Template talk:WWIISovietAFVs

Recent additions

 * T-18 (T-18M): the T-26, manufactured by the thousands starting 1931, was meant to replace the T-18. T-18s were used in the far east in 1929, but were they still in service in 1941?  I'm removing it from the template, pending evidence that it was used in WWII.
 * Artillery tractors: the T-26T and Komsomolets were armoured, although they weren't really fighting vehicles. The Kommunar, Komintern, Voroshilovets, etc. certainly aren't AFVs at all.  A couple are mentioned in "T-24" by the way, but they deserve their own articles too.
 * BT-5, 7, 8: perhaps we should change this listing back to a single BT tank link.  Only the BT-8 was actually manufactured during the war, but they were all employed pretty much the same way.
 * KV-2: I moved this back to self-propelled guns—its intended role was large-calibre fire support, especially for tank units.  The BT-5A, and BT-7A artillery support tanks were its predecessors in this role, and the 122 and 152mm SU and ISU guns were its replacements.  (76.2mm T-26A and SU-76 were equivalents in infantry units.)  —Michael Z. 2005-12-17 23:20 Z 
 * T-37 tank: I'm adding this, the USSR had 2,400 when it entered the war.


 * KV-2 is a heavy tank. There is a clear destinction between tanks and SPGs: SPGs havent a rotating turret, tanks have, so they can attack in the first line.--Nixer 10:59, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Some SPGs, such as the M10 Wolverine did have rotating turrets. Ultimately the line is very blurred and generally depends on what the designers call the vehicle. Oberiko 14:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)
 * So KV-2 was called tank. M10 really looks like a tank, very similar to T-34 in shape. What was the year of development? Perhaps it's called tank destroyer (not SPG!!!) because of opentop turret.--Nixer 14:12, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * The KV-2 was called "heavy artillery tank", but its role was not tank, it was artillery support gun for mechanized units. Having a turret, using a tank chassis, and open top are irrelevant.  Steven Zaloga writes  ". . . A more practical solution for bunker-busting was the effort to mount a 152mm howitzer in a larger turret on the KV hull as a heavy counterpart to the BT-7A artillery tank." (Zaloga 1984)


 * By the way, "tank destroyer" is just a colourful synonym for self-propelled anti-tank gun (SPAT). —Michael Z. 2005-12-18 17:05 Z 


 * KV-2 never called in Russian "heavy artillery tank". At least I havent heared so.--Nixer 17:27, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Zaloga calls it a "heavy artillery tank" (reference above). The A in the names of other artillery support tanks stands for "artillery" (T-26A, BT-5A, and BT-7A).  Do you have an alternate reference?  —Michael Z. 2005-12-18 17:39 Z 
 * I have never heared KV-2 to be called artillery tank in Russian.--Nixer 17:54, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay. Its role was as a heavy-calibre support gun.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-19 19:03 Z 


 * Armored and mobile heavy gun, which is role of any heavy tank. Also my encyclopedia says it is tank. Infantery tank are light tank.


 * Infatery/cavalry tanks is the British terminology which was not in use in the USSR.--Nixer 20:01, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That is not the role of a heavy tank. "Tank" is a role, "self-propelled" gun is another.  If we go by this elementary definition, then most of the SP guns are "heavy tanks", too, as are the T-26A, BT-5A, BT-7A, which carried heavy guns for their day.  The KV-1 was a heavy tank, the KV-2 was a support piece.


 * Yes, T-26A is an artillery tank. SU-5 (based on T-26) is SPG, having no rotating turret. So let us distiguish them by what were them called by constructors or by existance of rotating turret (which was the main criteria for Soviet namings). My Soviet Encyclopedia says it was tank, so dont revert.--Nixer 12:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Infantry tanks are not necessarily light or heavy. This is the role that Zaloga consistently ascribes to the T-26 and T-50, and it was their role in pre-war Soviet doctrine.  He is the foremost authority on the subject.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-19 21:54 Z 


 * I dont know who is Zaloga. Why not Viktor Suvorov then? I know that all soviet tanks were divided into light(including BT and amphibious), medium and heavy.--Nixer 12:59, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Steven J. Zaloga is the foremost authority on Soviet armour, and I've tried to base the classification of these vehicles closely on his. Viktor Suvorov is an interesting source on the Soviet military, but not an expert on AFVs.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 20:48 Z 
 * I think the best authority is the creator of a vehicle. For example many machines of other countries classified accordingly to the constructors' classification. Zaloga as I can see, tries to discribe the Soviet war machines in terms of British classification.--Nixer 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

NEXT:
 * 1) The proper translation of aerosani is snowmobile.
 * 2) T-90 is not an SPG, but an AA tank/vehicle which is different class.--Nixer 22:00, 20 December 2005 (UTC)


 * "I think the best authority is the creator of a vehicle."—actually, I would say not. A nation's military doctrine changes, and their classification needs change.  Even at the same time, the Red Army was asking for infantry tanks and fast tanks, but the KhPZ supplied a medium tank that could fulfil both roles, and ended up replacing scout tanks as well.  The creator of a vehicle also does not usually provide verifiable sources, which are required for Wikipedia articles.


