Talk:Tank/Archive 2

Article quality
Hey guys, the quality of this article has really gone down the drain since being a featured article... right now, it looks like crap -- being too long and with lots of bad grammar and spelling errors. Don't just add more text to the article, THINK about what you're adding and make sure it MAKES SENSE. europrobe 11:04, 2005 Apr 3 (UTC)
 * There is not much on tank tactics, and their cultural impact such tiananmen square either. I will add some info about that I think, and run some spell check. Muchenhaeser 19:58, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Part of the reason is because large parts of the original featured article have been expanded and split off into their own articles, such as Tank history and Tank classification. The grammar and spelling errors are because one of the major contributers has a relatively weak grasp of such things. --Carnildo 00:39, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually, I did a spell check and there is hardly any mispelled words in the article. Ill give you the benfit of the doubt in this case as to who your refering to, but I notice you have made your share of errors as well. 24.170.145.97 03:27, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That's because, yet again, someone else has run through the article and fixed a lot of errors in spelling, grammar, and ambiguous or misleading wording. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-4 06:58 Z 
 * Yes you deserve a medal for the error checking you do. Muchenhaeser 21:59, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * You deserve something, too. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-5 00:06 Z 
 * No not as much as you. :) Muchenhaeser 00:45, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * anon- There are indeed a number of errors, Carnilo is refering to me- though I do have a good grasp, I tend not to check for errors and type rather poorly. Carn- yes you have a point there I need to check things better. Muchenhaeser 03:42, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

This is alas what happens all too often when an article has been featured. --AlainV 23:50, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I've made a few deletions from the article... before putting it back, please consider whether they help the reader understand what a tank is (rather than, perhaps, what a tank was during WWI). europrobe 08:58, 2005 Jun 6 (UTC)


 * I disagree that the article is too long. In fact, I would prefer it to continue far further.  An expansion in the discussion of powerplants would be welcome, perhaps even requiring a new article.  I see no reason to limit the amount of knowledge provided in Wikipedia on any given subject, so please include as much as you can if it is relevent.


 * While I don't see (much) reason to limit the total amount of knowledge in Wikipedia, there are some sound advice regarding individual article size in Article_size. Splitting the article, as has already been done with Tank history for example, is a good way of managing article readability and conciseness. europrobe 15:33, July 27, 2005 (UTC)

Armour
I see passive armour, chobham armour, and reactive armour mentioned, but what about the slat armour being used on the Stryker? Would that go under the regular passive armour, or could it be mentioned, as well? Ryan Salisbury 00:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It could certainly go in the armoured car article. Has it been used on tanks? Come to think of it there is no mention of the "ball and chain" armour or protection (since it is not quite armour in the strict sense) such as the one used on the turret on some of the advanced Merkavas. --AlainV 23:40, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * I think the slat armour is in principle a type of spaced armour, similar to the big plates bolted on to late WWII panzers for protection against bazookas. The Swedish S-tank has something similar on the front.  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-6 00:08 Z 


 * The soviets also used space armor to prevent holow charge weapons. In their case, the example I saw used a wire fence held away from the armor. The us also covered a number of tanks in concrete, and also sandbags somtimes to prevent holow charge weapons. In the latter case, it increased the likely hood of a round burrowing into the armor though. Muchenhaeser 00:17, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Sounds interesting. What Soviet vehicle had the wire fence?  Was it an improvised job, or factory-made?  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-6 18:28 Z 


 * Unfortunetley information is hard to come by on soviets use of the screens, but there is some scattered around. Battlefield.ru has a mention of them here, on the T-34/85: http://www.battlefield.ru/t34_85_2.html I think the screens were factory made but the installation was in the field, however I do not know this for certain. Muchenhaeser 00:31, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

There is an overabundance of prootypes using slat armour, even the Canadian army tried it on its tanks. (http://www.sfu.ca/casr/id-leo.htm) what I would like to know is do we have any production, even limited production tanks somewhere using slat armour. That would justify placing it in the article. --AlainV 00:48, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I was talking about the T-34/85, and in its case its not really slat armor anyway. As for your question, the TUSK kit for the M1A2 inlcudes some slat armor in the rear. Muchenhaeser 01:09, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * From the cited page, it appears that CASR suggests Canada adopt screens for specialized urban Leopards, but I haven't seen any evidence that the Canadian army has ever tested or considered them. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-7 03:45 Z 


