Template talk:Post–Cold War tanks/Archive 2

Alphabetizing "Al-Khalid"
Isn't al- an Urdu article? Should it be capitalized "al-Khalid", and sorted under K? Or is it too unfamiliar to English-speakers to bother with such esoterica? —Michael Z. 2007-07-29 21:01 Z 


 * Al is Arabic and nothing to do with the Hindustani Urdu.
 * Chanakyathegreat 15:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you. Do you think we should sort it under A, or K? —Michael Z. 2007-08-08 21:16 Z 

How can that be. It is not to be sorted without the original name. Al-Khalid. But I am totally against the inclusion of the tank since it is a variant of the original Type 90 i.e with Ukranian engine and we have a further development, Type-96 by China and hence Type 90 or its variants cannot be in the list.Chanakyathegreat 05:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Flags
Enough bickering about the flags.

This is a template of links to articles about modern tanks. From the earlier discussion on this page, and from the consensus content of this template, I surmise that the criteria for inclusion are the following:


 * 1) Articles about tanks
 * 2) Modern tanks (although we haven't defined precisely "modern" tank)
 * 3) Production tanks, not prototypes

The link to the article MBT 2000, with the link text "Al-Khalid" keeps coming and going. The fracas appears to be completely about the flag and the name, not about whether the vehicle fits into the criteria above.

Modern IFV and APC has done just fine without any flags. Let's remove the flags until we can agree what flag to put next to every example in the template.

Let's use the name of the article, "MBT 2000". Debate about the name and proposed renaming should be discussed and resolved at talk:MBT 2000—if the article is renamed, then this template's link ought to be changed to match.

Does anyone maintain that this article about a modern tank shouldn't be on this template at all? The article about a different tank, the Type 96 lists the Type 90 prototypes, but it is not an article about this tank, the Type 90-III/MBT 2000/Al-Khalid.

I'll make the change. —Michael Z. 2007-08-11 18:52 Z 


 * More discussion about the use of flag icons at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history. —Michael Z. 2007-08-11 18:54 Z 

''The fracas appears to be completely about the flag and the name, not about whether the vehicle fits into the criteria above. ''

Don't misguide. I had earlier said about the addition of T-72 to the list if Type 90 is added to the list and since already the much more advanced Type 96 is already there, the question arises wheather the Type 90/A/M must also be in the list. It can be since the K1 and K2 is there in the list. Similarly we can have Type 90 and Type 96.Chanakyathegreat 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There are so many in the Modern IFV and APC list. Not possible to add the nation and the flag in that list. If possible we can add Flags to the IFV list. Chanakyathegreat 07:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for leaving the MBT 2000, but I still think the flags are a mistake. If you read the Military history project talk I pointed to*, you'll see that there are many other reasons in addition to template size to omit flags.  Controversy about which flag to use is clearly a good reason to omit them here.


 * The other tanks in the templates all bear the flags of the countries where they were first in production, and where they were first employed, so the MBT 2000/Al-Khalid should bear the Pakistani flag. Or if you insist that it should have the flag of the developer, then it must bear both Chinese and Pakistani flags.  But that wouldn't be so good.  Better to just leave them out, just like in all other AFV navigation boxes, at least until we agree which flag should be there.


 * I really still don't understand what you're saying about the T-72—it was introduced in 1971, and is clearly not a modern tank. Are you saying that the Chinese Type 90 should be added?  I don't think so, because we aren't including prototypes in the template, only production tanks.  China and Pakistan did 8 or 10 years of development to create the MBT 2000/Al-Khalid, so this 2001 tank is clearly different from the original Type 90 prototype. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 07:25 Z 


 * By the way, if the the MBT 2000 is labelled with the flags of its originators, then so should the M-84 be labelled with the Yugoslav flag, not the Serbian. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 14:32 Z 


 * I've removed the flags - they were not helping the template. If you want to indicate the "country" of a tank, please go to List of armoured fighting vehicles by country. Carcharoth 14:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Thank you.


