Talk:Tank/Archive 1

Missiles through the gun barrel
''Some tanks, including the M551 Sheridan, T-72, T-64, T-80, T-90, and T-84 can fire anti-tank guided missiles through their gun barrel. One reason for doing this is to extend the effective range of the gun, since the kinetic energy round loses penetrating power over long distances. It also provides the tank with a useful weapon against slow, low-flying airborne targets like helicopters.''


 * This section needs to be reworded considerably, since it gives the impression that this type of weapon is common when in fact all countries except the Soviet Union had abandoned (after several trials) it completely by the 1990s. There were only 50-60 Sheridan tanks working in the US army by then, and they  are now being replaced by Strykers.  Perhaps one day in the future some country will come up with a workable missile system,  based on a Main Battle Tank (fired through the main gun or otherwise) but up to now all prototypes, series productions, etc. have proved to be useless in combat conditions and no arsenal or research and development unit is working on this kind of weapon, for deployment any time in the next decades. --AlainV 13:54, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't see how this could give the impression that it is common. If it said "many tanks..." or "most tanks..." then that would be understandable. But the word "some" is defined by the dictionary as:


 * Being an unspecified number or quantity: Some people came into the room. Would you like some sugar?
 * Being a portion or an unspecified number or quantity of a whole or group: He likes some modern scupture but not all.
 * Being a considerable number or quantity: She has been directing films for some years now.
 * Unknown or unspecified by name: Some man called.
 * Logic. Being part and perhaps all of a class.
 * Informal. Remarkable: She is some skier.


 * Note that the first two definitions, which are the ones that apply when the word is used in this way, tell you that the word "some" refers to an unspecified number or quantity. This is on purpose, as I don't see how we could accurately assess how many of the tanks in the world today have this feature. The fact remains that there are at least some operational tanks which fire missiles from their barrels and therefore, in my opinion, it's worth mentioning. Otherwise people might get the impression that all tanks fire 105, 120 or 125mm shells as their main armament and that's it. That would be rather misleading I think. This is a lot more significant when discussing Soviet/Ukranian/Russian tanks, as they're the ones which are still using this feature in production tanks, ostensibly because they have made it work well. The fact that the US gave up on it doesn't mean the other tanks mentioned have no merit. I mentioned the M60A2 and M551 so that it doesn't sound like the USSR was the only country that tried out this weapons system. If you want, you could mention this. I didn't think it was all that important to the discussion; it's still a viable weapon system today in at last some tanks which are still being produced and sold. I didn't even mention the missile-armed "tank destoyer" concept which the Israelis seem to find pretty useful.


 * What exactly makes you think the Refleks (AT-11) is not a useful weapon deployed today? Nvinen 14:43, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Because all of the evaluation reports on gun/missile systems I have read in the past in several Jane's publications and other sources (such as the now defunct publication called "Military attaché", or the books by Ogorkiewicz) were always negative. I must admit that I have not yet read a report on the Refleks in particular! But regardless of their possible usefulness in combat I think such systems are worth mentioning at least because of all the time and effort spent on them over several decades. I think in fact that other tank-missile systems such as the ones which were for a long time mounted externally on AMX-13 in addition to the main gun, should also be mentioned rapidly, though I am not in a hurry to do so personally. --AlainV 02:57, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the concept of mounting ATGMs on tanks, other than firing through the barrel, is also an intriguing concept and worth a small mention. I'm trying to make sure the article discusses the traditional MBT armament in detail, but also mentions many of the more successful or at least prolific variations, especially those which might prove to be popular in future (such as mortars and grenade launchers, to make tanks which are useful in supporting infantry and less stuctured wars, as this may be common in the future). Nvinen 15:02, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Tsar Tank
The Tsar tank, while interesting belongs if anywhere under Tank history or more likely Armoured cars since
 * It is under 'Tank history'. Mikkalai 00:21, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

1) it doesn't meet the 'tank' definition of a tracked vehicle 2) it's an unsuccessful idea

GraemeLeggett 10:19, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)


 * We should leave the Tsar Tank off, even without debating details. Leonardo da Vinci designed a "tank".  The Poles had metal-plated war-wagons in the Middle Ages.  The Romans had shielded siege towers on wheels armed with catapults.  The Assyrians had moveable barriers for bowmen.  If the title of this article was "War machines" we could mention some of these, but it's "Tank".  The name came from the British secret weapon design as noted.  We should start the article with that, and leave the rest of these attempts in Tank history, if anywhere.  --A D Monroe III 23:25, 28 Feb 2005 (UTC)
 * OK with me, as long as the material is not deleted, but moved elsewhere, where you seem fit better. BTW all what you wrote here would be nice to have in the Armoured fighting vehicle (not "war machine") article.