 * The Stryker uses slat armor, and the Stridsvagn 103 had a metal screen in the front to protect against shaped charge warheads. The slat armor for the Abrams isn't in use yet, but it's likely to show up in the next few months. --Carnildo 03:20, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)
 * I didn't mention those because the stryker is not really a tank, and the 103 was just spaced armor not really slat armor. Muchenhaeser 04:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * It really is slat armour. Did you look at the picture at S-Tank?  &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-7 05:17 Z 


 * Its more a series of poles then it is slats, so I did not think of it as actual slat armor. Also, I have not heard it called slat armor in its case. However, I will agree with you that it is similar enough to probably just be called slat armor or at least grouped with it. Muchenhaeser 17:30, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Slat armour" is not a special class of armour. It's just another material used to make anti-shaped charge spaced armour), such as was applied to many WWII German tanks (I don't mean modern composite armour. It just happens to be a lighter and transparent version. It can be mentioned wherever spaced armour, zimmerit, appliqué armour, etc. is discussed. I agree that this is specialized enough to belong in vehicle armour, probably not here in tank. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-04-7 03:45 Z 


 * I added small section about spaced armor in between traditional passive and reactive armor, and I mentioned some examples. However, I kept it real short at just 3 sentences. Muchenhaeser 04:27, 7 Apr 2005 (UTC)

New articles: T-95 and Black Eagle tank
Hey tankers! Add these to your watchlist: T-95 and Black Eagle tank. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-7 06:33 Z 

Michael Z's nomination for adminship
Hello, tankers. I've been nominated for adminship. Some of you have probably seen me in action or collaborated with me on AFV articles. If you have a minute, please have a look at my nomination and leave a comment. Regards. &mdash;Michael Z. 2005-06-24 17:21 Z 

Tank suspension design and engineering
I would like to see someone with the requisite knowledge add an article on tank suspension and design. I am fascinated by the methods tanks use to traverse over rough ground, and in particular would like see an article included describing the different types of tank running gear designs.

For example, in one rather old library book I once read it explained how a Sherman tank's running gear worked, with each wheel being provided with about 10% of the power from the engine with the drive wheel getting the remainder of the power. It also explained how the bogies on the running gear worked, using diagrams.

I would like to see something like this added in Wikipedia for a range of tanks and suspension types, including hydrogas suspensions etc. As far as vehicles are concerned, I would like it to cover the S-Tank, the Challenger 2 etc.

I appreciate there is an article on the Christie suspension design, but this is only a tiny part of the history of tank suspension design and one limited only to the WWII era. I am more interested in modern designs. Please create a whole new article or at least as an addition to this article.

MBT
What is the reason MBT is directing here ? Not all tanks are MBTs. And MBT is used several times in this article but in the whole artice it isn't explained what MBT means or stands for.


 * It's explained in passing in the first paragraph "A modern main battle tank (MBT) is distinguished by . . .". In modern usage MBT is almost synonymous with "tank", since other types of tanks and tank-like vehicles now tend to have more specific names applied, e.g. "Cavalry Fighting Vehicle", "Airborne Fighting Vehicle", "CVR(T)", "CET", etc.  —Michael Z. 2005-08-4 19:47 Z 

Factual error concerning smoothbore vs. rifled guns
There was a factual error in the article (which I removed) stating that only smoothbores can fire KE rounds. This is absolutely false. Smoothbores are often considered BETTER for this sort of round, but KE penetrators for rifled tank cannons date back to World War II. Modern APFSDS rounds are used in the British 120mm rifled cannons, and were widely used in the British/US 105mm rifled tank guns. Furthermore, it states that rifled guns are kept in service based on the use of HESH rounds, but as far as I know there is no technical reason why a HESH round couldn't be made for a smoothbore gun.