 * No other AFV navigation template has needed flags: WWIIFrenchAFVs, WWIIHungarianAFVs, WWIIItalianAFVs, WWIIJapaneseAFVs, WWIISovietAFVs, PostWWIISovietAFVS, WWIIAmericanAFVs, WWIIGermanAFVs, WWIIBritishAFVs, Modern IFV and APC, ModernFrenchAFVs, ModernUKAFVsNav, ModernUKNonAFVNav. Most represent only one country, but at least four of them have AFVs from more than one. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 14:59 Z 


 * Agreed. If anything, alphabetical order, or country flag, makes little sense in a template like this. What would make sense is picking a date (the template does say 'modern' after all), such as date built if possible to find out, and putting that in brackets next to the tank name, and putting them in date order. Military history, remember...? :-) Carcharoth 20:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Though looking at a few articles, whether to pick first delivery date, or final completion date, or first deployment date, or something else, could be problematic. Carcharoth 20:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Picking a date could indeed be problematic.


 * We can't pick a cutoff date to define "modern". For example, the Challenger 1 has been replaced in service by the newer Challenger 2 (a different design, despite the similar name), while the older M1 Abrams is still a modern tank (newer version, but still the same basic design).


 * It may be useful to add the date of inception to the template, but it might start new debates about what belongs here. Just like country of origin or country of principal employment, it would be supplementary information, and not necessary for the template to do its job of linking to the articles. —Michael Z. 2007-08-13 15:04 Z 


 * I agree. Just link the tanks, nothing else. Possibly what people think it should be showing is all the tanks currently in service today (excepting the old ones in third world countries - the tanks that either fail to start, or blow up when started...). But I don't know enough about tanks to say for sure. Carcharoth 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Ch'onma-ho isn't modern?
Why Ch'onma-ho isn't modern? SuperTank17 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * For one, it is only an upgrade of a T-62, which by itself is an extremely ancient machine. Added to that is the fact that we have almost no technical knowledge of it, and no specs or pther details. Third, even assuming that it is modernized, I doubt that it can be anything more capable than a slightly upgraded T-72, which would find no place here.... Still, if there is a consensus to include the Ch'onma-ho here, then I would not disagree.... Sniperz11 11:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
 * Old hull. No consensus about it. Flayer 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)


 * What do you suggest... keep or not? SuperTank17, any points you'd like to make? Sniperz11 08:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I suggest not keeping any upgrades of soviet tanks that older than T-72. I doubt whether we should keep T-72 upgrades, but T-62 upgrade like Ch'onma-ho is too old. Flayer 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Long names
What is the point of adding long technical names to this template, like "FV4034 Challenger 2"?

This is a navigation device: the simpler it is, the better it will work. This template's job is not to teach readers anything about these tanks—that's what the articles are for. —Michael Z. 2007-09-19 00:32 Z 


 * I agree. The point is that most only know tanks as the Challenger 2 or Leclerc. Putting their designation on a navigation template is stupid, especially if they're as long winded as the Challenger 2s. Sniperz11 06:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

TR-85 is not modern
Any rebulid version of T-55 isn't modern. I can hardly agree that some rebulid versions of T-72 are modern, but not TR-85. Flayer 11:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)


 * And why do you think that an drastic upgrade of T-55 can't be modern? --SuperTank17 11:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Because it has an obsolete hull of T-55. If we decide that T-55's hull is not obsolete, then we should add also Ch'onma-ho, Magach, Sabra (tank), M60-2000 Main Battle Tank, Stridsvagn 103.... Flayer 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * How can a hull alone be obsolete? What are the functions that a modern tank hull fulfils that a T-55's hull can't?  The only thing I can think of is its inherent level of armour, which can be supplemented with appliqué and ERA.


 * Which of these tanks, if any, serve in a country's front-line units? Which incorporate modern technologies?  Which have up-to-date engines, armour, weapons, fire control?  Which are weapon systems designed to compete against other modern tanks?


