3 ms·

Vehicles without rotatable turrets were generally called Assault Guns or Tank Destroyers during WW2. Most definitions of tanks rely on a heavily armored, track

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.
- master_crab 4y ago
  If you want to call a Bradley a tank, I don’t think that matters. But if it’s carrying troops to disgorge at a location then it is now no longer a tank but closer to an IFV or APC. It doesn’t change the definition of what a tank is.
- lostlogin 4y ago
  > Was the Panzer II a tank Yes, but definitions change with time. If you asked someone to describe a car, most people would probably include features that are absent from early car design.
- jandrewrogers 4y ago
  As a technical nitpick, the M2 Bradley has a 25mm main gun, not 30mm.
ranger207 4y ago
Not as familiar with German assault guns, but it's worth noting that the American term "tank destroyer" was, like a tank as discussed in the article, a role-based term. The M18 Hellcat[0] was a tank destroyer, and looked much like a tank, but the M5 3-inch gun[1] was also a tank destroyer even though it was more similar to an artillery piece than a tank. American tank destroyers, regardless of technical characteristics, were meant to wait for an enemy armored push, then respond to that, freeing up the actual tanks to go off and do their own thing. This was a result of prewar planning seeing that tanks might not be able to mount a good enough gun and have enough armor, but in the event it turned out that the M4's gun was good enough and enemy tank-only pushes didn't happen enough that the tanks couldn't respond to them, so the tank destroyer wound up as more of an assault gun. If you're interested in reading more about American tank destroyers, Gabel, Christopher R. (September 1985), "Seek, strike, and destroy: U.S. Army tank destroyer doctrine in World War II"[2] is not terribly long and is well written [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-inch_gun_M5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-inch_gun_M5 [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20110601200445/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110601200445/http://www.cgsc.e...
mcv 4y ago
Except American tank destroyers did have rotating turrets and would be called tank by any reasonable person. Also, the S-tank is a dead ringer for German WW2 tank destroyers, and even fights in a very similar way (defensive/ambush) but is considered a tank. And then there's the Russian IS-152, ISU-152, ISU-122 which can be heavily armoured direct fire front-line fighters, but can also raise their guns for indirect artillery support.

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.
master_crab 4y ago
If you want to call a Bradley a tank, I don’t think that matters. But if it’s carrying troops to disgorge at a location then it is now no longer a tank but closer to an IFV or APC. It doesn’t change the definition of what a tank is.
lostlogin 4y ago
> Was the Panzer II a tank Yes, but definitions change with time. If you asked someone to describe a car, most people would probably include features that are absent from early car design.
jandrewrogers 4y ago
As a technical nitpick, the M2 Bradley has a 25mm main gun, not 30mm.

ranger207 4y ago

Not as familiar with German assault guns, but it's worth noting that the American term "tank destroyer" was, like a tank as discussed in the article, a role-based term. The M18 Hellcat[0] was a tank destroyer, and looked much like a tank, but the M5 3-inch gun[1] was also a tank destroyer even though it was more similar to an artillery piece than a tank. American tank destroyers, regardless of technical characteristics, were meant to wait for an enemy armored push, then respond to that, freeing up the actual tanks to go off and do their own thing. This was a result of prewar planning seeing that tanks might not be able to mount a good enough gun and have enough armor, but in the event it turned out that the M4's gun was good enough and enemy tank-only pushes didn't happen enough that the tanks couldn't respond to them, so the tank destroyer wound up as more of an assault gun. If you're interested in reading more about American tank destroyers, Gabel, Christopher R. (September 1985), "Seek, strike, and destroy: U.S. Army tank destroyer doctrine in World War II"[2] is not terribly long and is well written [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M18_Hellcat [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-inch_gun_M5 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-inch_gun_M5 [3] https://web.archive.org/web/20110601200445/http://www.cgsc.edu/carl/download/csipubs/gabel2.pdf https://web.archive.org/web/20110601200445/http://www.cgsc.e...

mcv 4y ago

Except American tank destroyers did have rotating turrets and would be called tank by any reasonable person. Also, the S-tank is a dead ringer for German WW2 tank destroyers, and even fights in a very similar way (defensive/ambush) but is considered a tank. And then there's the Russian IS-152, ISU-152, ISU-122 which can be heavily armoured direct fire front-line fighters, but can also raise their guns for indirect artillery support.