14 ms·

When is a ‘tank’ not a tank?

194 points by picture 4y ago

gerdesj 4y ago
"If I was pressed for a hard definition, I’d say that a tank is a heavily armored and tracked combat vehicle whose purpose is to offer powerful direct fire capabilities against a range of enemy targets." That's nice but what do you keep your tropical fish in?
- dgfitz 4y ago
  An aquarium of course!
  - Beldin 4y ago
    Which can be turned into a tank: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-this-fish-out-of-water-drive-a-mini-vehicle-on-land-180979328/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-this-fish-ou...
- InCityDreams 4y ago
  My pond.
- mcv 4y ago
  I suppose you can still keep it in an older style pre-WW2 tank.
ncmncm 4y ago
> When Is a ‘Tank’ Not a Tank? When it was a target.
sschueller 4y ago
I'm not in any armed forces so I am clueless when it comes to this. Why do we still use tanks in modern times? They seem useless in anything urban. They are easy targets for aircraft and jawlines. They need support vehicles for fuel and ammo. The only positive thing I see is that they can traverse unpaved terrain. Being so vulnerable why are they not remote controlled? Human lives cheaper than the tech required? They don't even need to be autonomous, just remote controlled.
- periphrasis 4y ago
  A few points that in the course of being typed out turned into a small essay: Modern conventional warfare is extremely deadly: essentially, if a target can be seen it can be destroyed. Anything in the open will eventually be destroyed. Tanks are not especially more vulnerable to this danger than any other ground vehicle; they are larger, more visible targets, but that is somewhat offset by their armor. If you're looking at all the wrecked Russian T-72s in Ukraine and asking "why have tanks?" you could just as easily look at all the wrecked BMPs and BMDs and ask "why have infantry fighting vehicles?" or at all the wrecked supply convoys and ask "why have trucks?" The answer of course is because you need the mobility and firepower that vehicles provide, but the trade off is that the battlefield is very, very deadly for vehicles. Tanks cannot take the lead in urban operations because the terrain is too restricted and their situational awareness too low. But, their direct firepower can be essential in urban operations: think of a rifle squad pinned down by sniper fire from the upper floors of a building at the end of the block, which is something a tank can easily destroy with minimal risk. As the above point alludes to, tanks and infantry fight more effectively as a team than they can separately. Depending on the mission, terrain, and enemy disposition, a tank can be a more effective weapon than infantry, and vice-versa. But by having both working together, they are able to compensate for the others weaknesses. In the course of a battle, the more effective arm at a given moment is liable to change back and forth multiple times: sometimes the infantry will be making the main effort, sometimes the tanks; sometimes the infantry will be maneuvering while the tanks support by fire, sometimes the tanks maneuver while the infantry supports by fire. The Russians have been particularly bad at this last point in Ukraine. Partly, this appears to a be a result of their infantry formations being significantly understrength; even if they were at full strength, their TOEs (Table of Organization and Equipment) for various infantry unit types suggest notably less strength than their western counterparts. The Battalion Tactical Group organization, as an ad hoc formation, also means that the infantry and armor in a given BTG have probably never trained to fight together as a team: it makes a big difference to go to war with people you've trained as a team with for months/years than with people you met two weeks ago. I think the big takeaway from Ukraine is not that tanks are especially vulnerable on contemporary battlefield, but that unprepared and disorganized Russian tankers are going to die as quickly as the rest of the Russian army when confronting a tough, well-trained, determined opponent equipped with weapons specifically engineered to destroy their vehicles.
bell-cot 4y ago
This reminds me of a decades-ago conversation with a casual friend, who called something a "battleship" - which to her meant "biggish navy ship with prominent gun turrets, that isn't an aircraft carrier". So something like the HMS Galatia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Galatea_(71) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Galatea_(71) - would likely qualify. (Hint - the Galatia's main gun shells massed 50kg. Real battleships fired shells in the 500kg to 1500kg range.) In retrospect, my correction to her should have taken the angle "That's kinda like calling a Chevy Cavalier a 'limo', or a 'Rolls-Royce'. Yes, it has 4 wheels, a hood, a trunk, a motor, it drives on roads... And the Chevy fans and salesmen are talking about how great it is...but NO, it NOT a limo, and NOT a Rolls-Royce."
- c-cube 4y ago
  have you considered that, perhaps, the average person has seen and driven many more cars (an everyday tool to billions of people) than warships? For what it's worth, even OP is annoyed at _journalists_ confusing tanks and similar armored vehicles, not at random people who have other concerns.
  - logifail 4y ago
    > even OP is annoyed at _journalists_ confusing tanks and similar armored vehicles Never mind journalists, how about the German ambassador to the United States? Although as the OP suggests, maybe less of the confusion and more of the deliberate misdirection.
    - someweirdperson 4y ago
      Hanlon’s Razor. Modern German culture frowns upon anything military. Zero-knowledge is common. That includes ambassadors and politicians. The war has made some to start to learn. Media is making jokes about them.
