Talk:Tank/Archive 5

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)


 * The T34 article claims that more T-54/55s were built that T-34s.Geni 18:33, 2 May 2007 (UTC)


 * If you take a look at this thread, we made a half-assed attempt to count tanks - z4.invisionfree.com/NSDraftroom/index.php?showtopic=122 I counted a total of 85,092 T-55s produced.  JonCatalan 00:30, 23 May 2007 (UTC)


 * It depends on what you call a tank. Very roughly, close to 10,000 tracked AFVs were made in WW1, about 50,000 in the thirties, about a quarter of a million tanks and self-propelled guns in WW2 and about the same since. So a very rough estimate of about 550,000 can be made. It's very probable any exact number — several are possible according to definition — lies between 500,000 and 600,000.--MWAK 07:00, 23 May 2007 (UTC)

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)
 * Jon you make some valid points but since you haven't gotten back to us, I'm going to assume that we're dropping this issue. Dhatfield (talk) 14:00, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Dhatfield, I'll be around for a little while so perhaps I could edit the article myself in that respect with some sources and whatnot. Since it seems you have taken up the maintenance of this article, perhaps we could coordinate?  JonCatalan (talk) 23:49, 26 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Doug please, being called by my username reminds me of school :) All additions and corrections are appreciated. I was thinking about this, and possibly some of the confusion regarding 'efficiency' of gas turbines vs diesels comes from the nature of the fuel itself. As far as I know kerosene is the most common fuel for gas turbines. Chemically speaking, kerosene (primarily C5 molecules) contains less energy per unit volume than diesel (C9-C10 mix). It has a lower energy density - diesel 38.7 MJ/L vs kerosene 33 MJ/L (17% more energy in diesel per unit volume). As a result, it will appear less "efficient" (larger fuel consumption in litres per km traveled) than a diesel engine, even if the "efficiency" of the engine (kinetic energy out per unit chemical kinetic energy in) is higher. So the conflict may be between the first definition of efficiency, which is the one the military is interested in vs the second definition, which is technically accurate but practically not very helpful. To explain all of this in an article on the tank seems a bit much, so I use the word "inefficient" because it's appropriate in context. Dhatfield (talk) 07:13, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

The timeline is incorrect with the placement of gas turbine engines. I do not know which tank implemented this feature first, but I know that the Stridsvagn 103 "S-tank" had a gas turbine engine. Actually, the S-Tank article does claim that it was the first with a gas turbine. Dhatfield, maybe you could fix this issue as you seem to have made the timeline graphics. Thanks. 85.11.205.18 (talk) 15:09, 11 July 2008 (UTC)


 * The first tank in which a gas-turbine engine was installed was an experimental Conqueror hull fitted with a 650 hp (later 900 hp) Parsons installation. This was in the 1950s IIRC. Ian Dunster (talk) 21:03, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

Ground pressure
I've changed the sentence about ground pressure since a favorable calculation of the T-90 versus a foot seems to be in favour of the foot. The T-90 tracks should be about 9 meters long and 2 x 0.5 meters wide. It weighs 46.5 tonnes, and so has a specific ground pressure of about 5000 kg/m2. A hevily laden soldier on one foot (such as when marching) would exert a specific ground pressure of about 100 kg / 0.25 x 0.1 m2 = 4000 kg/m2. europrobe 09:19, 4 June 2007 (UTC)


 * This seems to be original research, based on speculative calculations.


 * The Russian-language tank article has tanks' ground pressure listed between .85 (T-90) and 1.07 kg/cm² (8,500–10,700 kg/m², by my reckoning), although the figures are not specifically cited. My old Jane's lists the T-72 as having a ground pressure of .83 kg/cm², so that sounds right.


 * According to "ground pressure", the pressure of a human foot is 9–12 p.s.i. (6,328 to 8,437 kg/m², by my conversion), and presumably it would be higher for a laden soldier. If we pick the higher value, it's almost identical to the tank's.


 * I suspect a practical comparison would also take other factors into account. For example, a footstep exerts force down, while tracks push across to move.  Presumably tracks would gain floatation in softer material in comparison to solid ground, as their edges sunk into the material.  Without a source, we don't know how important these factors are, but I guess it's common to just compare ground pressures.


 * It would be better to find an original source which compares the ground pressure of tanks to people, for the article. —Michael Z. 2007-06-04 15:32 Z 
 * I've seen similar claims (tread superior to foot) for other tanks (S-tank?), but I can't recall a specific example, or source, offhand. Leave it in & let somebody find it. (I'll look.) Trekphiler 15:57, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

In the tank
I added, "(in the fashion of a radar detector)" to help clarify the issue, & deleted, "(the T-80 was dubbed the 'Flying Tank' for its high speed)" as irrelevant where it was; if somebody has a better place for it, put it back.

I also added this:
 * "Tanks suffer a major drawback compared to wheeled vehicles like armoured cars, being mechanically more complicated and requiring comparatively more maintenance. This places strains on an army's logistic system which may inhibit tank operations. In addition, design features may cause problems; the WW2 Panther, for instance, had interleaved road wheels, which tended to clog in mud or snow, and required five wheels to be removed to change a single inner wheel."

I'd say something about the Red Army practise of engine maintenance, if I could be sure they pulled them & shipped them to depots, like their MiG-21s. Can somebody check? Trekphiler 16:01, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Sounds right. I believe each Red Army tank's crew included a dedicated mechanic who stayed with the supply trains (don't know when this practice began; possibly during WWII).  Major maintenance, and fairly regular rebuilds and upgrades were done in established depots rather than in field shops, and tanks tended to get used up in battle and then sent back for major rebuilding.  During the Cold War Soviet tanks were factory-overhauled every 7,000 km, and I think they had a major engine overhaul every few hundred km.  I will try to find references, but it may be some time. —Michael Z. 2007-06-26 17:54 Z 


 * Have a look in Scott & Scott on the Sov Army. (My copy's in storage someplace...) I think that's where I saw it. (BTW, Cockburn's The Threat mentions the AF depots.)
 * On another note, I'd add another design ish, but can't be certain of it; did US WW2 tanks drive the front sprocket or the rear? IIRC, they did; can somebody confirm? I'm adding a note German tanks did. Trekphiler 03:32 & 03:36, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Additions
Lee Gibbs needs to be added here somewhere.

comma in first sentence
Shouldn't there be a comma after "tracked" in the first sentence?

A French invention?
Tanks were invented, and first used in World War I, by the British and French

News to me.--194.247.53.233 12:58, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * From memory, there was an earlier French project which got bogged down in red tape, but the Brits realized their tanks in the meantime. —Michael Z. 2007-07-29 21:06 Z 


 * If you look at the dates, the Schneider CA1 was developed almost simultaneously with the British Mark I tank. More detailed story in Tanks in World War I. —Michael Z. 2007-07-29 21:10 Z 
 * The accounts tend to emphasize the Brits, but the French were at least parallel, & IIRC, actually started first; the Brits got to the field first. Trekphiler 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
 * Eh I think there was also an early british project that failed to go anywhere and there were tanklike ideas floating around towards the end of the crimea war.Geni 09:32, 27 April 2008 (UTC)
 * No marks for thinking of it, or it would be credited to Leo, or somebody. Trekphiler (talk) 11:06, 27 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Seems there's still a certain amount of squabbling about this; whether it was Britain, France, both of them and Germany, or most recently, nobody at all! Since the unexplained removal of "origin" from the Infobox I've put it back to its previous value of UK/France though personally I disagree with having both; then again perhaps I would say that, being British, but it wasn't a joint effort and the British tank was the first to actually be used.  Regardless of that, I think when it gets to the point of removing useful information simply so that nobody gets "credit", it really is becoming rather unhelpful.--— Chris  (blather • contribs) 08:49, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * The first working prototype was the Vezdekhod of the Russian Empire. Better add them. —Michael Z. 2008-12-28 16:07 z 