 * Desipite someone's comment, my adition is not about "who's first" (notice that I omitted the word "first" from my second version). My point is that in the current version "tank history" section starts out of the thin air, no any prehistory mentioned at all. Some kind of preamble is definitely missing. Mikkalai 00:18, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have moved the Tsar tank paragraph to the armoured car article. There is currently a problem with the tank history section. It is simply too long for an average computer screen: Somebody consulting Wikipedia and looking for info on tanks gets more than a page (on the average screen) on tank history before actually getting any current or general or generic info on tanks. I think that there should be at most a paragraph or two on tank history in this general tank article, and that the rest should be moved to the Tank history article. But no matter how I look at it I just can't see what parts can be easily moved out to the Tank history article. There is always a serious rewrite involved. --AlainV 03:00, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The article starts off with two paragraphs describing what a tank is and then a table of contents which allows someone to jump to whichever category they want to read. I don't see any problems with that, and if they don't want to read the history they can scroll/jump past it. True, it is long, and it has its own article. If you're that worried about it, you could move it, it doesn't HAVE to be at the start (although it makes sense that the design of tanks should come after the history, since the design is because of the history, but that isn't the only way to determine the order of sections in an article). From a quick scan of the history section, it says everything that probably should be said initially. There's heaps of history, obviously, but we can't say it all here. Nvinen 03:25, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I agree that it makes more sense to put the history section at the top. But the size problem still remains. You have to remember that the table of contents is an optional Wikipedia feature which many users turn off. They say they just can't stantd it. For them, the tank article appears as if it were mainly a history article.

