - I'd say it was to have the armour and firepower which would normally move the platform into a heavy tank classification, while maintaining the mobility of a medium tank. There is still a role for light tanks.  As of the genesis of the universal tank, you could still create a heavy tank by adding more armour, but there was no reason to do so outside of very specialist roles and give up the mobility.  Similarly the tank itself became heavier in weight.  The distinction between heavy and medium was lost.Lkchild (talk) 14:15, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Yeah, sorry, I should have said "no notable disadvantages". The point of MBTs is to avoid tank designs that fulfill a narrow role, even when being very good at that role, because experience had shown any narrow-role tank will be forced to fight outside that role by an active intelligent enemy, if not just by the uncertainties of warfare.  So combining "light" mobility and "heavy" combat roles into a "medium" tank was the goal, regardless of shifting literal weight-based classifications.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  22:11, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Vulnerabilities
I wonder if a knowledgeable editor would be able to add a section on the vulnerabilities of such vehicles. It would help explain the argument over whether or not the main battle tank is now obsolete. Springnuts (talk) 20:47, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

Bumb?
"The Indian Arjun MK1A demonstrating movement over bumb track" What is a 'bumb' track? Thanks 2.36.89.27 (talk) 14:24, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

T-44 description inaccurate
"It is also seen as direct predecessor of the T-54, as the T-44 was the first Soviet tank with a suspension sturdy enough to be able to mount a 100 mm cannon."

KV-2 with a 152 mm gun: "Am I a joke to you?" 108.52.112.198 (talk) 21:09, 15 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed. I changed the wording to match the source. Schierbecker (talk) 01:42, 17 June 2023 (UTC)