      - logifail 4y ago
        > Modern German culture frowns upon anything military. Zero-knowledge is common. That includes ambassadors and politicians. Not just the Germans. Remember all those comments in the West (from people with apparently no military experience) calling for NATO to declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine in early March? Then Biden and Stoltenberg explained what a no-fly zone actually is[0]. (Spoiler: it's not just a press release.) [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/04/politics/blinken-stoltenberg-no-fly-zone-warning/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/04/politics/blinken-stoltenb...
pestatije 4y ago
When quotes change meaning
mwattsun 4y ago
I used to argue in semantic disputes, but they're really only meaningful in a court of law. Outside of that, it's mostly opinion (a waste of time imho) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute
- curuinor 4y ago
  this guy put the fact that he's a gigantic pedant right up front in the blog title, what'd you expect? let him go and do the pedantry thing, it's instructive
  - mwattsun 4y ago
    That's why I qualified "waste of time" with "in my humble opinion." What I didn't say is that's it's a giant trap that I fall into when organizing my files and that's what I meant when I said it was a waste of time.
- kergonath 4y ago
  Well, it is a “Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry”, after all.
- mumblemumble 4y ago
  I'd argue it's not mostly opinion. This article is pretty bread-and-butter Brett Deveraux. His general thing is that he picks a topic, and gets really pedantic about in order to motivate (and provide a framework for) explaining some interesting aspect of military doctrine or history. In this article, he digs into tank/not-tank in order to fuel a discussion of the development of military doctrine around armored vehicles, including explaining the problems that different kinds of them are trying to solve, and even describing how different semantic distinctions used by other countries helps to highlight differences in their military thinking. I suppose whether or not one thinks that's a waste of time is ultimately down to how much of an interest one takes in military topics. But I'd be hard-pressed to concede that the author's choice to dig into semantics is a waste of time in and of itself. It's quite self-evidently a clever and effective expository tactic.
ZeroGravitas 4y ago
"tank" seems like a very headline (and tweet) friendly word. http://www.isabelperez.com/module4_tesis/headlines.htm http://www.isabelperez.com/module4_tesis/headlines.htm I can imagine similar nerd discussions for some of those. (Interesting to note the only one that seems longer than the usual term is replacing 'strike').
dragontamer 4y ago
In the USA, a "tank" refers to a "main battle tank", or the M1 Abrams. In Germany, "tank" is translated to "Panzer", which roughly means armored vehicles. So "Flugabwehrkanonepanzer" (aka: Flakpanzer) is a Panzer. But a German-flakpanzer is NOT a USA-"tank". ---------- I think a lot of the confusion is the difference in languages. Panzer =/= tank, its just the closest word between the two languages, so we kinda sorta equate them. USA's M2 Bradley is "not a tank", but probably would be classified as a German Panzer. -------- The "proper name" is "Main Battle Tank", which does refer to a very specific kind of vehicle. ------- This is reminding me very much of the "cube rule" for sandwiches. A "hot-dog" isn't a "sandwich", its a "taco" (hot-dogs have the starch covering 3x sides, with the "top" side open). Other "tacos" include hot-dogs, subs, and slice-of-pies (pies are covered on 3 sides after all)
- moron4hire 4y ago
  Tacos are definitely sandwiches. Or as I usually say it, sandwiches are tacos.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Cube-rule is pretty funny. https://cuberule.com/ https://cuberule.com/ Specifically this picture: https://cuberule.com/assets/15_cube_rule.jpg https://cuberule.com/assets/15_cube_rule.jpg Of course, this rule is absurd, since it classifies hotdogs, pie, and subs as a "taco". I think the overall point remains, that no matter how you wish to "classify" things, you can always find a unique counter-example that messes up your classifications.
    - fragmede 4y ago
      I never got that as the overall point because there are definitely classification systems (especially in math) that don't have counter-examples. Hotdogs and tacos are the same, topologically speaking. We derive additional meaning between the two words because they're not the same due to bread and filling used, but topology doesn't care about that. It's entertaining because it's food and everyone has experience with that, but there's some serious math once you look into it! I guess you could classify me as a structural purist - ingredient rebel on the sandwich alignment chart. I'm guessing you're a structural neutral - ingredient purist person.
a3w 4y ago
There are even civilian city tanks: SUVs… ok enough with the satire. I disagree with the author. What is a panzer is also a tank to the layman, and language changes with its (incorrect) usage. See also the last paragraph. Tank doctrine or tank building parts make a tank. Bergungstiger is a tank. Not having („tank“) tracks, but armor, wheels and anti-tank weapons, is still a tank. ``Jagdpanzer‘‘s (mostly front armored, no-turret tanks) are tanks. There is not even a definition for „salad“ that we as humankind can agree on, but: if we see it, we know if it is a salad, tank, or both.
- Sharlin 4y ago
  Hm, I don't think you disagree with the author, whose definition of "tank" in the article is basically "vehicle whose primary purpose is to engage ground targets with a direct-fire cannon while keeping the crew alive" (as opposed to, in particular, vehicles whose primary purpose is to transport and give fire support to infantry).