 * An historian who analyzes the employment of tanks by a nation decades later has a much better perspective for classifying, say a T-26 tank in the context of tank history, than did the designer, or builder, or crewman of that tank in 1932. This is an encyclopedia, not a tank operator's manual.


 * Anyway, I don't see you offering a better source than Zaloga, from any country. As to your other points:


 * Zaloga uses the name aerosan in the source I cited; where do you get your "proper" translation? A snowmobile is something else.

[www.lingvo.ru].--Nixer 04:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * SPG means self-propelled gun. The T-90 is a self-propelled anti-aircraft gun.  It is not a tank.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 02:48 Z 

It's Zaloga's point of view. Any more. T-90 I have separated from tanks and SPG's because it is an anti-aircraft vehicle, of a separate class.--Nixer 04:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

So this is a common view: ,, , , , , [KV-2 gallery] - all think KV-2 is tank.

Also there was no difference between infantery tank and light tank (these terms from different classifications). Infantery, scout, recon, fast - all light tanks.--Nixer 04:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Armored cars
I think we should also add information on armored cars--Nixer 14:25, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Were all of the ones added used in WWII? By the way, good job starting some new articles.  Cheers.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-18 17:33 Z 
 * They were widely used. FAI upto 1943, BA-64 and BA-64M upto the end of war. It was the main Soviet armoured car of the war.--Nixer 17:58, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Some additions
Added information on SU-14 which were produced in 2 exemplairs and on experimental SPG T-100-U which (1 exemplair) participated in fighting against Germans from closed positions in Kubinka.--Nixer 15:07, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Added the T-24 to the medium tank list thestor 08:58, 8 April 2007 (UTC)

Prototypes
Prototypes shouldn't be added into the main body of this template, which implies that they were production AFVs (even in cases that the experimental example did happen to get used in an emergency action, e.g., to protect the factory where it was stored).

There were probably dozens of prototypes of all kinds. Most of them belong in articles about actual production vehicles, and this table should only list ones that were notable enough to have their own article. —Michael Z. 2005-12-18 16:37 Z 


 * And what do you suggest?--Nixer 16:42, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * If a prototype has its own article, put it in the "Experimental" section. Otherwise remove it.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-18 17:32 Z 


 * T-32—prototype only, already mentioned in the article "T-34".
 * TG (actually Tank Grotte: TG-1, TG-3/T-29, TG-5/T-42)—prototypes and proposals only, "Tank Grotte" could be an interesting article.
 * ZiS-30—not strictly an AFV, but we can add a list of unarmoured artillery, starting with Katyusha
 * It was armored. Unarmored was only its top.--Nixer 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * SU-14 (also called SU-BU-10, the development program also included SU-14-2 and SU-14-Br-2, but these could be covered in the same article).
 * SU-100Y—another of many prototype artillery pieces. Perhaps they can all be covered in "Soviet self-propelled artillery of World War Two"?
 * PPG tankette—prototype.


 * I can add articles with photos for most of prototypes.--Nixer 18:00, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Armored vs armoured
Armored vs armoured - which is better?--Nixer 18:02, 18 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Armoured: British and Canadian English.
 * Armored: American English. —Michael Z. 2005-12-19 14:53 Z 


 * And what the standard for the Wikipedia? I find they are mixed in the encyclopedia. :-\.--Nixer 15:12, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just remain consistent, and don't arbitrarily change from one national variety of English to another. The convention is described at Manual_of_Style.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-19 18:02 Z 


 * There are already articles, categories and links with both varieties :-/--Nixer 19:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Just keep the language in a particular article consistent. Don't change an article to British English if its first main contributor wrote in American English, or vice-versa.  I write in Canadian English.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 20:49 Z 

"rv vandalism"
Nixer, you batch-revert my edits with no other explanation than "rv vandalism", then point to this talk page. I've pointed out to you that leaving out the edit summaries is against Wikipedia rules, and calling my good-faith edits vandalism is abuse of the edit summary, and very rude too.

You argue against a few of my changes above, but your opinion lacks a source to back it up. You have also reverted several of my edits, twice, without addressing them, except for your name-calling.

Among my edits you batch-reverted are the following:
 * KV-2's role was a self-propelled assault gun
 * clean up
 * T-90 was an anti-aircraft piece
 * "T-26-T" according to Zaloga; link disambiguation
 * English sing. "aerosan", pl. "aerosans" (Zaloga)
 * restoring organization of light tanks according to intended role: please don't revert without comment; cell width need only be specified once per column
 * link tankette; plural, because column headings are collective nouns; "Converted"→"Improvised AFVs"; "Half-tracked AC"
 * capitalization of ZiS-30

If you have a problem with one of my contributions, quote a source that supports your point of view, and use the edit summary field. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 02:53 Z 

[I have moved Nixer's responses which broke up my comment to individual points below. —MZ]

[KV-2's role]
 * So this is a common view:
 * ,, , , , , [KV-2 gallery] - all think KV-2 is tank.