 * I also think relative effectiveness is not a criterion determining modernness. The relative effectiveness of most of these has never been tested in battle, and their protection levels are closely kept secret, so we cannot realistically compare them and say that "this one is not good enough to be modern".  Furthermore, there are operational and strategic considerations which may render such criteria moot—for example, one can argue that the T-34-85 was a more effective weapon system than the Panther or Tiger, because it could be manufactured in much higher numbers and didn't have to go through an unreliable teething period during a critical point in the war.


 * I'm not arguing either way, but I think the answer is more complicated than picking a "modern hull". —Michael Z. 2007-09-20 19:34 Z 

Why Type 96?
Why there's a Type 96 tank if there's already a Type 99? --SuperTank17 11:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
 * It bothers me too. Flayer 19:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Going by the articles, these seem to be two very different tanks. Why does this bother you? —Michael Z. 2007-09-20 19:17 Z 


 * Merkava Mark 3 and Merkava Mark 4, both definitely modern, are also "very different" from one to another.... Flayer 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, that was a serious question. Will someone please tell me why it bothers them that two modern tank articles both have links in the navigation?


 * The article Merkava implies that the IV is a further development of the III. Is that correct?  Adding two separate links to one article wouldn't help the reader find it, only slightly increase the confusion, I think.


 * While the Type 99 and Type 96 seem to be two separate designs with different lineages, used in different roles (high-tech vs. rank-and-file, like the Soviet T-80 and T-72).  And requiring links to the two separate articles.  What did I get wrong here? —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 00:51 Z 

Why K2 Black Panther?
Why the K2 Black Panther is included even though it is just a prototype? --SuperTank17 20:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Its undergoing user trials. Hence, its in the final stages of development. Sniperz11 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of category:Modern tanks
I've proposed renaming the children of, including , to conform to the same system used for the parent category. This was discussed in principal and agreed to at WT:WEAPON. The current nomination for the renaming is at Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 22. The specific category moves are:



This change is meant to conform to Wikipedia's standard category naming scheme "X of Y", and to rename the respective periods in the context of other WP categories ("Modern era" has a different specific meaning).

This move may affect this template (or not). The post-Cold War period is 1989–91 to the present. If we decided to change the name of this template to be consistent with the category, then it would free the discussion from irresolvable questions of defining what a modern tank is, and boil it down to the period. In my opinion, this would not eliminate all discussion, but it would simplify the criteria and be a good thing. —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:32 Z 


 * The category has been moved without any objections. —Michael Z. 2007-10-03 17:24 Z 

Requested move

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

move Duja ► 08:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm recommending moving this template to template:Post-Cold War tanks. Criteria for inclusion would be tanks which were first produced, or significantly upgraded after the end of the Cold War (after 1989–91). Advantages:


 * 1) Consistent with
 * 2) In turn consistent with other period categories in
 * 3) Inclusion is based on a well-defined criterion, not the undefined category of "modern" (see this page for endless debates and revert wars)

I don't expect this to obviate all debate about inclusion, but it will allow us to discuss concrete questions rather than "I know one when I see it" opinions. —Michael Z. 2007-10-03 17:43 Z 


 * I strongly support such a move, although I doubt that that will end the heated debates that we have. Sniperz11 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the . Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tank generations
I would be interested in finding a supportable definition of "modern" tanks. For the sake of interest, here's how the Soviets saw tanks during the Cold War:

The Soviets saw tank generations in this manner: 1920-1945, first generation; 1946-1960, second generation; 1961-1980, third generation; and 1981-present, fourth generation. Since the last really new tank design, the T-80, came out in 1976, they feel that they have not produced a true Fourth Generation Tank Design. In comparison, they count the M1, Challenger, and Leopard 2 as Fourth Generation and the LeClerc as Fifth Generation. —Sewell (1988), "Why Three tanks?", note 1.

—Michael Z. 2007-10-03 22:19 Z 


 * See also List of main battle tanks by generation. —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 20:02 Z 

Template alignment
Can we increase the font size of the template, and keep it centred? Sniperz11 11:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)


 * That's the standard formatting for military history templates: WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide. It fits under the infoboxes. —Michael Z. 2007-10-12 23:56 Z 


 * Thanks.. just saw that... Sniperz11 02:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria
There was some earlier discussion about the TR-85, which included an argument that it doesn't belong in this navigation template:

Because it has an obsolete hull of T-55. If we decide that T-55's hull is not obsolete, then we should add also Ch'onma-ho, Magach, Sabra (tank), M60-2000 Main Battle Tank, Stridsvagn 103.