  - a3w 4y ago
    For germans like me, IFVs and armored artillery cars are tanks. If every tank was an MBT, why add „main battle“ to the word at all? So I think there are subtypes of tanks when we have subtypes of panzers.
    - Sharlin 4y ago
      As the article explains, there used to exist light tanks and heavy tanks until advancement of technology made the distinction obsolete and we ended up with only the "main battle" type of tank combining maneuverability, armor and firepower in a single package. As the article also explains, German "panzer" and English "tank" simply have different meanings, at least pedantically speaking. Translations aren’t always 1:1. (My native language actually follows the German convention.)
- schroeding 4y ago
  You can buy the Gurkha LAPV[1] as a civilian, and I would argue it's at least as much a tank as some of the light troop transport tanks from the cold war. And it's quite the SUV. :D [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terradyne_Armored_Vehicles_Gurkha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terradyne_Armored_Vehicles_Gur...
master_crab 4y ago
Vehicles without rotatable turrets were generally called Assault Guns or Tank Destroyers during WW2. Most definitions of tanks rely on a heavily armored, tracked platform and a fully rotatable turret with armament capable of killing other similarly armored and armed vehicles.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Was the Panzer II a tank? Because the Panzer II only weighed 9 tons. So the modern M2 Bradley has more armor _and_ a bigger gun. (Panzer II has a 20mm primary gun, M2 Bradley has a 30mm primary gun) -------- I think the issue is that WW2 had definitions for tanks (light-tank, medium-tank, and heavy-tank). But today, armored-vehicles are classified by their tactics. (Ex: M2 Bradley would be a "WW2 Medium Tank", but the M2 Bradley's tactics / expected use case is really "IFV", infantry fighting vehicle). Back in Ww2 days, there weren't many kinds of armored vehicles, and the systems of classification (and tactics) were just not very well defined yet. Because today's wars are more complicated and have forced a change in military language to keep up with. Case in point: I'd argue that the "modern Panzer II" is maybe something like the M113 APC (yeah... not really modern but...). With a 20mm gun, only ~12 tons of weight, the M113 APC would be a "light tank" in terms of WW2 terminology. Of course, M113 is an "APC", not a tank. Panzer 2 wasn't a troop carrier either. But I think this example shows how the language has changed in the past 80 years, due to the change in armored-vehicle tactics.
  - masklinn 4y ago
    > Because the Panzer II only weighed 9 tons. How is that of any relevance to GP’s comment?
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      Panzer II has almost no armor. 9 tons is ridiculously small. The M113 APC has thicker armor than a Panzer II. If we take the phrase: > Most definitions of tanks rely on a heavily armored, tracked platform and a fully rotatable turret with armament capable of killing other similarly armored and armed vehicles. Then M113 APC "is a tank". (Big enough gun to kill other M113 APCs, armored and tracked, rotatable turret) ------- My overall point is that "WW2 terminology sucks", especially when describing modern vehicles.
x3iv130f 4y ago
When it comes to semantics there needs to be a clear separation between common and technical terms. I once had someone try to argue can't use the word bison and buffalo interchangeably when sharing buffalo puns. Bison is an old latin word for "wild ox". Buffalo is an old greek word also meaning wild ox. They've been used interchangeably for as long as greek and latin have been spoken together. Some scientist coming along and naming some animal a "Bison bison" doesn't overwrite thousands of years of history.
- onionisafruit 4y ago
  Some of us take buffalo puns seriously. If a child of mine misnamed a buffalo for a cheap pun, I would only have two words for him, “bye son”.
  - tomcam 4y ago
    I’m going to ask you to leave now, Dad
  - 2-718-281-828 4y ago
    or "die son"? okay, that joke is a bit too hybrid, maybe
- lou1306 4y ago
  Or in the words of Moby Dick's Ishmael, "I take the good old fashioned ground that the whale is a fish, and call upon holy Jonah to back me".
  - blenderdt 4y ago
    But that assumes Jonah's fish was a whale. But we don't know. But it might have been a whale: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/12/whale-mouth-lobster-diver-humpback-cape-cod https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/12/whale-mouth-...
    - LudwigNagasena 4y ago
jokoon 4y ago
Today, there are two big families of armored vehicle, main battle tanks, light armor, and everything else. Main battle tanks are designed to sustain a hit from ammunition designed to defeat armor, meaning sabot, RPG, anti-tank missiles, shells, etc. There are some classified techs related to this. Reactive armor is one part, anti RPG measures too (the think that shoots a RPG rocket before it lands). MBT can also land shot from very far away with its 120mm cannon. Most tanks built before the 80s are pretty weak against most RPG with directed charges. Light armors are designed to mostly sustain small arms fire (rifle calibers carried by infantry, anything smaller that 50BMG), and will shoot stuff like 20mm or 30mm, but carry armor that can't really defeat 20 or 30mm. "Everything else" will usually not protect against small arms fire (except those high mounted things who are designed to survive improvised bombs). I think MBT are built to mostly survive 30mm shells, but "not too many", and increase its chance or surviving shells and other things. The reason there are two kinds of vehicles, is because MBT are very heavy (50 tons or more) and can get stuck in mud, and because it's important to transport troops quickly and safely "enough" (unless you encounter a MBT, then you dismount and hides). But you should not really read everything that I just wrote, because I don't know what I am talking about.