Why do we even have an infobox
Why is there even an infobox? We can't agree on the "origins" (or people can't agree to just list every nation that can claim the title), and the rest of the fields are either very general or inaccurate. For example, armor... are we going to list every single type of armor developed for tanks? Armament... early tanks did not have large caliber guns; some even had only machine guns! Not all tanks had the same secondary armaments. In the suspension field, it describes the caterpillar track. In my opinion, we should just get rid of the infobox. JonCatalán(Talk) 20:53, 28 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Its inclusion seems fair enough to me: though we may know the basics of "what makes a tank", perhaps not everyone does and the "infobox as a brief overview" does seem to be an established way of providing that information. I'd say the country of origin is an important element of its history (as it is with many milestone developments) but I guess if it's impossible to reach a consensus as to who gets "credit" then perhaps it should be backed up with citations.  Not that I'm volunteering.--— Chris  (blather • contribs) 22:44, 28 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Then we have an infobox with three fields; three incorrect fields. It's useful for providing a brief and misleading introduction to the tank, full of inaccuracies.  That infobox was not designed for this type of topic; it was designed for a more specific topic (like a specific weapon). JonCatalán(Talk) 00:34, 29 December 2008 (UTC)


 * I think at this point I'll bow out and leave it for others to discuss, other than to register an opinion that I think the infobox is a good thing in principle, even if it does need some tweaks to make it more useful; personally I'd rather see any wrinkles ironed out rather than drop it completely, but I guess I just like infoboxes. But I have too much invested in other opinions about the way this (and other articles) are headed which may be too subjective for me to pursue with a clear vision.  Which is all I'll say, as unhelpfully cryptic as it may be...--— Chris  (blather • contribs) 02:06, 29 December 2008 (UTC)

Please see below for the original suggestion (and compare the example there). The infobox serves two purposes:


 * 1) It visually unifies this article with all the individual AFV articles.
 * 2) It summarizes the basic characteristics which define a tank.  If the content of any field, like origin, is not simple, clear, and generally applicable, then the field should simply be omitted.

Unfortunately, naïve editors will continue to helpfully add too much detail, which makes it silly. We could try to include it as a template, to discourage drive-by feature creep. —Michael Z. 2008-12-29 07:40 z 


 * I have cleaned it up a bit, and moved the (full set of) navbox to the bottom, to reduce clutter. If you ask me, origin should read “United Kingdom, France, and Germany”, the three countries which first built  tanks and put them into service. —Michael Z. 2008-12-29 07:51 z 

Oops
I restored the "(accidentally)" (if anybody cares...) because there was a German battery firing at a Brit tank & the crew forgot to set the fuse, so it didn't explode on impact, but penetrated anyhow, whence the introduction of solid AT shot... (It's in Macksey's book on tanks {Tank Warfare?), IIRC.) Trekphiler 16:50, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Armoured warfare
. . .is in a terrible state compared to this article. Anybody prepared to lend their expertise or at least transfer material? Slac speak up! 10:27, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Re-arranging, summarising & improving tank
I have begun the process of rearranging and (hopefully) improving style, grammar, &c. I will try my best to respect and preserve all content on the page as I found it. All edits / reverts welcome, but if reveting in bulk please give suggestions for improvement. Thanks in advance. Dhatfield (talk) 14:56, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I notice that WP automagically logged me out and recorded my edits under my IP. Peachy Dhatfield (talk) 20:36, 6 April 2008 (UTC)
 * To be merged into etymology: When the vehicles were transported they were covered with sheets labelled 'water tanks', and the name stuck. The name became official in December 1915.
 * Should appear in History of the tank "A tracked fighting vehicle was proposed in 1912 by Australian engineer L.E. De Mole. It was one of the earliest practical designs offered to the British War Office. He was notified in June 1913 his idea had been rejected, though only some of his drawings were returned. He resisted urging from friends to sell the design to the German consul in Perth "
 * Should appear in History of the tank "William Foster & Co. of Lincoln were responsible for building one of these designs, the 'Tritton machine' later known as 'Little Willie', in September 1915. Although Little Willie was not a great success..."
 * Should appear in History of the tank "..., one of two to breach German lines and reach Flers, but it was knocked out by friendly fire. One of these two also mistakenly machinegunned the 9th Norfolks, who were preparing to attack. The French developed the Schneider CA1 working from Holt caterpillar tractors, and first used it on 16 April 1917. The first successful use of massed tanks in combat occurred at Cambrai on 20 November 1917. Tanks were also used to great effect in the Battle of Amiens, when Allied forces were able to break through the entrenched German position due to armoured support."
 * Too much detail "German forces initially lacked countermeasures, though they did (accidentally) discover solid anti-tank shot, and introduced wider trenches to limit the British tanks' mobility. However, changing battlefield conditions and continued unreliability forced Allied tanks to evolve throughout the war, producing models such as the very long Mark V*, which could navigate large obstacles, especially wide trenches, more easily than their predecessors."
 * Should appear in History of the tank [[Image:FT 17.jpg|thumb|right|French-made World War I [[FT-17]] tank at Brussels Royal Army Museum.]] [[Image:Vickers E.jpg|thumb|right|Polish [[Vickers E]] tank.]]
 * The entire inter-war section should be moved to History of the tank. Reproduced below:

Interwar years: advances in design and tactics
With the tank concept now established, several nations designed and built tanks between the two world wars. The British designs were the most advanced, due largely to their interest in an armoured force during the 1930s. France and Germany did not engage in much development during the early interwar years due to the state of their economy, and the Versailles Treaty respectively (all German tanks had been destroyed as a condition of surrender ). The U.S. did little development during this period because the Cavalry branch was senior to the Armored branch and managed to absorb most of the (limited) funding earmarked for tank development. Even George S. Patton, with tank experience during WWI, transferred from Armor to Cavalry during this period (because the US Army decided not to fund a tank corps).

Throughout this period, several classes of tanks were common, most of this development taking place in the United Kingdom. Light tanks, typically weighing ten tons or less, were used primarily for scouting and generally mounted a small-calibre gun useful only against other light tanks. The medium tanks (cruiser tanks, in the United Kingdom) were somewhat heavier and focused on long-range high-speed movement. Finally, infantry tanks were heavily armoured and generally very slow. The overall idea was to use infantry tanks in concert with infantry to effect a breakthrough, their heavy armour allowing them to survive enemy anti-tank weapons. Once this combined force broke the enemy lines, groups of cruiser tanks would be sent through the gap, operating far behind the lines to attack supply lines and command units. This one-two punch was the basic combat philosophy of the British tank formations, and was adopted by the Germans as a major component of blitzkrieg. J.F.C. Fuller's doctrine of WWI was the fount for work by all the main pioneers: Hobart in Britain, Guderian in Germany, Chaffee in the U.S., de Gaulle in France, and Tukhachevsky in the USSR. All came to roughly the same conclusions, Tukhachevsky's integration of airborne pathfinders arguably the most sophisticated; only Germany would actually put the theory into practice, and it was their superior tactics, not superior weapons, that made blitzkrieg so formidable.