Good point, but the premise isn't right. The TR-85 was not a T-55, but had a new, longer hull based on the T-55 (much like the prototype Black Eagle tank is based on a lengthened T-80 hull). It first entered service in 1987, years after the M1 Abrams and Merkava, and nearly at the end of the Cold War. The TR-85 M1 is a radical upgrade (not a newly-built vehicle), including the addition of a turret bustle and modern technologies, and it is the main national tank of Romania, currently in front-line service. With its 100mm gun it may not be a match for some other tanks on the list, but judging it by its gun or combat effectiveness is a trap (see below).

I specifically would like to avoid disqualifying tanks for subjective criteria such as having an "obsolete hull".

Do we really mean it's an old hull? What would be the cut-off date? Please consider that the M1 Abrams's hull entered series production in 1980, the Leopard 2's in 1979, the Merkava's in 1978, the T-84's in 1976 (for the T-80), and the T-90's in 1971 (for the T-72). A modern tank can clearly be built on a Cold-War hull.

Obsolete implies having outdated characteristics. I think a modern tank's hull is a steel box, just like the hull of a Cold War tank. In what way is the T-55's hull obsolete?

Is it because the tank isn't a match for "modern" tanks? We can't use this criterion because many tanks in service have not been tested in battle, and verifiable information comparing their effectiveness simply doesn't exist

Is it obsolete because its 100mm gun is out of date? I've already mentioned the problem of evaluating combat effectiveness, and the unknown characteristics of newer ammunition and fire-control are added into the mix. But 120 and 125mm guns are also Cold War developments, so having one isn't what makes a tank modern. Remember that several of our modern tanks have had their original guns upgraded to 120 or 125mm, just like the Al-Zarar, which is essentially a T-54A with a 125mm gun.

Does the fact that its original armour is too thin disqualify the T-55? Again, protection levels are top secret, and what would be the minimum thickness to qualify? But this is also not fair because most developments since the Cold War have focussed on protection technologies which are added on to conventional hulls, like composite materials, reactive armour, countermeasures, and even stand-off RPG screens.

I don't think the idea that particular hulls have modern characteristics is supportable by academic sources (but I'd be glad to reconsider my view if we can find something). So what makes modern tanks modern?

Modernness has to be judged by the tank's intended role and by its service history. Did someone build or upgrade this tank specifically for the modern battlefield? Did they put it in front-line service, intending it to face other modern tanks?

This navigation box includes links to articles about new tanks and upgraded versions of tanks which entered front-line service since the end of the Cold War in 1989–91.

I think this corresponds to criteria for inclusion in, leaving out prototypes which haven't entered service. (Perhaps the template should have a separate section for prototypes, but that is a separate discussion.)

Back to the list of examples which accompanied the TR-85:

Ch'onma-ho is hard to judge because of the lack of information. But it is a front-line tank in service, facing the South Korean K1, and it appears that major versions of it appeared since the end of the Cold War. It belongs here.

The Stridsvagn 103 had its last major revision enter service in the 1980s, and was replaced by the Leopard 2 in the mid-1990s, so I think it is disqualified. I don't know enough about the Magach, Sabra, and M60-2000's characteristics and service to judge whether they qualify, but it bears discussion.

Shall I add the proposed criteria to the template instructions, or are there any problems with it? —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 20:51 Z 


 * You make some valid points there Michael. Since the name of this template is tanks of the Post Cold war, I think we should include only those variants which have entered service after 1990, or will enter service in the near future...