choeger 4y ago
Funny thing: The "not a tank" Gepard actually is essentially a Leopard 1 MBT with a different turret. So it's the quintessential example for the definition the author uses: The role has changed and thus did the turret, but the rest of the car stayed the same.
lambdasquirrel 4y ago
The gamer's language for these things actually seems to be pretty relevant. A tank needs to be able to move forward into the thick of the battle, and be able to give and receive a dishing. A WoW warrior class is a tank. It can give and receive a dishing. A DnD rogue class is not a tank. It would not move forward into battle in a frontal assault, with the intent of pushing a breakthrough.
- redisman 4y ago
  That’s a bit selective. I would say that a tanks main duty is to draw aggro from main damage dealers and support and act as a damage sponge.
- baud147258 4y ago
  though most video game tanks don't need to dish much damage, instead the damage is done by the dedicated DPSs
  - lupire 4y ago
    Why do enemies attack tanks, if tanks don't dish damage? ("Tanks are used in games because game AI is dumb" is not a very good answer for extrapolation and metaphor.) How is a tank not a shield?
    - daniel-cussen 4y ago
      There's something about tanks that makes them a priority. Games are set up so the tank can absorb damage done to others, or heal, stuff like that. Because the roles of each fighter are baked into eg League of Legends, there are reasons tanks play the role of a tank. And yeah, opponents try to kill the other roles first, but the the job of a tank is to make that hard.
    - dragontamer 4y ago
      Video-game "Tanks" often have a degree of controlling the enemy movement. Slowing enemies down, binding them, preventing movement. So the point of a "tank" is to run in front of the party. If the enemy tries to run around the tank, they get "CC'd" (crowd-controlled" and are then unable to move. The DPS-job is then to run in, kill them while they're under the control of the tank (aka: while the enemy can't move), and that's that. So trying to kill the enemy DPS often just gets your own party out-of-position. As such, you're often forced to kill the enemy tank first. ------- Needless to say, these fantasy fights / video-game fights don't exist in the real world. These roles were setup by video games, probably World of Warcraft and Diablo II before LoL and DotA. (Maybe an earlier game than that?) But when video gamers hear the word "tank", they expect real-world tanks to act... well... like a video-game tank, and not like a real-world tank.
ummonk 4y ago
On a side note, the story behind the etymology of “tank” is a funny read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#Etymology
robonerd 4y ago
The S-Tank is my favorite tank. Although turretless, its hydropneumanic suspension allowed it to aim its gun up and down in a remarkable way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RVbqyz2lk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RVbqyz2lk4
jeffrallen 4y ago
War is stupid. And boring.
bee_rider 4y ago
From my utterly uninformed position, the Bradley looks like the future to me. Why? Because look at that dumb little gun on the thing. Nobody shows up to War with a dumb little gun like that, unless they've got some really freaky tricks hidden up their sleeve. If somebody shows up in a tank, you know their plan -- they are going to use their giant gun to shoot at things. Probably other tanks. But the Bradley? Not a tank, no tank gun, so who knows what it is going to do?
- andrewflnr 4y ago
  The smart bet on the future of military hardware (or most anything, really) is never that it's just one thing. Not just one plane, not just one gun, not even just one small-arms caliber...
drmpeg 4y ago
Here's my favorite vehicle from the Jacques Littlefield tank collection. A Russian P-40 radar. https://www.w6rz.net/DCP_1040.JPG https://www.w6rz.net/DCP_1040.JPG
gorgoiler 4y ago
I didn’t realize until Ukraine 2022 that true tanks are infantry weapons. They are low profile (same height as a soldier) and there to deliver artillery style impact but at point blank range, side by side with riflemen. Why do tanks need infantry? You can immobilise a tank with a petrol bomb. Something with the firepower of a tank also needs FIBUA close quarter combat to defend it. It is a bizarre quandary.
lenkite 4y ago
"everyone’s favorite kind of armored fighting vehicle" Both the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts have proved without a shred of doubt that Tanks are effectively Suicide Cans that have little relevance in modern warfare. They only look good in military parades. Anti-tank weaponry is sophisticated enough to blast open the greatest of tanks like a hot knife through butter. The warfare equation is changing where an expensive tank and it expensive trained crew can be annihilated at a minute fraction of the cost of building the tank and training its crew. Citation: several hundred videos of tanks being blown to pieces by lone rangers in the Syria and Ukrainian wars using anti-tank weapons. In some videos a single guy destroys multiple moving tanks within a few minutes! Today when a tank is seen on a road, the opposition smiles and is happy. They are going to have a blast and provide a viral youtube video. (which gets taken down but not before it spreads) Unless there is a revolution in armour tech and some sci/fi shielding technology, the Modern Main Battle Tank (MBT) is a Dead Dodo.

