Talk:Tank classification

message: This obviously needs to be extended quite a bit...
--Martin Wisse 11:14, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs  to be extended 

message: the introduction and the "classification"-part are quite redundant. someone care to merge these two and write a new intro? 84.129.179.29 17:50, 6 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Redundancy 

message: I have to say I don't think splitting it into 'weight' and 'role' classifications works at all. 'Light', 'Medium' and 'Heavy' are all role classifications - late-war light tanks weighed more than early war medium tanks. At one stage every different army had different tank classifications based on its doctrine. And in the present day your tank is an MBT, or it's obsolete, or it's a cavalry fighting vehicle... The Land 15:26, 22 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  i also disagress with the language descripting the M1 MBT being between the medium and heavy tank, it clearly weights more than a heavy tank! being the MBT doesn't have anything to do with your weight, it just means  it is the main battle tank, replacing the previous mix of multiple kind of tanks. also i am surprised the example of israeli tank is not raise, given it's revolutionary concept for urban fighting. Akinkhoo (talk) 06:35, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I've moved MBT to modern roles, as its a role, not a weight classification.  I've corrected the end of Cruiser and Infantry tanks in the 1st paragraph of the role section, leading through Iniversal to MBT.  To replace MBT in the weights section, I've added the end of medium and heavy tanks.  Lkchild (talk) 15:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  I don't think splitting into 'weight' and 'role' works 

message: Where did the section on "tank destroyers" end up?  It's not here, and it's not in the article on tank history you moved the rest of this from. --Carnildo 07:06, 23 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Where did the section on tank destroyers go? 

message: The tone of "The twenty-first century: decline of heavy armour?" suggests that the tank is, in fact, obsolete and only inertia keeps it in service.  I think it needs some clarification that while man-portable anti-tank missiles in the 60s and 70s made people declare the tank obsolete, tactics and technology developed to counter them and the tank remained viable.  Helicoptors and top-attack munitions are heralding a similar round of discussion and the jury is still out.
Schwern 09:49, 26 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it doesn't read well, but the section suggests the fall of the tank is due to weight, not missiles. I will fix. Maury 20:02, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Obsolete?

message: Why is this in the article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Turtleh (talk • contribs) 04:17, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  See Pokemon? 

message: Can we add an Abrams picture under the the British Challenger and German Leopard tanks? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 155.219.241.10 (talk) 16:52, 5 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Abrams Main Battle Tank 

message: Even though the content makes sense to me (being an enthusiast of this topic, not an expert nor scholar), I could not find a single reference to bibliographical sources that supports it. There are several books that can be included in a "bibliography" section and I volunteer to do so, although it would be very useful that the editors that contributed to this article provide their own references. Thanks for the effort! Regards, DPdH (talk) 07:31, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  References & Sources Needed... 

message: I've noticed that there is a "Main Article" blue link to a WikiArticle for all tank types mentioned in the classification in the section "Tank Types" of this article, except for these: "Light Tank", "Medium Tank", "Heavy Tank". Wouldn't it make sense to have also a dedicated article (even in "stub" form) for these three categories? Just to be consistent and allow for further expansion of those. Regards, DPdH (talk) 22:34, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tank types "Main Articles" 

message: I saw on a discovery channel documentary that the FT-17 was the first tank to introduce a fully reversible turret, a driver on the front and the engine on the rear, and was was therefore the pattern for most modern tanks (apart the Merkava 4 which, unless I am wrong here, put the engine on the front) yet I see no such mention here, is it true? Matthieu (talk) 08:58, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Fully *traversible* turret. Yes, it's generally correct that the FT17 set the basic layout for most tanks that have followed. All marks of the Merkeva have the engine in front of the fighting compartment, but that pattern has not been adopted by many other tanks. A few light tanks use this pattern such as the British Scopion/Scimitar series and even some designs from the 1930s. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:02, 18 April 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please note that the "TAM" (based on the german "Marder" IFV chassis) also follows the "Merkava" layout, in this case with the engine at the front right and the driver sitting at its left. Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:09, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for the headup. Do you think there should at least be a picture of that tank here? I see it nowhever yet it seems it was quite an important step in the history of tank. While I see loads of tanks which have not been influencial. Is it true otherwise than the AMX-13 was the first time to use an automatic loading system? Or was it some Soviet model? Matthieu (talk) 14:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FT-17 