Tactics
Well I added a section on tactics, main reason being that there were some things I thought it was odd that weren't mentioned (such as the vulnerability of the running gear, a severe limitation and something that tankers have to always be aware of), but adding it to the existing sections seemed to make them too long, so I added a new one. Also, it seemed odd to devote the whole article to history and design of tanks and never talk about how they are actually used, especially since it's a current topic. The article is now around 32kb and I think it's just fine but I have a large monitor. Others may not feel the same way. I added a couple of little photos to the bottom, to balance it a bit better, so the photos weren't all jammed up the top, and because these two are fairly appropriate for the lower sections. Hopefully I haven't annoyed anyone by doing all this, if you're not happy with it and have a good idea how to improve it please let it be known. Nvinen 07:43, 1 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Because tank warfare involves many other vehicles at the same time it merits its own article outside of this one. I have created it with what was the Tactics section. I have made a link to it (Armoured combat) in the "see also" section at the bottom of the tank article and have also made links to it in several other relevant articles. I have added a few elements to it but there is still much work to be done involving helicopters and land reconnaissance units.--AlainV 02:46, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree it merits its own article. I'm worried that the Tank article itself says none of this stuff though. Maybe it could have a teensy bit on tactics (mentioning how tanks fill several roles - in fighting other tanks, fighting and supporting infantry, etc.) with a link to the new article? Like I said, I felt it was bad form to talk about how tanks are built but have nothing about how they are used. I agree, we don't want the article to get much bigger. However I still feel like there's important stuff it doesn't talk about, and to fit that in we'll have to come up with some kind of solution. I personally don't want to break it up into totally separate articles, I'd rather have the main article at least touch on everything and say the most important stuff, then the details can be elsewhere.... For example we probably should also talk about what it's like to fight in a tank unit and some of the challenges which still need to be faced. Since I've never been in the military and have only read about it, I don't feel like I'm qualified to talk about what it's like to fight in an armoured vehicle, so I'm hoping someone will come along who will give a first (rather than second or third) party account of it. Nvinen 14:33, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * The reference to armoured warfare shouldbe higher up than just the see also list. It could with some justification go right at the start as if in a disambiguation comment GraemeLeggett 15:48, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The primary goal of the tank in most armies is to kill other tanks, but it is so versatile that doctrines and rules call for it destroying just about anything else, from trains to low-flying aircraft. This is the kind of thing that can be mentioned as long as the focus stays on the tank. Same thing for tactics. There are no tank-specific tactics. Tank warfare always involves other vehicles or weapons, so not much can be said on tank tactics per se. There are quite a few number of books on what fighting in a tank is like (noisy, bruising, scary and hot)and also biographies of "tankers" like General Abrams. I wish I had them on hand because it's been a long time since I have read some of them, and do not remember enough to write some reliable paragraphs, distilled from them. Having a first hand account would be nice but this encyclopedia article should not be a collection of reminescences, however interesting they might be. --AlainV 03:19, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * What??? "There are no tank-specific tactics". That makes no sense. Are you saying that people who fight in tanks merely copy the tactics developed for other vehicles or situations? I'd say that there are a lot of tactics developed SPECIFICALLY to take advantage of the combination of properties of tanks which is what makes them so useful on the battlefield. Hell, the Israelis (not very successfully) fought major battles using nothing much other than tanks and aircraft. I hope they were using tank-specific tactics. And in that case, the warfare may have involved some other vehicles but it was pretty much an all-tank show, with anything else being in support.
 * I don't fully agree with "The primary goal of the tank in most armies is to kill other tanks" but I can't say that it's not at least partially true. However, this is misleading. Just because that's the primary goal, doesn't mean that there is not a significant role for tanks doing other things, such as protecting/engaging infantry. In fact, there have been many tanks built specifically to engage infantry! Take the Churchill series for example. The M60 is an example of a tank which was fully capable of engaging other tanks but which had many features built into it to make working with and engaging infantry more successful, like the exterior telephone so that accompanying infantry could talk to the occupants. What about flame thrower tanks? Killing an enemy tank with one of those would be pretty unlikely.
 * I'm not convinced the "noisy, brusing, scary and hot" really applies across the board any more. Noisy, probably so. Hot? I'm pretty sure the M1 has a nice air conditioning system. I suppose it won't be on all the time, but I also suspect that fighting in an M1 is not really that scary (it's pretty safe), not all that hot as mentioned before, and it also has lots of soft edges to avoid the bruising aspect. This is why I don't want to go ahead and say what it's like based on what could possibly be out of date information.
 * In short, I think the view expressed above is missing the point. Just because tankers spend most of their time training to engage enemy tanks doesn't even mean that that's their #1 role. More than anything else, it is because this is their most difficult task, and if they screw up they're dead. How many of the hundreds of tanks in Iraq have been engaging enemy tanks recently? What about in Chechnya? I'm sorry but I don't think NATO and the USSR are going to be fighting for Western Europe any time soon. I'm sure there are still tank battles to be fought but in future I'd say the majority of fighting that tanks do will be against light vehicles, infantry and fortifications. To avoid mentioning things like how effective certain tank features are against these kind of threats, how these threats influence tank design, etc. is missing an important aspect of tanks. Nvinen 05:39, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)
 * Also your argument is somewhat self-defeating. You say that tanks always work with other vehicles, yet this was the first paragraph of my tactics section which was removed - explaining the importance of that. On the other hand, I also don't agree that something is not "tank tactics" just because the tactics incorporate accompanying IFVs too. Nvinen 05:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with most of what you say, but this is an article on current tank forms, not on the immense variety of mine-uncovering tanks, flame-throwing tanks, british "infantry" tanks of WWII, swimming tanks,(I have a particular fodnness for the prototype that was fitted with rockets during WW II) etc. etc. which have been produced in the past but are no longer in use. There is the Tank history article for dealing with such extinct types, and there are articles on other types of armored vehicles to deal with those specialties which have gradually migrated away from the MBTs. The air conditioning is efficient only when the tank is completely buttoned up, and most of the time you don't want to be buttoned up because it reduces visibility too much, making the terrain and potential ennemy more difficult to see. The sophisticated vision systems are still inferior to human eyes, during daylight. The moment a tank leaves a road everybody (and everything) in it gets jostled in a major way. No matter how soft the edges are if you bump into them you get a bruise. The Leclerc has sophisticated safety harness systems which minimise this. I admit that my mentioning that the interior of a tank is scary is probably redundant since there is no such thing as safe and secure place for any type of soldier (infantry, armour, artillery...)in combat. You could argue that all of combined operations or armoured combat is in a way tank centered since so much effort is put into protecting the tank, by the concerted actions of IFVs, dismounted infantry, armoured anti-aircraft vehicles. And the place for describing this orientation should be in the armoured combat article, or in yet another new article, such as one which could chronicle the evolution of tank tactics in a given period of time. The examples you give are spread out between WW II and the last war so you could have something like "tank warfare from 1939 to 1999" or something of the sort. The current tank history article does not have such a focus and it is already very long. --AlainV 01:29, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I would say that pretty much all tactical warfare is centred around infantry. No matter how large-scale their operations, all other land forces essentially support the infantry, since they are still the only arm of service that can take and hold ground.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-03-4 05:37 Z 