194 points by picture 4y ago

"If I was pressed for a hard definition, I’d say that a tank is a heavily armored and tracked combat vehicle whose purpose is to offer powerful direct fire capabilities against a range of enemy targets." That's nice but what do you keep your tropical fish in?

dgfitz 4y ago
An aquarium of course!
- Beldin 4y ago
  Which can be turned into a tank: https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-this-fish-out-of-water-drive-a-mini-vehicle-on-land-180979328/ https://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/watch-this-fish-ou...
InCityDreams 4y ago
My pond.
mcv 4y ago
I suppose you can still keep it in an older style pre-WW2 tank.

ncmncm 4y ago

> When Is a ‘Tank’ Not a Tank? When it was a target.

sschueller 4y ago

I'm not in any armed forces so I am clueless when it comes to this. Why do we still use tanks in modern times? They seem useless in anything urban. They are easy targets for aircraft and jawlines. They need support vehicles for fuel and ammo. The only positive thing I see is that they can traverse unpaved terrain. Being so vulnerable why are they not remote controlled? Human lives cheaper than the tech required? They don't even need to be autonomous, just remote controlled.

periphrasis 4y ago
A few points that in the course of being typed out turned into a small essay: Modern conventional warfare is extremely deadly: essentially, if a target can be seen it can be destroyed. Anything in the open will eventually be destroyed. Tanks are not especially more vulnerable to this danger than any other ground vehicle; they are larger, more visible targets, but that is somewhat offset by their armor. If you're looking at all the wrecked Russian T-72s in Ukraine and asking "why have tanks?" you could just as easily look at all the wrecked BMPs and BMDs and ask "why have infantry fighting vehicles?" or at all the wrecked supply convoys and ask "why have trucks?" The answer of course is because you need the mobility and firepower that vehicles provide, but the trade off is that the battlefield is very, very deadly for vehicles. Tanks cannot take the lead in urban operations because the terrain is too restricted and their situational awareness too low. But, their direct firepower can be essential in urban operations: think of a rifle squad pinned down by sniper fire from the upper floors of a building at the end of the block, which is something a tank can easily destroy with minimal risk. As the above point alludes to, tanks and infantry fight more effectively as a team than they can separately. Depending on the mission, terrain, and enemy disposition, a tank can be a more effective weapon than infantry, and vice-versa. But by having both working together, they are able to compensate for the others weaknesses. In the course of a battle, the more effective arm at a given moment is liable to change back and forth multiple times: sometimes the infantry will be making the main effort, sometimes the tanks; sometimes the infantry will be maneuvering while the tanks support by fire, sometimes the tanks maneuver while the infantry supports by fire. The Russians have been particularly bad at this last point in Ukraine. Partly, this appears to a be a result of their infantry formations being significantly understrength; even if they were at full strength, their TOEs (Table of Organization and Equipment) for various infantry unit types suggest notably less strength than their western counterparts. The Battalion Tactical Group organization, as an ad hoc formation, also means that the infantry and armor in a given BTG have probably never trained to fight together as a team: it makes a big difference to go to war with people you've trained as a team with for months/years than with people you met two weeks ago. I think the big takeaway from Ukraine is not that tanks are especially vulnerable on contemporary battlefield, but that unprepared and disorganized Russian tankers are going to die as quickly as the rest of the Russian army when confronting a tough, well-trained, determined opponent equipped with weapons specifically engineered to destroy their vehicles.

bell-cot 4y ago

This reminds me of a decades-ago conversation with a casual friend, who called something a "battleship" - which to her meant "biggish navy ship with prominent gun turrets, that isn't an aircraft carrier". So something like the HMS Galatia - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Galatea_(71) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/HMS_Galatea_(71) - would likely qualify. (Hint - the Galatia's main gun shells massed 50kg. Real battleships fired shells in the 500kg to 1500kg range.) In retrospect, my correction to her should have taken the angle "That's kinda like calling a Chevy Cavalier a 'limo', or a 'Rolls-Royce'. Yes, it has 4 wheels, a hood, a trunk, a motor, it drives on roads... And the Chevy fans and salesmen are talking about how great it is...but NO, it NOT a limo, and NOT a Rolls-Royce."

c-cube 4y ago
have you considered that, perhaps, the average person has seen and driven many more cars (an everyday tool to billions of people) than warships? For what it's worth, even OP is annoyed at _journalists_ confusing tanks and similar armored vehicles, not at random people who have other concerns.
- logifail 4y ago
  > even OP is annoyed at _journalists_ confusing tanks and similar armored vehicles Never mind journalists, how about the German ambassador to the United States? Although as the OP suggests, maybe less of the confusion and more of the deliberate misdirection.
  - someweirdperson 4y ago
    Hanlon’s Razor. Modern German culture frowns upon anything military. Zero-knowledge is common. That includes ambassadors and politicians. The war has made some to start to learn. Media is making jokes about them.
    - logifail 4y ago
      > Modern German culture frowns upon anything military. Zero-knowledge is common. That includes ambassadors and politicians. Not just the Germans. Remember all those comments in the West (from people with apparently no military experience) calling for NATO to declare a no-fly zone over Ukraine in early March? Then Biden and Stoltenberg explained what a no-fly zone actually is[0]. (Spoiler: it's not just a press release.) [0] https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/04/politics/blinken-stoltenberg-no-fly-zone-warning/index.html https://edition.cnn.com/2022/03/04/politics/blinken-stoltenb...

