5 ms·

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 ch

by 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...

by a3w 4y ago

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...