Don't say that to a really old cavalry officer! Or to somebody who has studied the comparative roles of knights and "la pietaille" in Medieval warfare. Or to those who are involved in replacing tanks with lighter armored vehicles. Just joking! I really do not want to argue over this, at least not in a Wikipedia talk page. But nevertheless this is an interesting argument that has been going on in a nearly continuous fashion since 4 thousand years or so ago when it seemed that horse drawn chariots had displaced infantry in importance, in the wars of several early civilisations. I wonder how many articles we could squeeze out of it. First we would need to survey the existing ones on Hittites, Egyptians... Arghh! I need sleep. I have to get up early tomorrow and I still haven't worked on the SOHO article.--AlainV 00:53, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * "This is an article on current tank forms" - I think this is where we disagree. I'd like the subject of the article called "Tank" to be Tanks. Not the history of tanks necessarily, but not just their forms either. It's like saying in an article called "Bird" it's OK to talk about wings, feathers, etc. but not about, say, migratory habits (which are possible because birds can fly long distances), ecological niches that birds fill, etc. I think a well-rounded article about a given object talks about the physical form of that object and how it came to be that way but also why it is that way, how it is used, what advantages that gives, etc. Like somebody on #wikipedia said, "Dictionaries define words, encyclopedias define concepts" - hence I'm trying to discuss the concept of tanks, not just the physical objects. Oh well, I'm not going to change the article any more, there are plenty of other articles I need to work on more badly, so it's up to others whether they want to do this. Nvinen 03:15, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I was just throwing out talking points. I was a reservist in armoured reconnaissance, myself.  Tanks may be the major offensive force on land, but the article text mustn't treat them too much in isolation.  It's important to maintain the impression that they virtually always work with other tanks and in combined arms formations.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-03-5 14:44 Z 

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? And should it be covered in this section? Trekphiler 02:09, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I've added mention of Fuller; was his original concept 1918 or 1919? (Somebody add the correct date?) I've also mentioned Hobart, Guderian, deGaulle, Chaffee, & Tukhachevskiy. Trekphiler 09:07, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

This article is British English
Some people are changing existing British English spellings in this article to American English. That's against WP policy, right? If no true Brit is available, I'll use my limited knowledge of BE to set it back in the next day or so. --A D Monroe III 23:11, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Are you sure it isn't Canadian English? I'll have a look through it tomorrow and fix that up.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-03-21 23:38 Z 

There is no coherent, perfectly uniform set of Canadian English spelling because editors, schools and other corporations or governments at several levels in Canada have been switching between British and U.S. spelling over decades, back and forth. However, there is a coherent British spelling, and I thought that this article followed it or tried to follow it. Wikipedia policy is to remain consistent within any given article.


 * I've been working in British English. GraemeLeggett


 * It's totally untrue that there's no uniform Canadian English. Just because some company chooses to use Microsoft's lame spelling checker, doesn't mean Canadian English doesn't exist.  The article may describe it as a mixture of different national conventions, but it's always perfectly clear when spelling and vocabulary is or is not Canadian.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-03-22 20:51 Z 


 * This article is made of various contributions as far as I know some are Swedish, some are German, some are French and some are I don't where.... So, it's written in some form of Globish ? As for myself, I can't make any difference between British English and American English. Thus makes it in any form of English you will agree on...

Ericd 21:14, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To quote from the "Spelling" section of the very article on Canadian English linked to a few lines above, "There is no universally accepted standard of Canadian spelling". Which is why when I look at one standard I get one view and another standard another view. In the end things are not perfectly clear for me, so I would rather stick with British English.--AlainV 23:00, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

R&D- on page or not
I have moved the R&D material back, as I discovered the material wasn't actually being moved but also heavily edited in the process. Im not adverse to trimming it back in this article, or to even having a dedicated page- but not when its down like this. As for the merits of r&d stuff on this page, r&d is very important to what tanks have been and understanding tanks so I think its important to have mention of future systems in development etc. Certainly that one section needs summarized down though, perhaps with a link to the new page. Muchenhaeser 05:14, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Speculation on what might have been is not encyclopedic
 * The section I removed offered no explanation, no facts, just suppositions that fuel cells and electric drives might be the way to go in the future. Why not suppose nuclear propelled tanks might be the way to go? I know that given a few days in a public library I could find many 1950s and 1960s articles suggesting this, since I remember reading many abou this back in the 1960s. But would this be useful to understanding the modern tank? I do not see how. I could also write about the idea of a nuclear propelled tank equiped with a scoop used to gather dirt and a sorting and compressing machine which would take the most suitable portions and create pellets or bullets.  These slugs would then be fired at the ennemy with an electro-magnetic gun.  The famous physicist Richard Feynman notes in one of his autobiographical writings that he was once approached by a US army officer who wanted his support in developing such a device, so I could even reference what might, for some, be viewed as a totally nutty idea.  I could also write about dozens of cleft turret tank prototypes which were never produced and were incredibly advanced compared to the moderately "clefted" Merkava of Israel and IKV of Sweden, and speculate that this might still be the wave of the future. And there are dozens more of "might have been" tank configurations which appeared in specialised publications in the last twenty years.  All of them are redundant to an article which deals about reality and is already too long.  All of these items are speculations that have no place in an encyclopedia article.
 * Speculation on what might be should go to other articles::