pestatije 4y ago

When quotes change meaning

mwattsun 4y ago

I used to argue in semantic disputes, but they're really only meaningful in a court of law. Outside of that, it's mostly opinion (a waste of time imho) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Semantic_dispute

curuinor 4y ago
this guy put the fact that he's a gigantic pedant right up front in the blog title, what'd you expect? let him go and do the pedantry thing, it's instructive
- mwattsun 4y ago
  That's why I qualified "waste of time" with "in my humble opinion." What I didn't say is that's it's a giant trap that I fall into when organizing my files and that's what I meant when I said it was a waste of time.
kergonath 4y ago
Well, it is a “Collection of Unmitigated Pedantry”, after all.
mumblemumble 4y ago
I'd argue it's not mostly opinion. This article is pretty bread-and-butter Brett Deveraux. His general thing is that he picks a topic, and gets really pedantic about in order to motivate (and provide a framework for) explaining some interesting aspect of military doctrine or history. In this article, he digs into tank/not-tank in order to fuel a discussion of the development of military doctrine around armored vehicles, including explaining the problems that different kinds of them are trying to solve, and even describing how different semantic distinctions used by other countries helps to highlight differences in their military thinking. I suppose whether or not one thinks that's a waste of time is ultimately down to how much of an interest one takes in military topics. But I'd be hard-pressed to concede that the author's choice to dig into semantics is a waste of time in and of itself. It's quite self-evidently a clever and effective expository tactic.

ZeroGravitas 4y ago

"tank" seems like a very headline (and tweet) friendly word. http://www.isabelperez.com/module4_tesis/headlines.htm http://www.isabelperez.com/module4_tesis/headlines.htm I can imagine similar nerd discussions for some of those. (Interesting to note the only one that seems longer than the usual term is replacing 'strike').

dragontamer 4y ago

In the USA, a "tank" refers to a "main battle tank", or the M1 Abrams. In Germany, "tank" is translated to "Panzer", which roughly means armored vehicles. So "Flugabwehrkanonepanzer" (aka: Flakpanzer) is a Panzer. But a German-flakpanzer is NOT a USA-"tank". ---------- I think a lot of the confusion is the difference in languages. Panzer =/= tank, its just the closest word between the two languages, so we kinda sorta equate them. USA's M2 Bradley is "not a tank", but probably would be classified as a German Panzer. -------- The "proper name" is "Main Battle Tank", which does refer to a very specific kind of vehicle. ------- This is reminding me very much of the "cube rule" for sandwiches. A "hot-dog" isn't a "sandwich", its a "taco" (hot-dogs have the starch covering 3x sides, with the "top" side open). Other "tacos" include hot-dogs, subs, and slice-of-pies (pies are covered on 3 sides after all)

moron4hire 4y ago
Tacos are definitely sandwiches. Or as I usually say it, sandwiches are tacos.
- dragontamer 4y ago
  Cube-rule is pretty funny. https://cuberule.com/ https://cuberule.com/ Specifically this picture: https://cuberule.com/assets/15_cube_rule.jpg https://cuberule.com/assets/15_cube_rule.jpg Of course, this rule is absurd, since it classifies hotdogs, pie, and subs as a "taco". I think the overall point remains, that no matter how you wish to "classify" things, you can always find a unique counter-example that messes up your classifications.
  - fragmede 4y ago
    I never got that as the overall point because there are definitely classification systems (especially in math) that don't have counter-examples. Hotdogs and tacos are the same, topologically speaking. We derive additional meaning between the two words because they're not the same due to bread and filling used, but topology doesn't care about that. It's entertaining because it's food and everyone has experience with that, but there's some serious math once you look into it! I guess you could classify me as a structural purist - ingredient rebel on the sandwich alignment chart. I'm guessing you're a structural neutral - ingredient purist person.

a3w 4y ago

There are even civilian city tanks: SUVs… ok enough with the satire. I disagree with the author. What is a panzer is also a tank to the layman, and language changes with its (incorrect) usage. See also the last paragraph. Tank doctrine or tank building parts make a tank. Bergungstiger is a tank. Not having („tank“) tracks, but armor, wheels and anti-tank weapons, is still a tank. ``Jagdpanzer‘‘s (mostly front armored, no-turret tanks) are tanks. There is not even a definition for „salad“ that we as humankind can agree on, but: if we see it, we know if it is a salad, tank, or both.