 * The advantage of the renaming of this template is that we now no longer have to worry about how 'modern' the tank itself is. I suggest a few criteria:


 * 1. The Tank has entered service on or after 1990.
 * 2. In case of upgrades, only the latest upgrade version will be considered. (Eg M1A2, Leo 2A6).
 * 3. Prototypes may be included as long as they are being tested, ie, preproduction and user-trials are going on.
 * 4. We do not include tanks that are being phased out, or are no longer in the market.
 * 5. No includion of upgrades


 * Looking at the service acceptance dates of the tanks on the template, and those you've mentioned.


 * Al-Khalid - 2001
 * Ariete - 1995 (Upgraded version ready for production)
 * Arjun - 15 built, 124 on Order
 * Challenger 2 - 1993
 * K1A1 88 - 2001
 * K2 - 2007 (3 production models rolled out)
 * Leclerc - 1992
 * Leopard 2A6 - (No info.. need to add to page)
 * M1A2 Abrams - 1992
 * M-95 Degman - 2 on order
 * M-2001 - 2005
 * Merkava Mk. 4 - 1999
 * PT-91 Twardy - 1995
 * T-84 - 1998
 * T-90 - 1999 (T-90C)
 * Type-90 - 1990
 * Type-96 - 1996
 * Type-99 - 1999


 * The main point about the hull is 3 things- the Engine, Transmission, and to a lesser extent, Armour. If a tank has modernized engine, yada yada, I think we can consider the hull to be somewhat modern. The shell by itself is nothing. Its the inside that we worry about. In most cases, using a hull means using the engine and tranny in it, and that makes a tank old by compromising its mobility.


 * The point about guns is altogether different. Theres a reason all modern armies have moved away from 105 and 115 mm guns; they're just too old and weak. The fact that may countries are upgrading their 105 mm tanks to 120 or 125 mm should say it all. In addition, most of these guns are modernized regularly. However, their nature makes such upgrades small. As it stands, technologically, guns have a longer lifespan then other parts of the tank. That doesn't mean that 100 mm guns are modern, or can match up to the modern guns.


 * I think that we should then include the TR-85, even though they may not be modern. As for the Ch'onma-ho, just because it faces frontline tanks, that shouldn't be a reason to include it. We need to discuss this in detail, and probably, just by itself. This is a very slippery slope we're on, coz if we start including th 'frontline tanks' of all countries, there'll be no end to it.


 * As for the Magach, Sabra and others, they are being phased out, and replaced by more advanced Merkavas. Hence, I think we shouldn't included.


 * Sniperz11 03:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)


 * I still think you're hung up on performance, and it is still impossible for us to compare real performance of these vehicles.


 * For all we know, Cold-War tank A can still match brand-new tank B in firepower, protection, or mobility, or all of the above. Or maybe brand-new tank C enjoys a 50% advantage over brand-new tank D.  I do know that the T-80 of the late 1970s had comparable mobility to anything new (those old babies are gas-guzzlers, though).  Gun calibre is a result of the arms race, but it started to level out when the T-64 was introduced with a 125mm smoothbore, over 40 years ago.  Since then, technology in fire control, ammunition, and armour has been the factor differentiating tanks, and again, we can't directly compare vehicles that way, and we can't judge how much of the equation gun calibre still accounts for.  Also, there has been more of an emphasis on unconventional warfare in this century, although the importance of that is debatable when talking about main battle tanks.


 * In real terms, it's hard to say that the Ch'onma-ho's 115mm gun is so much worse, since it's very close to the 120 and 125mm calibre of the latest guns, and we don't know what other improvements it has or has not.


 * I still don't think this exercise should be about a tank being as good as another, whether we can determine that or not. But this requires more thought, and I'll compromise for now by adding the TR-85, and leaving off the Ch'onma-ho. —Michael Z. 2007-10-19 04:00 Z 


 * What about the P'okpoong-Ho? Ominae (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)


 * As is stated in its article, it's believed that newer versions of the Ch'onma-ho are fitted with a 125mm gun. The only major innovations after the Cold War were battle management systems and improvements in electronics.  Today's tanks, in general, are still Cold War tanks - new tanks are built to these standards; there is nothing driving a fast improvement of tanks, and most of these improvements can be spiraled into existing turrets and hulls. JonCatalán (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)