There is still a great deal of research going on around the reality of armoured warfare, and this might make for several interesting articles instead of the single one I just started. There is room for links to any given number of such useful future articles, but the current article is already too long to deal competely with these topics. --AlainV 03:19, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * I was hoping you would have actually read it, as I included examples of things already done. This research is important to understanding tank development and needs to be in the article- these are things that have already occured. Just because more outlandish examples of experimentaion has been done, neither means those examples should be include nor does it effect the importance of giving a brief mention of the matter. Muchenhaeser 22:26, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have read several times the paragraph I have removed, trying to extract something usable out of it. And I did, and placed it in a relevant article. What is the basis for the broad statements you are making on the evolution of power consumption (and why not state clearly that you are talking about electrical power consumption growth phenomenons?) What are your sources? Is it a book, a perioddical article, a Web page? When did the research on tracked armoured vehicles powered by hybrid systems take place? Where did it take place? Who funded it? Was it linked to the research done by the US Marines on wheeled armoured vehicles? Was it independent? How can you say that any example I bring in is "more outlandish" than what you bring in (note that I brought it into the talk page, and not in the article), if you offer no form of reference or source or link of any kind? --AlainV 04:34, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Ok im not really sure how to respond here as this is pretty basic stuff, im not even sure your being serious or just trying to waste my time. First off, nearly nothing in most articles in wikipedia is referenced, especially basic points that already site examples (not even yours). Also, I would indeed venture to say mentioning thing like thermal scopes increasing power requirements is less "outlandish" then "nuclear propelled tank equiped with a scoop used to gather dirt" because unlike the latter, tanks actually have thermal scopes. Regardless, a couple of example-
 * I mention hybrid electric M113 - http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2001/Jan/Hybrid-Electric.htm
 * A good example is the M113” armored personnel carrier, he said. A hybrid-electric M113 test vehicle was developed by United Defense LP, the M113 original manufacturer. The company said the technology could be available for production within five years.
 * I mention electromagnetic cannons - http://www.nationaldefensemagazine.org/issues/2000/Sep/Twenty-Ton.htm
 * For FCS, the Army is considering several firepower options, ranging from electromagnetic guns and directed energy weapons, to kinetic energy missiles and conventional cannon for direct and indirect fire.
 * Im sure you know many interesting things, but I reccomend you back off when its in area may not know as much about, as you have demonstrated here. I dont pretend to be an expert, but in this case it would have been good to do a little more research before being so confrontational. Muchenhaeser 07:02, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for the source. Do not view my questions as confrontations. I am not trying to get you to prove your ignorance or to inform me personally, I am trying to get you to integrate your knowledge of the sources in an article (preferably not this one), so that readers will not have the impression that you, and I, and all the other editors of Wikipedia are not simply making this all up, or stressing trivial happenings. Also, the article is too long already, and you are adding anaysis to it without backing it up in any way, and also adding more elements which should be linked to from this article but expanded outside of it, in other Wikipedia articles. The national defense magazine article you mention proves in my eyes that the future hybrid power plants in question are possible developments out of a myriad of other ones. They are serious enough to merit an article (or several) by themselves given that there are many other such R and D projects going on, the most important being the US Marines RST-V Hybrid Tactical Vehicle (see http://www.gizmag.com/go/3477/) (or http://www.marines.mil/marinelink/mcn2000.nsf/lookupstoryref/200312199133) which is already being tested in realistic conditions in battle units. --AlainV 10:16, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I didnt view your questions as confronational, rather your actions as whole such as removing etc. Anyway you make a valid point, which is that the article is rather long. This is why I kept it short in my example, and did not go on to list other projects or things for example, certainly a more in depth over can be done on another page with just the brief mention here. Thanks for the links as well. Muchenhaeser 19:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Btw alain " I am not trying to get you to prove your ignorance or to inform me personally" - no what I did there was prove your ignornance; as those sources demonstrated. Again, I don't think we need anything extensive just a short mention, as r&d is important to understanding tanks so it does need mention. Muchenhaeser 03:46, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * If you would bother to spell correctly, always use complete sentences, and follow the basic rules of grammar, then your contributions might be approached with less skepticism. Avoiding speculation and incorrect statements would probably help, too.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-4 08:17 Z