Sharlin 4y ago
Hm, I don't think you disagree with the author, whose definition of "tank" in the article is basically "vehicle whose primary purpose is to engage ground targets with a direct-fire cannon while keeping the crew alive" (as opposed to, in particular, vehicles whose primary purpose is to transport and give fire support to infantry).
- a3w 4y ago
  For germans like me, IFVs and armored artillery cars are tanks. If every tank was an MBT, why add „main battle“ to the word at all? So I think there are subtypes of tanks when we have subtypes of panzers.
  - Sharlin 4y ago
    As the article explains, there used to exist light tanks and heavy tanks until advancement of technology made the distinction obsolete and we ended up with only the "main battle" type of tank combining maneuverability, armor and firepower in a single package. As the article also explains, German "panzer" and English "tank" simply have different meanings, at least pedantically speaking. Translations aren’t always 1:1. (My native language actually follows the German convention.)
schroeding 4y ago
You can buy the Gurkha LAPV[1] as a civilian, and I would argue it's at least as much a tank as some of the light troop transport tanks from the cold war. And it's quite the SUV. :D [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terradyne_Armored_Vehicles_Gurkha https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Terradyne_Armored_Vehicles_Gur...

master_crab 4y ago

Vehicles without rotatable turrets were generally called Assault Guns or Tank Destroyers during WW2. Most definitions of tanks rely on a heavily armored, tracked platform and a fully rotatable turret with armament capable of killing other similarly armored and armed vehicles.

dragontamer 4y ago
Was the Panzer II a tank? Because the Panzer II only weighed 9 tons. So the modern M2 Bradley has more armor _and_ a bigger gun. (Panzer II has a 20mm primary gun, M2 Bradley has a 30mm primary gun) -------- I think the issue is that WW2 had definitions for tanks (light-tank, medium-tank, and heavy-tank). But today, armored-vehicles are classified by their tactics. (Ex: M2 Bradley would be a "WW2 Medium Tank", but the M2 Bradley's tactics / expected use case is really "IFV", infantry fighting vehicle). Back in Ww2 days, there weren't many kinds of armored vehicles, and the systems of classification (and tactics) were just not very well defined yet. Because today's wars are more complicated and have forced a change in military language to keep up with. Case in point: I'd argue that the "modern Panzer II" is maybe something like the M113 APC (yeah... not really modern but...). With a 20mm gun, only ~12 tons of weight, the M113 APC would be a "light tank" in terms of WW2 terminology. Of course, M113 is an "APC", not a tank. Panzer 2 wasn't a troop carrier either. But I think this example shows how the language has changed in the past 80 years, due to the change in armored-vehicle tactics.
- masklinn 4y ago
  > Because the Panzer II only weighed 9 tons. How is that of any relevance to GP’s comment?
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Panzer II has almost no armor. 9 tons is ridiculously small. The M113 APC has thicker armor than a Panzer II. If we take the phrase: > Most definitions of tanks rely on a heavily armored, tracked platform and a fully rotatable turret with armament capable of killing other similarly armored and armed vehicles. Then M113 APC "is a tank". (Big enough gun to kill other M113 APCs, armored and tracked, rotatable turret) ------- My overall point is that "WW2 terminology sucks", especially when describing modern vehicles.

x3iv130f 4y ago

When it comes to semantics there needs to be a clear separation between common and technical terms. I once had someone try to argue can't use the word bison and buffalo interchangeably when sharing buffalo puns. Bison is an old latin word for "wild ox". Buffalo is an old greek word also meaning wild ox. They've been used interchangeably for as long as greek and latin have been spoken together. Some scientist coming along and naming some animal a "Bison bison" doesn't overwrite thousands of years of history.

onionisafruit 4y ago
Some of us take buffalo puns seriously. If a child of mine misnamed a buffalo for a cheap pun, I would only have two words for him, “bye son”.
- tomcam 4y ago
  I’m going to ask you to leave now, Dad
- 2-718-281-828 4y ago
  or "die son"? okay, that joke is a bit too hybrid, maybe
lou1306 4y ago
Or in the words of Moby Dick's Ishmael, "I take the good old fashioned ground that the whale is a fish, and call upon holy Jonah to back me".
- blenderdt 4y ago
  But that assumes Jonah's fish was a whale. But we don't know. But it might have been a whale: https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/12/whale-mouth-lobster-diver-humpback-cape-cod https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2021/jun/12/whale-mouth-...
  - LudwigNagasena 4y ago

jokoon 4y ago

Today, there are two big families of armored vehicle, main battle tanks, light armor, and everything else. Main battle tanks are designed to sustain a hit from ammunition designed to defeat armor, meaning sabot, RPG, anti-tank missiles, shells, etc. There are some classified techs related to this. Reactive armor is one part, anti RPG measures too (the think that shoots a RPG rocket before it lands). MBT can also land shot from very far away with its 120mm cannon. Most tanks built before the 80s are pretty weak against most RPG with directed charges. Light armors are designed to mostly sustain small arms fire (rifle calibers carried by infantry, anything smaller that 50BMG), and will shoot stuff like 20mm or 30mm, but carry armor that can't really defeat 20 or 30mm. "Everything else" will usually not protect against small arms fire (except those high mounted things who are designed to survive improvised bombs). I think MBT are built to mostly survive 30mm shells, but "not too many", and increase its chance or surviving shells and other things. The reason there are two kinds of vehicles, is because MBT are very heavy (50 tons or more) and can get stuck in mud, and because it's important to transport troops quickly and safely "enough" (unless you encounter a MBT, then you dismount and hides). But you should not really read everything that I just wrote, because I don't know what I am talking about.