 * Also there was no difference between infantery tank and light tank (these terms from different classifications). Infantery, scout, recon, fast - all light tanks.--Nixer 04:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * KV-2: I can't read the Russian web sites, only the two English-language ones: regarding the KV-2's role, wwiivehicles.com only says "to battle the Finnish defenses".  Battlefield.ru says "the heavy tank with more powerful armament is highly needed to combat with enemy's bunkers, pillboxes and other fortifications."  It also notes that these were armed with a howitzer firing only HE ammunition, no anti-tank.  This supports the view of a serious academic source, Zaloga's book cited above, that this is a support weapon by role, and not a tank.  [light tanks discussed below]  —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 22:27 Z 

[T-90]
 * I have separated T-90 from tanks and SPG's because it is an anti-aircraft vehicle, of a separate class.--Nixer 04:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * That's fine, especially with two other links in the category. —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 22:27 Z 

[T-26-T naming]
 * T-26T according to for example.--Nixer 05:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Let's redirect both. The name used in most English-language sources should be used, according to Naming conventions.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 22:27 Z 

[Aerosan naming]
 * [www.lingvo.ru].--Nixer 04:29, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * This is definition in a general-use dictionary, meant for use when the distinction of AFVs may be meaningless; snowmobile is understood by the general public in any context, but it specifically refers to something that is definitely not an aerosan. The term used in academic writing about AFVs (Zaloga 1984:185–187) is certainly better.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 22:27 Z 

[organization of the template]
 * Ok. They all - infantry, scout, fast, amphibious all were light tanks.--Nixer 05:06, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, these terms are from different classification systems, reflecting the change in tank employment by the Soviets during the war. Before the war, the very slow T-26s were employed as "infantry tanks".  The fast BTs as "cavalry" or "cruiser tanks".  The amphibious tanks for reconnaissance, or scouting.  The T-50 was originally built to satisfy the infantry role, T-60 for scouting, and the T-34 project was originally meant to satisfy an army request for a new BT tank (the A-20 prototype), but the designers came up with a tank that challenged the old classification system.  Once fighting the Germans, these roles soon came to be seen as completely obsolete—the three tank roles were abandoned, but soon the T-34 replaced almost all of them anyway.


 * (and then why keep the BT tanks separate, which are often just called "light tanks" by WWII enthusiasts?)


 * When last used, they were just considered "light tanks", but an AFV historian, Zaloga, classifies them according to their intended role when they were first built, and this sheds light on why there were so many different "light tanks". Discarding this classification and lumping them all together obscures their fundamental differences—we have to view them from the perspective of 2005, not 1943.


 * You also wrote "Infatery/cavalry tanks is the British terminology which was not in use in the USSR"—we use English-language terminology. Even a source that you quote, battlefield.ru writes that the T-26 "It was intended as an "infantry" tank, i.e. for close support during an infantry attack. Each Soviet rifle (infantry) division had one company of those tanks."


 * A lot of popular writing, especially modelling and enthusiast sites, like to talk about tanks and AFVs from a very narrow point-of-view, and completely ignore the way they were employed, what kind of units they were issued to, etc. It's a big mistake to ignore these larger issues which are discussed in more serious publications.  I'm sorry, I can't read most of your Russian-language links.  Feel free to translate the important passages, but try to cite serious books or sites to support your position if you can.  —Michael Z. 2005-12-21 22:27 Z 

Light tanks/terminology
Yes it is not perfect. Better we should create a section "light tanks" and put sub-sections into it (but I dont know how to do this technically in the template). By the way, ACs also can be separated into light, medium and heavy (according to a list on one of Russian sites).

Second, I did not mean "English-language terminology", but British classification. It was popular in the USSR some time before the war. There was also a German scheme, in which German "medium tanks" were the same class by their properties with Soviet "light tanks", German "heavy tanks" were actually the same class with Soviet "medium tanks" and German "super-heavy tanks" were actually in accord with Soviet heavy tanks.--Nixer 23:09, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

New version
There's a new version for this template:Template:WWIISovietAFVS01. Its already been posted on the Milhist Talk page and received no unfavourable criticism, so I'll be implementing the changes soon, if thats OK with everyone.

Raoulduke47 11:42, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Bug? T-80
Why T-80 has a link to T-70? Is it a bug? Why is this template protected? Miraceti 09:44, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * It's protected because it is transcluded in a featured article. Apparently it will be unprotected shortly. GregorB 20:31, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


 * If it is a 'very different" T-80, it needs to be explained to avoid confusion. Currently, there are two links to T-70. Solarapex 23:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

AFV navigation templates
There's a discussion about AFV navigation templates at WT:AFV. Topics include style, and the organization of post-WWII templates. Please discuss there. —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 00:08 z 

Lend-and-Lease
Shouldn't the Lend and Lease-Tanks providede by the US and the Uk added to that template? --Modgamers (talk) 10:03, 10 October 2013 (UTC)