There was thought put into tank-against-tank combat, but the focus was on powerful anti-tank guns and similar weapons, including dedicated anti-tank vehicles. This achieved its fullest expression in the United States, where tanks were expected to avoid enemy armour, and let dedicated tank destroyer units deal with them. Britain took the same path, and both produced light tanks in the hope speed would enable them to avoid being hit, comparing tanks to ducks. In practice these concepts proved foolish. As the numbers of tanks on the battlefield increased, the chance of meetings grew to the point where all tanks had to be effective anti-tank vehicles as well. However, tanks designed to cope only with other tanks were relatively helpless against other threats, and were not well suited for the infantry support role. Vulnerability to tank and anti-tank fire led to a rapid up-armouring and up-gunning of almost all tank designs. Tank shape, previously guided purely by considerations of obstacle clearance, now became a trade-off, with a low profile desirable for stealth and stability.

Outside of the larger nations, designs such as the Vickers 6-Ton, which were cheap and sometimes built under license (or simply copied) were popular. Nations such as Poland and Bolivia tried using tankettes based on the Carden Loyd tankette design, a seemingly cheap way to provide an armored capability. A few derivatives, such as the Polish TKS had some value in combat, but most were merely machine-gun carriers and did not have a great impact on the battlefield.


 * History of WWII, not tank specific "In the Blitzkriegs of 1939-40, the Germans clearly had the initiative. Their forces roamed freely, avoiding strong opposition and creating havoc as Allied commanders quickly lost control of the battle. The panzers soon reached the English Channel, cutting off almost the entire British Expeditionary Force and many thousands of French soldiers."


 * Removed the following images because I thought better ones were available




 * Should be in firepower, not protection "One reason for the one-sided fighting during Operation Desert Storm was that tanks like the US M1 Abrams and the British Challenger had almost four times the night-time infrared scanning range of the older T-72s used by the Iraqi army."


 * Should be in Kosovo War article "Getting a tank to move proved to be important in the Kosovo conflict in 1999. During the initial few weeks of the conflict NATO air sorties were rather ineffective in destroying Serbian tanks. This changed in the final week of the conflict, when the Kosovo Liberation Army began to engage tanks. Although the KLA had little chance of destroying the tanks, their purpose was to get the tanks to move whereupon they could be more easily identified and destroyed by NATO air power. But even this proved ineffective, as the Serbian army had few tank losses on its side, while the KLA suffered heavy infantry losses. " —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhatfield (talk • contribs) 10:24, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Ghillie suit?
I get the connection, but isn't comparing tank camo to it a bit over the top? Trekphiler (talk) 04:20, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Well that Leopard camo looks pretty OTT, but you're right. Edited. Dhatfield (talk) 13:33, 12 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Looking at that Leopard camo, maybe it's not so outlandish a claim. =] It reminds me of WW2-era pix with attached branches & such. I still think "ghillie suit" is a bit strong, but maybe something...? Trekphiler (talk) 08:03, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm not overly impressed with the camo articles on WP - either too 'nature' oriented or too boring, but maybe one day... Dhatfield (talk) 13:11, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Exposed Crew
I have a few problems with this section:
 * 1. It is not sufficiently notable for this page
 * 2. This information may not be relevant in current combat situations - I suspect that this is (more or less) WWII specific.
 * 3. I don't know where it should go. Could people please look around for a good home for this well written and interesting information.




 * "Paradoxically, a tank is usually in its safest state when the commander is in a personally unsafe position, riding in the open, head out of the turret. In this rather high position (often called 'unbuttoned'), with no personal protection save maybe a helmet and a flak jacket, the commander can see around the vehicle with no restrictions, and has the greatest chance of spotting enemy antitank operations or natural and artificial obstacles which might immobilise or slow down the tank. Also, the tank itself is less visible as it can stay lower behind obstacles.


 * "Using periscopes and other viewing devices gives a commander much inferior field of vision and sense of the countryside. Thus, when a tank advances in hostile territory with hatches closed, the commander and the crew might be personally safer, but the tank as a whole is more at risk given the extremely reduced vision. In order to overcome this problem, improvements in onboard optical systems are ongoing.


 * "Due to the limitations of the 'closed hatch', many World War II tank commanders of all sides fought their tanks with open hatches. Sometimes this was even standard operating procedure. "

Dhatfield (talk) 14:13, 12 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I'd be inclined to put it back, under something like "tank operation" or "tactics"; it's a factor in how tanks fought, how crews adapted to the tactical situation, & how army doctrine & training dealt with the issue. (The Canadian War Museum website {I think}, for instance, had a "game" where choosing to go unbuttoned led to failure, despite actual wartime experience.) Trekphiler (talk) 08:08, 13 April 2008 (UTC)
 * My concerns remain. It isn't that notable and as far as I know it's specific to the period around WWII (not tanks in general). If there should be a tank operation or tank tactics page it should be separate (is there one?) since we are trying to bring down the length of this article. The fact that the Canadian War Museum is moderately clueless isn't a good reason for inclusion of content :) Dhatfield (talk) 13:08, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * How clueless CWM was is the point. Obviously, some people are ignorant. I hesitate to delete something & perpetuate ignorance, especially if length is the only issue. AFAIK, there's no "tactics" page, tho maybe there should be. (I'm by no means qualifed, but...) I'm going to put a request on the MilHist talk page. Trekphiler (talk) 13:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
 * I'm going to put a request on the MilHist talk page. Excellent. There are lots of other tactics articles. The flanking maneuver and pincer movement will fit well with a tank tactics article. Dhatfield (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Mobility to go under military logistics
The logistics of getting from point A to point B are not as simple as they appear. On paper, or during any test drive of a few hours, a single tank offers better off-road performance than any wheeled fighting vehicle. On the road the fastest tank design is not much slower than the average wheeled fighting vehicle design. In practice, the huge weight of the tank combined with the relative weakness of the track assembly makes the maximum road speed of a tank really a burst speed, which can be kept up for only a short time before there is a mechanical breakdown. Although the maximum off-road speed is lower, it cannot be kept up continuously all day long, given the variety and unpredictability of off-road terrain (with the possible exception of plains and sandy deserts).

Since tank tracks have a limited life, every opportunity is used to move tanks on wheeled tank transporters and by railway instead of under their own power. Tanks invariably end up on railcars in any country with a rail infrastructure, because no army has enough wheeled transporters to carry all its tanks. Planning for railcar loading and unloading is crucial staff work, and railway bridges and yards are prime targets for enemy forces wishing to slow a tank advance.

When moving in a country or region with no rail infrastructure and few good roads, or a place with roads riddled by mines or frequent ambushes, the average speed of advance of a tank unit in a day is comparable to a man on a horse or bicycle. Frequent halts must be planned for preventive maintenance and verifications in order to avoid breakdowns during combat. This is in addition to the tactical halts needed so the infantry or the air units can scout ahead for the presence of enemy antitank groups. The German panzers, assuming that they would face minimal opposition, broke this rule, but suffered significant attrition due to equipment failure as they sped through France and Russia.

Another mobility issue is getting the tank to the theatre of operations. Tanks, especially main battle tanks, are extremely heavy, making it very difficult to airlift them. Using sea and ground transportation is slow, making tanks problematic for rapid reaction forces. Dhatfield (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Right on all counts. Then add fuel, ammo, spares, food, soap... NASA's got a good word for it: consumables. And the max sustained rate of advance is around 60 km/day, even against next to zero resistance. Ignore logistics, & you get the fiasco of Normandy. Trekphiler (talk) 18:41, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Agreed, but see response to next post. I included referenced information in the article regarding the rate of advance of the panzer divisions to partially offset the loss. There will be no soap or NASA in the tank article :) Dhatfield (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Changes look good, but the article structure reflects the traditional three attributes of the tank: firepower, protection, and mobility—which is sometimes further subdivided into tactical mobility and theatre mobility/maintenance/logistics (and CCC is sometimes considered a fourth). I wouldn't chose to lose this organization.  Also, mobility is an attribute of a tank, while military logistics is a broader subject area.