Sources:

http://www.army-technology.com/projects/challenger2/index.html http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/m900.htm

WikiProject AFV anyone?
There are many AFV articles to add Template:Tank to. It might also be nice to discuss the standard organization of article sections, which is widely but not universally used. Would anyone participate in WikiProject AFV? —Michael Z. 2005-09-10 05:23 Z 


 * What little discussion there has been is part of the WikiProject Weaponry. It's probably best to move discussion there, to try to revive the project. --Carnildo

Sounds like a really good idea. It could be awfully interesting. Trekphiler 02:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Design/German Panzers
Good article. In the design section one could add for the German tanks that many Panzers had to be abandoned and selfdestroyed at the Eastern and Western front due to lack of the correct fuel available. As a result, German tanks now have Diesel engines, not like Americans gas turbines (very special fuel). The Diesel engine can use a wide variety of different fuels. Longbow4u 11:38, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I thought it was the other way around: Diesel engines are restricted to diesel fuel (but have the advantage that diesel doesn't explode when the tank catches fire), while turbines like the Abrams uses can handle any liquid hydrocarbons. In any case, the German WWII tanks, like all German WWII vehicles, used gasoline because the Germans could produce it from their extensive coal deposits. --Carnildo 20:04, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Wrong comparison. Heavy (well, really medium sized) Diesel engines (as in tanks) can burn very nearly everything that has enough caloric content and can be made to flow. In particular, they can run on heavier (less distilled) hydrocarbons, or even on vegetable oil. I don't know about gas turbines, but I suspect they have different and stricter requirements. But in WW2, the alternative is not the gas turbine, but the plain 4-stroke gasoline engine. That one requires a sufficiently volatile, high-octane, low viscosity, and clean burning fuel (think carburator, spark plugs).--Stephan Schulz 20:34, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I question the statement diesel has lower flammability. I've read this is a myth perpetuated as a result of Soviet successes with diesels in WW2.  Comment?  Trekphiler 11:28, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Take one saucer of petrol and stick a match to it. Take one saucer of diesel and stick a match to it. Discuss. (Don't try this at home). GraemeLeggett 11:47, 28 November 2005 (UTC)


 * Yup, gas is not just flammable, it and its fumes are explosive. —Michael Z. 2005-11-28 15:54 Z 

Design
I added this:


 * "* Soviet tanks are traditionally rugged and simple, exemplified by the T-34. Since crews are expected to be of low education, the ability of tanks to take abuse and continue functioning was and is essential.  Extensive maintenance is expected to be done in specialized depots.  Simplicity also increases production for replacement of losses (crucial in WW2)."

I'd also suggest mentioning the high complexity of American tanks as a negative to operational effectiveness and overall military functioning; keeping such complicated machines running strains the logistic pipeline... Also, I'd suggest a section on future trends:  use of RWRs against homing missiles suggests need for chaff, jammers, & FTI systems. Trekphiler 10:22, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Sloped Armour
I could be wrong, but I'm fairly certain that sloped armour is used at least as much for the fact that it's effective thickness is much greater than the same amount of flat slab armour as it is for it's effectiveness at deflecting incoming projectiles. It's more of a case of simple geometry than making rounds bounce off.

See diagram below:



If this is correct, feel free to include this graphic if you feel it is of use. I was a gunner, not a tanker. :)

Gabe 14:41, 15 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I think you're right. This image could also go in the article about sloped armour (which should probably be merged into vehicle armour).  —Michael Z. 2005-09-15 15:43 Z 


 * This is a common misconception. If you want a 429mm thick "vertical equivalent" armour it's much more effective to simply use a 429mm thick real vertical armour: The armour plate weights the same (volume formula of a prism), but the vehicle is much easier to shape and so will weight less in the end and smaller so it will be harder to hit.
 * Also blunt penetrators (if they don't bounce off) "turn into" the armour so a sloped armour is actually less effective than a non sloped of equivalent thickness - if the projectile is not deflected (see ). Since deflecting modern KE penetrators is getting more and more difficult and modern composite armour just isn't hard enough for this task you see less sloping on the latest generation of MTBs than on the WWII era T-34. Alureiter 21:28, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
 * A bit too focused on the modern aspects in my opinion. This image is extremely helpful in explaining why sloped armor was very effective before the advent of various modern counter-measures.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:44, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Actually not at all, if you have read my first paragraph. The only advantage of sloped armour is in deflecting projectiles, the picture doesn't show this. Alureiter 17:25, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I always understood the benefits were mutual, & deflection helped make the effective thickness work. Trekphiler 02:14, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
 * Of course both effects have to be multiplied; but Alureiter is completely correct in asserting that the increase in LOS thickness offers no weight advantage. His statement that modern composite armour is, of all things, not hard enough, is completely wrong however :o).--MWAK 16:55, 9 December 2005 (UTC)

Firepower, mobility, protection, and C4I2

 * ...some argue that a fourth metric should be added to the measurement of tank capability: that of C4I2 (Command, Control, Communications, Countermeasures, Information and Intelligence).

