4 ms·

I think a lot of people have a problem identifying what a tank is today, using the term to mean tracked armoured vehicle with a gun on top. The author does addr

I think a lot of people have a problem identifying what a tank is today, using the term to mean tracked armoured vehicle with a gun on top. The author does address this in a previous post, but for what it's worth, I tend to distinguish between * tanks - vehicles that have a direct fire role on the battlefield (the crew designate their own targets) * self-propelled guns - they may look like tanks, but provide indirect fire (they fire, like artillery, at coordinates they are given by someone else) * armoured personnel carriers - essentially busses which delivery infantry (the dismounts) to the battlefield. Using UK examples, tanks include Challenger 2 (a classic Main Battle Tank), Ajax and Scimitar (a light tank that conducts close reconnaissance). Self propelled guns include the AS90 and APCs include Warrior.

chrisseaton 4y ago
But Warrior also has a direct fire role. The differentiator there is you wouldn’t expect to engage another MBT. That’s the same thing that makes recce cars not tanks, even though they have a direct fire weapon system.
- throw1234651234 4y ago
  A tank, today, can be defined by the combination of: 1. The heaviest armored vehicle on land in any given army. 2. Fires APFSDS munitions. ----- I think we will run into a lot of semantics here. You can no longer say that "an IFV is not expected to engage a tank", as Bradleys have killed tanks with TOWs, likewise BMP-3s can fire Kornet ATGMs. These are viable tank killers and bring the MBT role into question. The argument I was going to go with is "MBTs don't carry troops, other than crew", which also has technical problems such as "well, the Merkava does". Furthermore, there is talk of moving tanks to 152mm guns, at which point there is talk of giving them enough elevation to serve as indirect fire pieces. At this point, I would argue that the separator for tanks is the ability to fire APFSDS munitions, which provide the ability to reliably penetrate another MBT without relying on a guided munition, (aka TOW, Kornet). Why is this important? Because it's fast (ability to evade return fire, less chance for enemy to evade), counter-measures don't exist (ERA is insufficient against fin-stabilized kinetic sabots, APS is too slow), etc. Note that APFSDS can only be fired from a gun that is too heavy to carry on anything OTHER than an MBT. Bradleys, Strykers, BTRs, BMPs, etc just can't take the weight/recoil. The second argument is "the heaviest armored vehicle" possible - and this is universally true for MBTs today. P.S. This is a pretty technical rant, if you have questions, I will answer them, but it would take too long to caveat everything I just said in this post, so I didn't even try.
  - chrisseaton 4y ago
    > if you have questions, I will answer them Lol thanks for the offer - I'm a Royal Armoured Corps squadron leader.
    - throw1234651234 4y ago
      It was a generic statement for anyone reading, didn't intend it to be an under-handed slight questioning the competence of the author of the comment I was replying to. With that said, do you agree with the combination of APFSDS and heaviest armor defining an MBT today?
      - chrisseaton 4y ago
        'APFSDS and heaviest armor' same as 'designed to engage another MBT [with their main armament]' I would say. If you count destroying MBTs with ATGW then you'll start calling infanteers 'tanks'.
  - 0xffff2 4y ago
    >Note that APFSDS can only be fired from a gun that is too heavy to carry on anything OTHER than an MBT. Bradleys, Strykers, BTRs, BMPs, etc just can't take the weight/recoil. What about the M1128 Stryker variant? Wikipedia tells me it's being retired, but as far as I can tell it mounts a full sized tank cannon (same as the original M1) and is not being retired due to problems with the gun per se. I certainly wouldn't call it a tank. I'm a decade out of the Army and I only know anything about Strykers because I saw them around post. I never served in a Stryker unit. That said, it seems like the M1128 is a direct contradiction to this fairly central premise in your post.
  - chipsa 4y ago
    A tank is protected direct firepower. Your definition neglects light tanks, which have their uses (primarily in air mobile operations). A Merkava is a tank because it's point is the firepower, not troop carrying. A Bradley is not a tank because the point is the troop carrying, not the firepower. There may be talk of tanks going to 152mm, but that's not a talk for NATO. NATO doesn't use 152mm anyways, and the predicted next iteration is 140mm. Heavy ERA is possibly sufficient against Sabot, and APS is looking at being able to intercept sabot is well (mostly in the form of knocking the penetrator down. There's nothing technically stopping an IFV from carrying a MBT grade gun (Styrker MGS carried gun equivalent to the original M1). Similarly, there remains interest in use of hyper velocity missiles for anti-tank use (which gets up to APFSDS speed, but doesn't need the gun to do so. See KEM/CKEM. And many of the IFVs use APFSDS ammo (Rheinmetal makes it).
- KineticLensman 4y ago
  > But Warrior also has a direct fire role. Fair enough. (I'm still waiting for someone to take issue with me describing WR as a bus)
thereddaikon 4y ago
You're definitely on the right track. A tank is best defined by doctrinal use, not by physical characteristics because many things have been officially used as tanks that would not fit a simple definition. The definition most people would come up with would best describe an Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV). Tanks are a type of AFV but not all AFVs are tanks.
- avn2109 4y ago
  >> "on the right track" Pun intended??
  - thereddaikon 4y ago
    It definitely is now.
Clubber 4y ago
The term "tank," was invented in WWI (1915) as a name to disguise what it actually was. It was called a tank as in water carrier. When they were first delivered to the western front, and "tank" was written on the side of the container/tarp, soldiers thought they were getting a new supply of water ration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#Origins
- CRConrad 4y ago
  Which Harry Turtledove spoofs in one of his many[1] novel series taking a twist on the World Wars / the second World War, namely the one where they're mainly fought in America between the USA and a CSA which in that timeline remained independent after winning the Civil War. There', they're called "barrels". ___ [1]: At least three including this, but I have a feeling I may be forgetting at least one more.