 * Firstly, thanks. My suggestion to split off tank mobility (as it relates to primarily theatre / logistical concerns) comes from readability and notability concerns. Somebody reading tank wants a succinct article where the guts of the subject are behind the scenes, well referenced and waiting for the interested reader to dive into the detail. Sticking to simple, traditional classifications limits the chances of confusion for the casual/uninformed reader. We need like we need a tank tactics article. If we include tactical, theatre, CCC, etc. in the mobility section it'll be twice as long as the firepower section which unbalances the text. Mobility already has as many "column inches" as protection and both have significantly more than firepower. Dhatfield (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * The Vulnerability section looks like its contents could be redistributed into Protection and Mobility/Logistics. —Michael Z. 2008-04-15 21:15 Z 
 * I'm getting there, give me a day or two. Sheesh, tough crowd ;) Dhatfield (talk) 07:23, 16 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Done - merged into Intro, Protection and Mobility --Dhatfield (talk) 12:11, 16 April 2008 (UTC)


 * I only had time to scan over it for now, but the article is looking vastly improved. Bringing it up to regain featured status looks much more manageable now.  Good work. —Michael Z. 2008-04-28 01:02 Z 


 * Thanks Micheal, much appreciated. What we need now is an impressive list of references. Dhatfield (talk) 11:51, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Deep fording
Too much detail " The Leopard snorkel is in fact a series of rings which can be stacked to create a long tube. This tube is then fitted to the crew commander's hatch and provides air and a possible escape route for the crew. The height of the tube is limited to around three meters.

All modern Soviet/Russian tanks are also able to perform deep fording operations, however unlike the Leopard, the Russian snorkel is only a few inches round and does not provide a crew escape path, although it is more practical and can be stored on the tank. " Dhatfield (talk) 09:01, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
 * Found a home for this and other amphibious tank info at Amphibious vehicle Dhatfield (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

The Leopard snorkel looks like that on the photo:--Care Alto (talk) 16:38, 10 May 2008 (UTC)
 * Moved to main article*

Future of tank warfare section?
Content " Some tank-like vehicles use wheels instead of tracks in order to increase road speed and decrease maintenance needs. These vehicles lack the superior off-road mobility of tracked vehicles, but are considered by United States planners as more suited for rapid reaction forces due to increased strategic mobility. " Dhatfield (talk) 16:03, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

More on Assymetric warfare? --Dhatfield (talk) 16:47, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Electrothermal-chemical technology for firepower Dhatfield (talk) 08:14, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Gas turbines
I am debating the notability of the following text: " Because of their lower efficiency, the thermal signature of a gas turbine is higher than a diesel engine at the same level of power output. On the other hand, the acoustic signature of a tank with a muffled gas turbine can be quieter than a piston engine–powered one. The M1A2 was nicknamed 'Whispering Death' for its quiet operation. "

There is exactly one latest generation tank that uses a gas turbine. I have moved the rest of the gas turbine info to Gas turbine. Opinions? --Dhatfield (talk) 16:11, 15 April 2008 (UTC)


 * It's okay, because the individual tank articles should describe their characteristics in detail. Might just throw in a brief descriptive like "powerful but fuel-hungry gas turbines" here, to give the reader some context. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 16:13 z 

Disputed statement that has not been referenced
''In WWI, situation reports were sent back to headquarters by releasing carrier pigeons through vision slits. Deployment of signal flares or smoke grenades, movement, and weapon fire were all used by experienced crews to coordinate their tactics.'' If someone can reference this, please do. Dhatfield (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Patrick Wright (2002). Tank: The Progress of a Monstrous War Machine, ISBN 978-0670030705, p 48:


 * "To the extent that they communicated at all, the tank crews did so by squeezing carrier pigeons out through a hole in a gun sponson, by brandishing a shovel through the manhole, or by frantically waving coloured discs in the air."


 * I speculate that the pigeons were only used to send reports to higher command. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 15:55 z 


 * Thanks Micheal, they're back. Dhatfield (talk) 21:48, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

You say Ajeya
Can somebody include a translation...? Trekphiler (talk) 09:03, 28 April 2008 (UTC)
 * The second hit on Google gives me 'Ajeya. Meaning: Its source is a jita, a Sanskrit name meaning "Invincible."' Dhatfield (talk) 22:41, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

I think unconquerable is better translation. Jeya means one who is won or conquered so A-Jeya is unconquered. Invincible would be Abhedya. --Nikhil Sanjay Bapat (talk) 14:29, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Language edit wars
...continue. Are we using armor or armour? Realised or realized? The inconsistency within the article detracts from the quality. NPOV: I favour British due to the origins of the tank. POV: I prefer British. Dhatfield (talk) 11:44, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrote all references
Well, that's about all there is to say. Please help out with more refs so we can get this article back up to Featured Article status. Any format is fine, I'll fix it up later, but if you can follow the existing layout (inline link to notes, notes link to reference), please do. Alternatively, just put a reference here on the talk page with which statement you are referencing and I'll add it. Dhatfield (talk) 15:46, 16 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some issues there. First, is it really necessary to quote extensively what's already been said in the article? Second, the "pp." is for more than one page, not just a single page ("p."). And if you're going to use the exact language of a source ("truly formidable", "main tasks"), you need to use quotation marks, or it's technically plagiarism. Trekphiler (talk) 14:24, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the info. I was uncertain about the degree to which I should use quotations and/or the words of the original source. In some cases, the quotations added detail or flavour to the text, although some were clearly redundant. I'll look into moving on your suggestions further tomorrow. Dhatfield (talk) 18:13, 18 May 2008 (UTC)


 * On reflection, I don't think what was written was plagiarism in any way, shape or form. "Plagiarism is the practice of claiming or implying original authorship of (or incorporating material from) someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part, into one's own without adequate acknowledgement." and further "...plagiarism is concerned with the unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation that is achieved through false claims of authorship." In all contexts where words similar to those of the original author were used a (very comprehensive) reference to the relevant author was included. That procludes the possibility that I was claiming or even implying original authorship. And I was not doing so in order to earn an "unearned increment to the plagiarizing author's reputation", but rather to the original author's reputation. Advantages of closely following the author's original words in the context of clear and explicit attribution:
 * The reader and fact checkers in general can be sure that the statement closely replicates the spirit and extent of the claim in the source.
 * It precludes the (rather sophisticated) weasel word approach of making extensive, sweeping statements and then using a single attribution that covers only one aspect of the preceding text to cover everything, commonly by placing a single citation at the end of a paragraph.
 * Imitation is the sincerest form of flattery. I doubt if authors will be incensed that their words are used, simply because they used good words - hence the increment to the original author's reputation.
 * Overzealous application of policies and/or serious allegations of their violation are hindering, not promoting, the generation of quality articles on WP and I take this as a case in point. Ignoring the line-by-line rewrite from 60kB to 37kB, I have at least doubled the number of inline citations and added a third of the references in this article (and added ISBNs to the rest) without assistance from a single other contributor, despite repeated requests for same, and you accuse me of plagiarism?!
 * I'm sure I'm Climbing the Reichstag over this, but I suppose I'm disappointed that the collaborative spirit of WP is a myth. Or that everyone else is on holiday. Dhatfield (talk) 10:21, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "the practice of incorporating material from someone else's written or creative work, in whole or in part" Have a look at some of the footnotes & some of the text before correction. It met this definition. I make no accusations of who, but post it as a warning. Moreover, if the article is to be a reliable source, if this isn't corrected, we risk having somebody else unwittingly being accused. Trekphiler (talk) 16:03 & 16:05, 19 May 2008 (UTC)
 * To clarify. The article, previously said, "a truly formidable weapon system", while the cited source said, "a truly formidable weapon system". The article said, "all the main tasks of the of the armoured troops on the battlefield.", while the source said, "all the main tasks of the of the armoured troops on the battlefield." QED. See here, if you doubt it. Trekphiler (talk) 16:59, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Speaking of questionable citation practices, you omit the end of the sentence you quote: "...without adequate acknowledgement." I did originate both sentences - I forget if the automatic logoff caught me (again). I acknowledge that both sentences replicated parts of the text. I dispute that they were inadequately acknowledged, or that the intention as per the definition of plagiarism. However, you have alerted me that others may have as narrow-minded a view of the topic as you and I thank you for that. I do not want to be accused of plagiarism, no matter how groundless the accusation. Dhatfield (talk) 19:24, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * "...without adequate acknowledgement."? I call not using quotes when you're using the exact language inadequate. As a writer, I'm troubled by the common WP view it's okay to use somebody else's work as if it's your own just by mentioning the source. If that's narrow minded, I accept that. Trekphiler (talk) 11:52, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