choeger 4y ago

Funny thing: The "not a tank" Gepard actually is essentially a Leopard 1 MBT with a different turret. So it's the quintessential example for the definition the author uses: The role has changed and thus did the turret, but the rest of the car stayed the same.

lambdasquirrel 4y ago

The gamer's language for these things actually seems to be pretty relevant. A tank needs to be able to move forward into the thick of the battle, and be able to give and receive a dishing. A WoW warrior class is a tank. It can give and receive a dishing. A DnD rogue class is not a tank. It would not move forward into battle in a frontal assault, with the intent of pushing a breakthrough.

redisman 4y ago
That’s a bit selective. I would say that a tanks main duty is to draw aggro from main damage dealers and support and act as a damage sponge.
baud147258 4y ago
though most video game tanks don't need to dish much damage, instead the damage is done by the dedicated DPSs
- lupire 4y ago
  Why do enemies attack tanks, if tanks don't dish damage? ("Tanks are used in games because game AI is dumb" is not a very good answer for extrapolation and metaphor.) How is a tank not a shield?
  - daniel-cussen 4y ago
    There's something about tanks that makes them a priority. Games are set up so the tank can absorb damage done to others, or heal, stuff like that. Because the roles of each fighter are baked into eg League of Legends, there are reasons tanks play the role of a tank. And yeah, opponents try to kill the other roles first, but the the job of a tank is to make that hard.
  - dragontamer 4y ago
    Video-game "Tanks" often have a degree of controlling the enemy movement. Slowing enemies down, binding them, preventing movement. So the point of a "tank" is to run in front of the party. If the enemy tries to run around the tank, they get "CC'd" (crowd-controlled" and are then unable to move. The DPS-job is then to run in, kill them while they're under the control of the tank (aka: while the enemy can't move), and that's that. So trying to kill the enemy DPS often just gets your own party out-of-position. As such, you're often forced to kill the enemy tank first. ------- Needless to say, these fantasy fights / video-game fights don't exist in the real world. These roles were setup by video games, probably World of Warcraft and Diablo II before LoL and DotA. (Maybe an earlier game than that?) But when video gamers hear the word "tank", they expect real-world tanks to act... well... like a video-game tank, and not like a real-world tank.

ummonk 4y ago

On a side note, the story behind the etymology of “tank” is a funny read: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#Etymology https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#Etymology

robonerd 4y ago

The S-Tank is my favorite tank. Although turretless, its hydropneumanic suspension allowed it to aim its gun up and down in a remarkable way: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RVbqyz2lk4 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4RVbqyz2lk4

jeffrallen 4y ago

War is stupid. And boring.

bee_rider 4y ago

From my utterly uninformed position, the Bradley looks like the future to me. Why? Because look at that dumb little gun on the thing. Nobody shows up to War with a dumb little gun like that, unless they've got some really freaky tricks hidden up their sleeve. If somebody shows up in a tank, you know their plan -- they are going to use their giant gun to shoot at things. Probably other tanks. But the Bradley? Not a tank, no tank gun, so who knows what it is going to do?

andrewflnr 4y ago
The smart bet on the future of military hardware (or most anything, really) is never that it's just one thing. Not just one plane, not just one gun, not even just one small-arms caliber...

drmpeg 4y ago

Here's my favorite vehicle from the Jacques Littlefield tank collection. A Russian P-40 radar. https://www.w6rz.net/DCP_1040.JPG https://www.w6rz.net/DCP_1040.JPG

gorgoiler 4y ago

I didn’t realize until Ukraine 2022 that true tanks are infantry weapons. They are low profile (same height as a soldier) and there to deliver artillery style impact but at point blank range, side by side with riflemen. Why do tanks need infantry? You can immobilise a tank with a petrol bomb. Something with the firepower of a tank also needs FIBUA close quarter combat to defend it. It is a bizarre quandary.

lenkite 4y ago

"everyone’s favorite kind of armored fighting vehicle" Both the Syrian and Ukrainian conflicts have proved without a shred of doubt that Tanks are effectively Suicide Cans that have little relevance in modern warfare. They only look good in military parades. Anti-tank weaponry is sophisticated enough to blast open the greatest of tanks like a hot knife through butter. The warfare equation is changing where an expensive tank and it expensive trained crew can be annihilated at a minute fraction of the cost of building the tank and training its crew. Citation: several hundred videos of tanks being blown to pieces by lone rangers in the Syria and Ukrainian wars using anti-tank weapons. In some videos a single guy destroys multiple moving tanks within a few minutes! Today when a tank is seen on a road, the opposition smiles and is happy. They are going to have a blast and provide a viral youtube video. (which gets taken down but not before it spreads) Unless there is a revolution in armour tech and some sci/fi shielding technology, the Modern Main Battle Tank (MBT) is a Dead Dodo.