4 ms·
I should’ve added on the ground, but MBTs today can also successfully target and shoot down helicopters too. The Hellcat wasn’t a tank it was another class of
by dogma1138 4y ago
I should’ve added on the ground, but MBTs today can also successfully target and shoot down helicopters too.
The Hellcat wasn’t a tank it was another class of AFVs called a tank destroyer which again also pretty much disappeared from the battlefield today.
Tho some European armies that their doctrine relies heavily on a dug in defensive war do still employ what you could class as a tank destroyer.
- mcv 4y agoSee? Declaring the Hellcat "not a tank" is one of those issues. According to the OP's definition, it's a tank, it's a tank according to any layperson that would see one, it has all the features of a tank (including a turret, even), and it fills a tank role: destroying other tanks. The only thing that makes it not-a-tank is its classification in US tank doctrine at the time. Because to at the time, to the US, a tank was an infantry support tank. But today, it would absolutely be considered a tank, if a lightly armoured one. But light tanks were still tanks according to all other WW2 combatants at the time.
- dogma1138 4y agoAnd I have no problem with that, I think the whole tank not a tank debate is just pedantic. As I originally said since most people aren’t familiar with the term AFV they pretty much consider anything that doesn’t look like a car and can shoot things a tank. Self propelled artillery complicates thing especially artillery that can pretty much shoot as flat as a tank like the Paladin for example. If you show a lay person a picture of the M109 they’ll call that a tank too.