You're missing the point of what plagiarism is and is not and hence coming into conflict with other authors. It's not about "the exact words". That's the High School approximation to the idea of plagiarism and a prime example of applying the letter, rather than the spirit, of a policy (which is against policy). Plagiarism is about theft of ideas and/or credit. The principle of avoiding plagiarism is "credit where credit is due". If I paraphrased someone else's work (without using a single "exact phrase") and claimed it as my own that would be the most deceitful form of plagiarism. I found that writing a Doctoral thesis and considering how my ideas might be stolen gave me a broader perspective on intellectual property issues. Maybe you would also benefit from the exercise. Mentioning the source is not enough: hence inline citations. Dhatfield (talk) 15:57, 20 May 2008 (UTC)
 * "You're missing the point" Actually not. They're both wrong. What troubles me is both spirit & letter being ignored on WP. The principle behind plagiarism may be theft of ideas; the execution is (often) theft of words. I draw no distinction, because if you're stealing phrasing, it's not your work anymore. Trekphiler (talk) 21:26, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a fine line and a grey area, which are best avoided. With this in mind, I suggest that every reference be either paraphrased in completely original language, or directly quoted with quotation marks. If we even have to discuss the definition of plagiarism on talk:Tank, then we have failed to unambiguously and completely avoid the appearance of plagiarism.

It can be hard to paraphrase a well-written source without making it sound worse, and it can be tempting to rewrite it "using the thesaurus", as it were. For this reason, I usually try to first write a passage without looking at my source, whether I've read it recently or not. This way, the sentence structure and key phrases are my own. Then I'll look over the source, and ensure that I haven't missed any important points. —Michael Z. 2008-05-20 22:55 z 


 * My sentiments exactly. As I noted (without Shakespeare to hand) on Dhatfield's talk page, I think we should be as spotless as Caesar's wife. And sometimes, the sources use language that isn't as NPOV as we want, either, which was the sense I got from the quoted material; a tick "over the top" for WP NPOV. Trekphiler (talk) 23:53, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. My over-reaction was based on context. Can we consider blockquotes in footnotes? Dhatfield (talk) 22:01, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Blitzkrieg or blitzkrieg
We appear to have a problem. Care Alto states in his edit summary "correct "Blitzkrieg" not "blitzkrieg"!", while Trekphiler states in his edit summary "Wrong Capitals Crusade (blitzkrieg is not a proper noun)". Can we please have clarity on this. Please also clarify whether Wehrmacht and Panzer are correctly italicised or not. I haven't a clue. Dhatfield (talk) 15:26, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Consistency uber alles. Not capitalised, at least not on the English Wikipedia. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 15:37, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Canadian Oxford has l.c. blitzkrieg and panzer, with no italics. We don't switch to German orthography for English borrowings from German.  (The gloss lightning war should also be in l.c., preferably with single quotation marks.)


 * Wehrmacht is a proper noun: capitalized, no italics. —Michael Z. 2008-05-20 23:46 z 


 * Wehrmacht & blitzkrieg both foreign words, hence italics. Trekphiler (talk) 15:51, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Sorry Trekphiler, but I suggest we go with the advice of the experts at Oxford, rather than your preference. Defence, hotel, taxi, toboggan, gerbil, sushi, cappuccino are other examples of loan words that we don't italicize. —Michael Z. 2008-05-21 17:10 z 


 * I'd agree, if blitzkrieg & Wehrmacht were as commonly used as toboggan and gerbil; personally, I'd italicize sushi & cauppuccino, too, no matter what OED or Starbucks does. Trekphiler (talk) 01:50, 22 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Well that is fine for your personal writing. But why would Wikipedia choose to use your own idiosyncratic habit over what is generally used in English?  Seriously, why are you wasting time arguing that your style is better than that of the editors of books by Deighton, Mosier, Zaloga, and other respected writers on the subject?


 * Search for "blitzkrieg" on Google Books, and in Amazon's "search inside". The word "blitzkrieg"' is always rendered in roman font when referring to the type of warfare, sometimes capitalized "the Blitzkrieg" when referring to the German war of 1939, and rarely italicized Blitzkrieg when referring specifically to the German word.


 * Incidentally, going by Google, Wehrmacht is found on more English-language web pages than toboggan, and Wehrmacht and blitzkrieg are found in more English books. Will you start italicizing toboggan and gerbil?


 * Blitzkrieg is a naturalized English word, as are its plural blitzkriegs (e.g., the ones in France and Poland) and possessive blitzkrieg's. The German translations are Blitzkriege and des Blitzkrieges. —Michael Z. 2008-05-22 05:22 z 

Sadly, some images have got to go
We don't want this article cluttered with images running into each other, so I'm pruning. I suggest Leclerc because despite the great quality it's not as dramatic as the other two. M1 Abrams because it doesn't link into the text. Maybe if we had something referenced about the high logistical cost of tanks. T-90 because it doesn't show the snorkel in action whereas the one in the article, despite being an AFV, not a tank, is more indicative of the snorkel in action.

Comments? Dhatfield (talk) 19:52, 19 May 2008 (UTC)


 * The new table is inappropriate. We should just bite the bullet and remove those three; we have a Commons link to get to the complete collection, and this really is pretty swamped in amages right now. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 07:00, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * There are a lot more images that have to go, and the FT-17 deserves one, especially because it started the French, American, Spanish, German, Japanese and Chinese armed forces. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.80.78.5 (talk) 14:28, 20 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I suggest a properly ordered gallery under appropriate headings / more prominent commons link to be appended to the article. Dhatfield (talk) 15:40, 20 May 2008 (UTC)

Timeline
I like the new post-WWII timeline. But I'll go ahead and make some suggestions in case it is not too hard to make changes.

Maybe call this "Timeline of main battle tanks". There were a few interesting heavy and light tanks, but the former became obsolete and the latter fulfilled very different roles.

Soviet Union should probably say something like USSR/Russia, if it includes post-Soviet tanks like the T-90. T-54/55 should be T-55, since the T-54 was already in production for a decade.