chrisseaton 4y ago

But Warrior also has a direct fire role. The differentiator there is you wouldn’t expect to engage another MBT. That’s the same thing that makes recce cars not tanks, even though they have a direct fire weapon system.

throw1234651234 4y ago
A tank, today, can be defined by the combination of: 1. The heaviest armored vehicle on land in any given army. 2. Fires APFSDS munitions. ----- I think we will run into a lot of semantics here. You can no longer say that "an IFV is not expected to engage a tank", as Bradleys have killed tanks with TOWs, likewise BMP-3s can fire Kornet ATGMs. These are viable tank killers and bring the MBT role into question. The argument I was going to go with is "MBTs don't carry troops, other than crew", which also has technical problems such as "well, the Merkava does". Furthermore, there is talk of moving tanks to 152mm guns, at which point there is talk of giving them enough elevation to serve as indirect fire pieces. At this point, I would argue that the separator for tanks is the ability to fire APFSDS munitions, which provide the ability to reliably penetrate another MBT without relying on a guided munition, (aka TOW, Kornet). Why is this important? Because it's fast (ability to evade return fire, less chance for enemy to evade), counter-measures don't exist (ERA is insufficient against fin-stabilized kinetic sabots, APS is too slow), etc. Note that APFSDS can only be fired from a gun that is too heavy to carry on anything OTHER than an MBT. Bradleys, Strykers, BTRs, BMPs, etc just can't take the weight/recoil. The second argument is "the heaviest armored vehicle" possible - and this is universally true for MBTs today. P.S. This is a pretty technical rant, if you have questions, I will answer them, but it would take too long to caveat everything I just said in this post, so I didn't even try.
- chrisseaton 4y ago
  > if you have questions, I will answer them Lol thanks for the offer - I'm a Royal Armoured Corps squadron leader.
  - throw1234651234 4y ago
    It was a generic statement for anyone reading, didn't intend it to be an under-handed slight questioning the competence of the author of the comment I was replying to. With that said, do you agree with the combination of APFSDS and heaviest armor defining an MBT today?
    - chrisseaton 4y ago
      'APFSDS and heaviest armor' same as 'designed to engage another MBT [with their main armament]' I would say. If you count destroying MBTs with ATGW then you'll start calling infanteers 'tanks'.
- 0xffff2 4y ago
  >Note that APFSDS can only be fired from a gun that is too heavy to carry on anything OTHER than an MBT. Bradleys, Strykers, BTRs, BMPs, etc just can't take the weight/recoil. What about the M1128 Stryker variant? Wikipedia tells me it's being retired, but as far as I can tell it mounts a full sized tank cannon (same as the original M1) and is not being retired due to problems with the gun per se. I certainly wouldn't call it a tank. I'm a decade out of the Army and I only know anything about Strykers because I saw them around post. I never served in a Stryker unit. That said, it seems like the M1128 is a direct contradiction to this fairly central premise in your post.
- chipsa 4y ago
  A tank is protected direct firepower. Your definition neglects light tanks, which have their uses (primarily in air mobile operations). A Merkava is a tank because it's point is the firepower, not troop carrying. A Bradley is not a tank because the point is the troop carrying, not the firepower. There may be talk of tanks going to 152mm, but that's not a talk for NATO. NATO doesn't use 152mm anyways, and the predicted next iteration is 140mm. Heavy ERA is possibly sufficient against Sabot, and APS is looking at being able to intercept sabot is well (mostly in the form of knocking the penetrator down. There's nothing technically stopping an IFV from carrying a MBT grade gun (Styrker MGS carried gun equivalent to the original M1). Similarly, there remains interest in use of hyper velocity missiles for anti-tank use (which gets up to APFSDS speed, but doesn't need the gun to do so. See KEM/CKEM. And many of the IFVs use APFSDS ammo (Rheinmetal makes it).
KineticLensman 4y ago
> But Warrior also has a direct fire role. Fair enough. (I'm still waiting for someone to take issue with me describing WR as a bus)

thereddaikon 4y ago

You're definitely on the right track. A tank is best defined by doctrinal use, not by physical characteristics because many things have been officially used as tanks that would not fit a simple definition. The definition most people would come up with would best describe an Armored Fighting Vehicle (AFV). Tanks are a type of AFV but not all AFVs are tanks.

avn2109 4y ago
>> "on the right track" Pun intended??
- thereddaikon 4y ago
  It definitely is now.

Clubber 4y ago

The term "tank," was invented in WWI (1915) as a name to disguise what it actually was. It was called a tank as in water carrier. When they were first delivered to the western front, and "tank" was written on the side of the container/tarp, soldiers thought they were getting a new supply of water ration. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#Origins https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank#Origins

CRConrad 4y ago
Which Harry Turtledove spoofs in one of his many[1] novel series taking a twist on the World Wars / the second World War, namely the one where they're mainly fought in America between the USA and a CSA which in that timeline remained independent after winning the Civil War. There', they're called "barrels". ___ [1]: At least three including this, but I have a feeling I may be forgetting at least one more.