Can anyone provide a reference or quote a military theoretician? By whom is this considered a new "metric" added to the pyramid of three factors influencing tank design, rather than a characteristic of the modern battlefield in general. Does improving a tank's C4I2 capability detract from its firepower, mobility, or protection? —Michael Z. 2005-09-16 22:01 Z 


 * It's not new, in fact it seems to have been replaced gradually over the last 10 years by C4ISR in contractor documents, and since it applies more to the battlefield in general than specific artefacts, it should be in the armoured warfare article instead of the Tank article. I've tried looking for it with no results and I have the impression it must be from a US only position paper meant to justify the move towards lightly armored vehicles, started under general Shinseki. --AlainV 04:27, 17 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I've renamed this section Tank, and added a historic overview to the front. Still needs work.


 * I'd still like to get rid of the weasel words "In fact, some argue that ...". If this is a U.S. doctrine or military procurement rhetoric, I'd like to say so, otherwise tone it down to something we know is true. —Michael Z. 2005-09-20 20:10 Z 

T-44
New article T-44 is on the Main Page with a photo today, under Did You Know. —Michael Z. 2005-09-23 14:43 Z 

Main Battle Tank vs. Battleship
In the article Battleship I tried to hint to the similarity of the consepts of a battleship and Main Battle Tank

The battleship article now starts:


 * In naval warfare, battleships were the most heavily armed and armored warships afloat. They were designed to engage enemy warships with direct or indirect fire from an arsenal of main guns. As a secondary role, they were capable of bombarding targets on and near an enemy coast to support infantry assaults. In the mid-20th century they became obsolete by the greater range and striking power of the aircraft carrier...

An article on Main Battle Tank might read something like this:


 * In land warfare, main battle tanks are the most heavily armed and armored fighting vehicles. They are designed to engage enemy tanks with direct fire from a main gun. As a secondary role, they are capable of bombarding targets in support óf infantry assaults. In the end of the 20th century they may have became obsolete by the greater range and striking power of the helichopters and other ground attack aircraft...

Similarity between MBTs and battleships extends to the design rules:
 * 1) Only big guns and only one type of gun (the biggest possible)
 * 2) The armor must be thick enough to survive direct hits from its own guns

(Do these rules have names? Should we have separate articles on them?)

The similarity is also expressed in the names main line of battle ship (or battleship for short) vs. main battle tank. These similarities arises from fundamental principals of armored warfare.


 * The problem is that this is simply not the case. An MBT operates as part of a tank platoon, as much as possible in combined arms operations with infantry, and supported by artillery, engineers, and other combat support arms.  Modern land operations are organized in a combined-arms combat group which includes a company or two of tanks, but does not revolve around them.


 * MBTs don't bombard a target, artillery batteries do. MBTs and mechanized infantry co-operate closely, with the tanks leading in open terrain and infantry leading in close terrain and in the assault.  I think the MBT's role has been reduced because of the recent emphasis on light operations and irregular warfare, but the idea that they have been rendered obsolete by helicopters was more of a 1970s theory than anything.


 * The concept of the tank did originate in the British "Landships Committee", but even during the First World War most tacticians were not taking the idea seriously. The Soviets were building multi-turretted tanks inspired by battleships into the 1930s (T-28, T-35, the experimental SMK), but their best designers redirected efforts into conventional designs (KV-1 and T-34).  I don't think you'll find a serious source written after about 1930 that compares tanks to battleships.  —Michael Z. 2005-09-28 22:42 Z 


 * You missed the point. Tanks with multiple turrets are like pre-Tsushima battleships with multiple types of guns. The process that removed the extra turrets and created the modern main battle tank is similar to the process that created the Dreadnoughts. The fundamental understanding is that tanks, like battleships, must be designed to battle tanks or ships of their own kind. This calls for the biggest guns possible, on a battleship only a few turrets, in a tank only one gun. -- Petri Krohn 00:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I would definitely agree that both tanks and battleships are ruled by the same economics of gunnery; fewer bigger guns are more powerful and longer-ranged than many small ones. But I would be very cautious about formulating any deeper analogy between tanks and battleships.  If you do so, at least provide a reference.  —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 04:06 Z 

Problem
In trying to bring out this point I have run into technical problems. At first I tried to add Main Battle Tank to the list of "See also" articles. This got changed to Tank as there is no article about Main Battle Tank and policy calls for listing articles by their primary title.