I think that it may be more informative to list important technological or military milestones associated with tanks. This would give the reader an idea of the developments throughout the period, rather than just being an ordered list of tank models. I don't think it's necessary to have a separate legend for countries: does it still work if you just leave out the countries, or perhaps just colour the USSR red before 1991. Here are some suggestions:


 * 1945 M26 Pershing (90mm gun)
 * 1946 T-54 (100mm gun)
 * 1959? Centurion Mk 5 (L7 105mm gun)
 * 1961 T-62 (115mm smoothbore gun)
 * 196? Chieftain (120mm rifled gun)
 * 1961 * RPG-7
 * 1963 * AT-3 Sagger
 * 1967 Stridsvagn 103 (turretless tank, supplementary gas turbine)
 * 1967 T-64A (125mm smoothbore gun with autoloader)
 * 1967 [Yom Kippur War]
 * 1968 IT-1 missile tank
 * 1970 * TOW missile
 * 1976 T-64B (gun-launched missile)
 * 1976 T-80 (gas turbine engine)
 * 1979 Merkava (infantry compartment)
 * 1979 Leopard 2 (120mm smoothbore gun)
 * 1980 M1 Abrams (Chobham armour, separate ammunition storage)
 * 1982 ERA used in Lebanon
 * 1991 [disintegration of the Soviet Union]
 * 1998 Challenger 2 (UK adopts smoothbore gun)

What else? When did the following enter active service?:

Technology
 * 1-axis gun stabilizer
 * 2-axis gun stabilizer
 * IR night fighting equipment
 * LI night-fighting
 * thermal night-fighting
 * laser rangefinder
 * integrated fire control
 * digital fire control
 * nuclear blast protection
 * real NBC protection and filtration
 * laser detector
 * anti-laser, anti-thermal aerosol (smoke)
 * soft-kill active protection system
 * hard-kill APS

Tank ammunition
 * HESH
 * 1944 APDS (British 17-pdr)
 * APFSDS
 * DU penetrators

Threats
 * MCLOS ATGM
 * SACLOS ATGM
 * radio-guided ATGM
 * laser-guided ATGM
 * fire-and-forget ATGM
 * top-attack ATGM

This is all too much to clutter a single timeline with, but you see what I'm getting at. Parallel tank and tank threat timelines might be interesting. —Michael Z. 2008-05-21 08:15 z 


 * Might also be interesting to portray the Cold War arms race by putting Western developments on one side of the line and Soviet ones on the other. —Michael Z. 2008-05-21 08:19 z 


 * It only took me two days to put that last one together, I'll see what I can do :) Problem is that something like you're suggesting (parallel bars, significant amounts of text) would be huge. I don't think we could put it on the main page, and by the time it's on a sub-page it'll probably never get looked at. Work takes priority for the next few days, but as I say, I'll see what I can do over the weekend. Thanks for the suggestions. If you have time to put together the data for WWII (or even WWI?) tanks, Battles, I could do that one too. Dhatfield (talk) 20:16, 21 May 2008 (UTC)


 * It's easy for me to throw out ideas, but I realize it's a lot of work to pare them down to what's workable, and still more to actually make something—thanks for the work, and I hope you didn't take my comments badly badly. The timeline is already a good addition to the article.  (By the way, did you make use of something like mw:Extension:EasyTimeline/syntax?  See also WP:TIMELINE.)


 * I always appreciate your encouragement and sane voice. I am using EasyTimeline (something of a misnomer), but getting the inline rendered table (with links) to look like the offline rendered svg is tricky. If you can assist, or are curious, take a look at User:Dhatfield/Sandbox. I was genuine about trying it out when time is available. I can take some time off from work, but not from my mother-in-law :) Dhatfield (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I will see about starting the data lists for more timelines over the next days. I don't really have a comprehensive reference, so I'll depend on other editors to fill them out.  Other periods may be even less focussed than dealing with only MBTs for 1945–2008.  Cheers. —Michael Z. 2008-05-21 23:55 z 


 * I was aiming for 'important' or 'milestone' tanks / events, due to space constraints. The research really just involves going to each page and extracting a dd/mm/yyyy or yyyy for each event / period. For now I am trusting to the pages for their own internal validation & accuracy. Dhatfield (talk) 09:08, 24 May 2008 (UTC)



I'll put in the time periods again later. I think we need more between 1980 and 1998. Back-date to start of WWII? More tanks? Fewer tanks? Other comments? Dhatfield (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, that looks pretty good. I suspect that WWII would be better on its own, because the pace of developments was so much faster and the players were different (Axis & Allies, or West, Axis, & USSR).  Maybe it gets spare starting in the 1980s because there were more advancements in electronics, armour, and ammunition than in gun calibre or overall design. —Michael Z. 2008-05-25 15:47 z 


 * Typo: T-62 has 115mm gun. —Michael Z. 2008-05-25 15:48 z 


 * Thanks for spotting the typo. We should investigate the electronics, armour, etc. I think it's an important part of the development. I'll look into your list of techs above, perhaps you can do the same? Dhatfield (talk) 16:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I included only named wars with no legend so as not to overwhelm the tank development text. I think it provides context for the developments (and visual interest). Unfortunately, this bar can only go along the middle - a separate bar breaks the spacing. What do you think? Dhatfield (talk) 17:27, 25 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Better and better! Busy time, so I probably won't be able to help much.


 * The wars do add valuable context: interesting, because you often don't see these facets of the history juxtaposed. You may be able to include more events if the bars were staggered.  I don't think a central bar is necessary. —Michael Z. 2008-05-26 05:20 z 

Korean War   Vietnam War                                      Gulf War            Iraq War ********     *****************************                    **                  *******             **            *              *                                                       Suez Crisis   Six-Day War    Yom Kippur War

Here is relevant information on the Challenger 2 modification program which will be conducted in the upcoming years, from Janes IDR:

''The UK has begun a Challenger 2 main battle tank (MBT) Capability Sustainment Programme (C2 CSP), which aims to keep the vehicles viable until their projected out-of-service date in about 2035.

Part of the UK's recently formed Defence Equipment and Support organisation, the Future Systems Group (FSG), has issued an invitation to tender (ITT) for the C2 CSP to BAE Systems Land Systems, which is the design authority for the Challenger 2. The short-term aim is to continue to derisk the programme before additional funding is released.

The Challenger Lethality Improvement Programme (CLIP), which includes the replacement of the current 120 mm L30 series rifled tank gun with a 120 mm L/55 smoothbore gun, will be rolled into the C2 CSP. The FSG has been funding CLIP for several years, and the first unmanned firing of the weapon installed in a Challenger 2 MBT took place in early 2006.'' JonCatalan (talk) 14:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Ok, in your list, where is Active protection system and Explosive reactive armor? Why did you omit these two major advances? Israel is suddenly a western nation? Perhaps it is worth noting that those people who designed Merkava are former soviet designers. Also worth mentioning that Israel invented light ERA, soviets- heavy ERA, also russians invented Active protection system. Why differentiating? Because heavy ERA can stop APFSDS (was confirmed by US and german government tests of soviet T-72 with Kontakt-5 ERA), while light one can not, and is used only against HEAT type projectiles. If you wish to argue that those things did not go into production, that would be false. Consider adding those things if you want to claim to have anything resembling a complete list of tank advancements.99.231.50.118 (talk) 02:26, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Dispute year of development and first production of T-54
Copied from T-54/55 discussion:

The reference I have [] states that the T54 was developed in 1954 and was "Standard equipment of the medium-tank regiments and of the tank battalions in the mechanised infantry since 1955." The T-55 is not mentioned in this work. Can somebody please clarify or reference otherwise? Micheal, you seem to know more about this naming convention confusion. I'd like to ensure that tank is accurate. Dhatfield (talk) 13:57, 24 May 2008 (UTC)




 * The article T-54/55 has a pretty detailed, referenced production history (I helped). Design started in 1943(!), and the initial model T-54-1, with the funky turret, entered service in 1946, and "entered full production" in '47 (whatever that means).  The T-55, basically "version 2.0" of the same tank with added NBC protection, started production in 1958, and was built new in Czechoslovakia until 1983.


 * Some sources don't bother differentiating the two, typically referring to them as "T-54/55". The Kartsev design bureau took over development from Morozov, and its T-54A started production in 1955, so maybe your reference has confounded this version with the whole series. —Michael Z. 2008-05-24 15:15 z 


 * Looks like it. The source isn't what I'd call 'authoritative', and probably too close to the time (1960). Dhatfield (talk) 16:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Started peer review
I hope you approve that I listed you as co-editors on this. Can be found at Peer review/Tank. Dhatfield (talk) 11:30, 27 May 2008 (UTC)


 * I hadn't really read it over all the way through lately, so I'm adding some comments to the review. Don't forget to go through the listing procedure (WP:MHPR). —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 05:17 z 

Water operations
Some factoids for reference, here or combat engineering. From FM 100-2-2: The Soviet Army: Specialized Warfare and Rear Area Support, 16 July 1984. Washington DC: Department of the Army. It bears no copyright notice, and as far as I know it is public domain like other US gov't pubs. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 07:41 z 

Chapter 6: “River Crossings”

p 6-1:

"Unmanned tanks can be moved acrss a river by means of a winch system. This system permits a tank company of 10 tanks to be moved across a river up to 200 meters wide in about 35 minutes (excluding preparation)."

"The Soviets estimate that about 60 percent of all obstacles they would encounter in Europe are less than 20 meters wide."


 * MTU tank bridge: 12.3 metres in 3–5 minutes, class 50 (50 t capy.), 1 per MR regt., 3 per tank regt.
 * MTU-20: same, but 20 m
 * MT-55 tank bridge: 17 m, 1.5 min, class 50

p 6-2:


 * TMM scissors bridge: 42 m, 20–40 min, class 60 (4x 10.5 m span per regt.)
 * PMP pontoon bridge: 119 m, built at 7 m/min, class 60, or 281 m, class 20, or can act as rafts for wider obstacles (16x 1/2-section and 2x end ramps per engr. btn of tank or MR div)
 * GSP ferries, K-61 or PTS carriers, PKP floating trailers are held by this btn's assault crossing cpy.
 * An army can bridge 681 m.
 * A front may have 2x the capacity.

pp 6-2 – 6-3:

Those were the tactical assets. The Soviets also had line of communications (LOC) bridging, emplaced by troops of the Military Transportation Service, and larger equipment, some stockpiled where it would be needed, and an inventory of fixed bridges and obsolete bridging. NZhM-56, class 120 floating vehicle/rail bridges. MARM, SARM, AND BARM (small, med., lrg. highway sectional bridge) can be built at 20 m/hour to 35 m/hr. A 400 m class 600 barge bridge can be built in 24 hrs.

p 6-5, under “Assault crossing from the march”

"Motorized rifle battalion crossings have been described as lasting from 45 minutes to an hour and a half. the first figure probably considers only combat elements, excluding support and logistic elements. ¶ Tank unit crossings are more complicated than motorized rifle assaults."

6-6:

"With engineer support, a motorized rifle regimet can cross a river 200 meters wide with a current of 2 meters per second in 2 or 3 hours. A tank regiment normally does not cross in the first echelon. Once PMP bridging has been erected, second echelon motorized rifle or tank regiments normally can cross in less than an hour."

6-8:

The tactical crossings above are intended to be done from the march where there is little or no resistance. The Soviets paid less attention to "prepared river crossings", which would be much more complicated affairs conducted under fire.

Lotsa good stuff in those U.S. FMs. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 07:41 z 


 * Wow - brilliant. I have changed the article to reflect this. The info here is excellent and should go in combat engineering. I will look into it once I've finished your other review comments. Maybe a table? Dhatfield (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Some more general links for this are armoured vehicle-launched bridge, Pontoon bridge (which includes a photo of a PMP pontoon section). —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 15:12 z 

Power table
With apologies to our SI unit impared brethren, I left out lbs (easy to put in) because it gets cluttered, but stuck with horsepower because it's a standard in cars & tanks. the main page table will exclude weight but I left it in here to check the calcs. Dhatfield (talk) 10:15, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Leopard and Abrams weigh about 62 tonnes. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 14:34 z 


 * I have no idea how I duffed that calc so badly and then didn't realise it was out of ball-park. Lucky it didn't make it onto the main page, or I would really have egg on my face. Dhatfield (talk) 20:27, 28 May 2008 (UTC)


 * No biggy. We got your back. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 00:55 z 

Copyright issue on image of T-90
The T-90 picture we are using in the article has unknown copyright status and is up for deletion. Please help us source a good open license image. I am trying, but no luck yet. Dhatfield (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Does it need to be of a T-90, specifically? I have many that I took myself, but unfortunately right now it's basically the M1 and any tank that was in Spanish service, including a T-72 turret which was transferred to Indra for a training program which never materialized. JonCatalan (talk) 22:16, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Ours doesn't have to be a T-90, although I was trying to get a balance between all major models & combatants. The guys over at T-90 are going to need a new one, so it's worth a try. There are some fantastic pics of the T-90 on the web, but I cannot find the authors. Dhatfield (talk) 08:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * File:Indian Army T-90.jpg is probably your best bet.Geni 12:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Yep, pity about the luminous camo scheme and the static shot. I was angling for a Russian T-90 (I know about the ones on WikiMedia and I'm not a big fan), like one of these but I suppose the authors of those pics aren't going to appear any time soon, so I'll try and fix the Indian T-90 up a bit. Dhatfield (talk) 15:51, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * In that case you can try asking the author of the existing photo here. Or try the author of this.Geni 16:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I 'know' the author (he gave me the patent to K-5). Those images are free to use, as per-

"You are free to use any information and pictures from the site for any purpose, except where copyright is explicitly said to belong to a particular person or group other than your humble servant. - Credits" AFAIK, all those images can be used, then'. You can try emailing him; he will most likely reply. JonCatalan (talk) 16:10, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that Jon, I've sent him a mail asking for hi-res pics. In the meantime I cleaned up and swapped out for the Indian T-90. Dhatfield (talk) 00:21, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Images general
I am busy improving the look of all of the images in the article, so you may notice some appearance changes (I hope for the better). Dhatfield (talk) 19:49, 2 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Big improvement, thank you. The previous selection of images did seem a bit... well, samey and tired, the new bunch seem much more relevant and offer a considerably better cross-section.  Nice work.--— Chris  (blather • contribs) 23:40, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I like it
Hi all,

I just wanted to say that I really enjoyed reading this article. I found it informative and clear, and the pictures included are just great. Some people don't appreciate the importance of visual aids, but I think it really adds here. I also enjoyed that movie about the WWI tanks. Heck, I even got my Mum to see it!

So yeah, keep up the great work and thanks! Greglo (talk) 11:50, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

21st Century asymmetric warfare
I've made a start here. It's rough draft right now, but I'd appreciate some input before I follow through. Is it reasonable to suggest that asymmetric warfare has driven tanks towards urban warfare? There's lots of info on tanks in modern urban contexts (or other difficult terrain) resulting from unconventional conflicts but little on their role in the broader scope of asymmetric war itself. Please advise. Dhatfield (talk) 20:45, 7 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry I haven't done what I promised I would do; I have been busy with the Verdeja, Lince and Leopard 2E articles (the latter in my sandbox). If you'd like I can email you some articles published in Military Technology, which you can use to source or form an idea and whatnot.  Although it's true that the main battle tank has been mostly used in urban warfare in current assymetrical battlefields - at least in Iraq - this may not have been true in Bosnia or even Afghanistan, and certainly not in Lebanon.  In my opinion, in Iraq the insurgents have seemed to concentrate in cities (as a consequence, we're forced into what I guess are called sieges), and tanks have been hit more outside of cities by improvised explosive devices (at least this is true in Afghanistan and Lebanon).  Although I don't have a source I can provide for this statement, perhaps one does, Saddam Hussein deployed T-72s to cities in order to provide the image of superiority.  I think this is an important concept; I remember from the forgotten source I got that from that the United States had similar ideas in Bosnia, while NATO did in Kosovo, and the United States still has in Iraq.