 * 1) Should we have a separate article on Main Battle Tank?
 * 2) Or should this article be renamed to Main Battle Tank?
 * Now this article seems to be about tanks in general (including all kinds of armored vehicles) and not about what makes a tank a MBT.

For starters I will change main battle tank to bold in the introduction.

-- Petri Krohn 19:41, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I don't recommend changing the name of the article to main battle tank as the term "Tank" encompasses MBTs, light infantry tanks, medium tanks, etc. If MBT deserves its own article, then I expect it would either remain very short (barely above dictionary entry size) or evolve into a list of MBTs.  In fact, perhaps List of Main Battle Tanks is appropriate.  Thoughts? - C HAIRBOY  (☎) 21:30, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Please keep in mind that the tank has a much longer history than the term MBT. The latter is a specific type of tank and this is supposed to be a general article about tanks in general. As for bolding MBT, this is pretty inappropriate. Bolding is supposed to be reserved for the article title in the lead and synonyms in English, something which MBT clearly isn't.
 * Personally, I can't see any problems with a separate article called main battle tank as long as it's made very clear that it's a sub-article of this one and not a concept separate from just "tank". Oh, and avoid capitalizing the term since it's not a proper noun.
 * Peter Isotalo 21:46, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I disagree! This is the article about the main battle tank and it's predecessors. The intro should say so, in bold.
 * For other types of tanks and armoured fighting vehicles we have the article Tank classification. For WW I tanks and history we have Tank history.


 * I looked at older versions of this article; main battle tank and MBT were in bold until 5 March 2005 when the intro was partially rewriten by Mzajac. The bold was removed without discussion. I am restoring the bold.


 * I will also make an addition to the intro, it misses the the whole raison d'être of the MBT and it's WW II predecessors, namely combat with enemy tanks. -- Petri Krohn 23:27, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We've already got an article on tank classification, with a reasonably good section on main battle tanks. Main battle tank should redirect there.  --Carnildo 22:07, 28 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Preferably the other way around: Tank should redirect to Tank classification and this article should be renamed Main battle tank. Most references to this article are in fact either references to MBT or they are general references to armoured fighting vehicles. An article about something as unspesific as a "tank" does not belong in an encyclopedia. (There is no article about warships either.) -- Petri Krohn 00:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * MBT and Main Battle Tank are technical terms. This is a general encyclopedia where the run of the mill user will expect "Tank" to be the principal article.  All the general print encyclopedias I consult more or less regularly at libraries have their tank article titled as "tank", with any number of terms (such as MBT) leading to it from their indexes.   --AlainV 01:57, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * "An article about something as unspesific as a "tank" does not belong in an encyclopedia."—I strongly disagree. This article is about tanks; if you limit it to MBTs then you have to wipe out the first forty or fifty years of tank history.  As someone wrote above, there could be a very short article explaining the technical meaning of "main battle tank" and referring to the main tank article (there are already short articles explaining tankette, infantry tank, and fast/cavalry/cruiser tank).  In the mean time, more specific terms like medium tank, main battle tank, etc., could profitably point to the article on tank classification.  —Michael Z. 2005-09-29 05:21 Z 


 * The reason this article discusses mainly the MBT is historical: originally, tank history, tank classification, tank research and development, and armoured warfare were all part of this article, but got split out when the respective section got too large. --Carnildo 06:11, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Petri, it's very wrong to force the modern miliatry-technical terms on all types of tank history. The tank has been around for far, far longer than the MBT concept and if you count pre-industrial precursors in the form of armored vehicles, it's still in its infancy. Forcing modern term straightjackets on historical encyclopedic terms is very anachronistic. As already pointed out, "MBT" is a sub-classification of "tank", not the other way around.
 * Peter Isotalo 10:33, 29 September 2005 (UTC)