 * However, the tank has been used in urban combat prior to the 21st century. Some examples being Manstein's use of armor south of Warsaw in 1939, which was an example of how not to use tanks in a city.  It's generally considered an example of his ability to bring personnel out of zones like that and reorient them (the source to this is the 2002 book Panzerkrieg - unfortunately, I have my copy in San Diego and not with me in Spain).  German tanks were used in Stalingrad, and the Soviets used tanks in German cities, as well (including Berlin).  I'm sure that U.S. M48s were used in urban operations in Vietnam, and Israeli Merkavas were used in Lebanese cities during the 1982 operations in Lebanon.  So, in short, in my opinion the notion that assymetrical warfare has brought the tank mainly to the city is based on the fact that there the lack of standing armies makes combat outside the city irrelevant - in that case, it revolves more on IEDs planted by roads.


 * In regards to the email, I will put my email in your talk page; I'd appreciate that once you email me with yours, if you erase it (I don't mind if it's in the history, but as long as a bot can't access it easily I'm OK with it). Or, if you're not interested in the PDFs then just erase it. JonCatalan (talk) 21:19, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

New design image?
I've been working on a new tank design image for a while and I think it's almost ready. It's loosely based on an M1 Abrams, but its been simplified (esp. the turret) to make it easier to see what's going on. Please comment if there's anything that doesn't look right or is labelled incorrectly. Dhatfield (talk) 13:35, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Looks really good. I wouldn't mark thermal vision, since "optical periscope" is representative of tanks from all periods and with any type of equipment.  You might also add labels for the glacis plate and return roller at the front of the suspension.


 * Finally a quibble: The far-side road wheel has no visible suspension component. I realize that this is only a schematic, but an unfamiliar reader may make some incorrect inference about how the road wheels work. —Michael Z. 2008-06-09 14:50 z 


 * Ha Ha! I never noticed that. I'll put in a torsion bar now and make the label changes. Thanks for the feedback. Dhatfield (talk) 14:57, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * What's marked as the return roller is actually the idler wheel, sometimes referred to as the tensioner. Return rollers normally smaller, are positioned between the idler wheel and the sprocket, and won't be visible with the side skirts.  This isn't the best image, but you can see it on this Verdeja. JonCatalan (talk) 16:36, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Quite right. Sorry about that. —Michael Z. 2008-06-09 18:06 z 

The glacis is the front-top plate, in front of the driver's hatch (it is extremely angled in the M1, and practically becomes part of the hull roof). The one marked glacis is the belly plate, which probably doesn't need to be labelled. —Michael Z. 2008-06-09 18:11 z 




 * Thanks for your corrections - done as indicated. I had my suspicions about the glacis plate, but as you can see the article is unclear. I removed the label for the idler because it isn't very notable and is a visual problem at featured picture candidate. Dhatfield (talk) 19:09, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * At the FPC I am being asked for a reference for the labels. Can you supply a reference that describes the main tank parts? Dhatfield (talk) 21:16, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Hogg, Greenhill Armoured Fighting Vehicles Data Book (London: Greenhill Books, 2000), & Hogg & Weeks, Illustrated Encyclopedia of Military Vehicles (London: Hamlyn Publishing Group, 1980), cover it pretty completely between them. (Too bad, no single source does it...) Trekphiler (talk) 22:20, 9 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Perfect, added to image description. Dhatfield (talk) 05:42, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * I've added a list of the english translations to File:M1 Abrams diagram num.svg so if any labels get updated could you please update that one as well. Thanks /Lokal_Profil 14:28, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
 * Will do, Lokal. Thanks. Dhatfield (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)
 * A suggestion? Swap the labels of "track" & "track link". It's clearer what you're referring to, that way. Trekphiler (talk) 08:00, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Featured Picture
I am proud to say that we have a Featured Picture. The tank schematic diagram passed *does little victory dance* Dhatfield (talk) 21:37, 16 June 2008 (UTC)


 * It deserves the recognition. Nice work! —Michael Z. 2008-06-17 13:56 z 


 * Thanks Micheal. Dhatfield (talk) 08:31, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Canadian Army Trophy
If you plan to re-insert this link, please discuss it here. I believe that this does not meet the notability requirements for a See also link. Dhatfield (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Lead image change
If you change the lead image, please discuss the change here. This is a major change that affects the look and feel of the article. The image of a Merkava IV that was inserted as the lead is not a good image. Dhatfield (talk) 19:25, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * A question. Why use a U.S. vehicle? Because it's in action? For non-U.S. users, it may suggest pro-U.S. bias. I don't see any, but...  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  23:37, 8 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not use your diagram? It illustrates the topic perfectly. JonCatalán (talk) 02:11, 9 August 2008 (UTC)


 * I chose the lead photo because it is an excellent recent photograph, showing a current tank in active service. Unfortunately, other countries don't make their government images public domain, so we'll have a hard time replacing it with a comparable image representing another country (photos of tanks in active service or in combat are rare to begin with).


 * The diagram is very good too, but has more value explaining than providing visual impact. It also happens to represent an M1 Abrams. —Michael Z. 2008-08-09 07:35 z 

An issue with the lead image is that viewed at full size the compression is very obvious.Geni 01:34, 14 August 2008 (UTC)


 * The compression is bad, even after I processed it heavily to eliminate most of it. I could scale it down to reduce the appearance of artifacts, but that's a bit pointless. On the other hand, few people view images at full res. With respect to choice of image, I'm with Micheal - this is a gritty, real image of a tank in action, not a staged shot on trials & not a tank on display at a show (shudder). There is no pro-US bias - the choice of M1 is purely down to availability of free shots, the same reason it was used as a template for the diagram. We could lobby governments for enlightened copyright laws. Dhatfield (talk) 00:49, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Videos and images
I'm not sure how things get lost on the page, if it's intentional or not, but will vandal fixers please be a bit more careful when nuking stuff. We recent lost the disambiguation link, a featured video and really nice WWI pic of a Mk IV, and I don't even know what was intentional. Dhatfield (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

T-80 image
In WikiMedia's ongoing drive to tighten up on copyright status, it must be possible to prove that a given image comes from a US Gov source. If we don't fulfil this requirement, the source image (and the derivative I spent hours on) are likely to be deleted. Will the original poster or some other kindly soul please find the source of our T-80 image? Thanks. Dhatfield (talk) 22:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

MOS
A thought: while I agree the page should generally use Brit Eng, should that strictly apply to U.S. names/designations like the M8's, seeing how it's not a generic usage but an actual name? I picture Ford's Theater being respelled Theatre... TREKphiler  hit me ♠  01:32, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * How do they spell “M8” in the USA? —Michael Z. 2008-12-07 06:34 z 
 * I think he's referring to how it states in the article that the British refer to it as the "Greyhound". JonCatalán(Talk) 06:45, 7 December 2008 (UTC)
 * More how it's listed as M8 Armoured...  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  08:01, 7 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Ah. Well it's the proper name, correctly capitalized, so the M8 Armored Gun System shouldn't have its spelling changed.  Awkward, but correct.


 * We have to be careful, because many bureaucratic documents and the books which parrot them tend to treat things like main battle tank incorrectly as proper nouns. —Michael Z. 2008-12-07 16:42 z 


 * This is consistent with MOS, if you consider the name to be a “title”. —Michael Z. 2008-12-07 16:49 z 


 * Yeah, if it was just "armored" in the text, I'd change it, which is why I asked.  TREKphiler   hit me ♠  20:38, 7 December 2008 (UTC)