message: I just noticed something odd, if you type Main Battle Tank you land here, but if you type Main Battle Tanks you land somewhere else Matthieu (talk) 17:03, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Battle Tank vs Main Battle Tanks 

message: Hi all. Looks that the classification of "MBT" leaves some vehicles out of it. For instance, the argentinian "TAM" seems to be a "medium" tank (hence the "M" in the acronym, from the spanish word "Mediano"), however it's currently Argentine Army's "MBT". How do you think it should be listed? Regards, DPdH (talk) 01:20, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  What about tanks not so clearly MBTs, as the argentinian TAM? 

message: Hi All, I've just noticed that the pic about the South Korean Army's K2 "Black Panther" tank (File:444kc1.jpg) is now a "red link" (and the same is true for that tank's wikiarticle). I assume that it was a non-free image... can anyone please provide a "free" one? I'll place a "tag" in this article as a reminder.  Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 02:12, 15 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Missing pic of K2 "Black Panther" tank 

message: The 21st century section should be removed or moved to a different article as it is totaly off topic. username 1 (talk) 14:43, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: 21st century

message: For editors who work on this article more regularly, may I suggest broadening the study of the different nationalities? Currently the article appears to focus disproportionately on the British, their principal allies (American and to a lesser extent, French), and their historic enemies (Nazi Germany and to a lesser extent, the Soviet Union), to the detriment of all other nations that have ever fielded armored forces: principally Italy, Japan and China. In particular, the Soviets and Japanese have come up with some interesting light amphibious designs. India, Iran, Israel, Spain, Hungary and Poland have also produced some indigenous designs. 
This is not the British Wikipedia, or even the NATO Wikipedia. Please consider including some of these designs in your discussion in the article mainspace. If you need help, let me know on my User Talk page. Thanks. Phoenix and Winslow (talk) 23:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Just a note

message: A comment on original research as suggested by the tag that's been in place for some months, and also in light of the "Just a note" comment, just above.
This article *is* largely original research, it's an excuse for an extended history of tanks, and for an informal analysis of the historical use of words. Consider this existing sentence:
"There were many names given to different tank types, and similar names did not assure similar design goals. Some light tanks were relatively slow, and some were fast. Some heavy tanks had large-calibre, low-velocity, anti-infantry bunker-busters, and some had high-velocity anti-tank guns."
What it says in essence is that the meaning of various tank terms changed frequently and were inconsistent.
The point made by Phoenix and Winslow above highlights that this is, in the main, an appreciation of WWII Western tanks.
It's also centered on cutting-edge tanks, as opposed to surplus tanks fighting any number of battles elsewhere, under any number of other military doctrines.
Not much of the article content isn't better covered in the Tank article and the ones linked directly to that. There's no compelling reason to have a long article that doesn't have any particular point to make, except that tank classifications change regularly and aren't consistent between countries.
Just about that same point could be made for any taxonomy, any classification system. This is an encyclopedia, not a historical dictionary. About 3/4 of the article could be removed, and what remains should be tied to reliable references making points about tank classification, and not synthesis on the part of Wiki editors quoting authors who are not specifically talking about classification. 98.210.208.107 (talk) 17:56, 25 February 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I've removed much of the "history of tank" cruft as a start. The rest of the article is still crappy original research in a dire need of a complete rewrite. --Kubanczyk (talk) 14:46, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've put in some bald facts of the British "heavy", Medium and Light (back to Medium) tank naming up to mid-1920s. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:08, 19 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Original research

message: Anytime the T-34 is mentioned on wiki, someone always takes the liberty of adding words like "great" "revolutionary" "shocking" "Excellent" to it. This is neither a neutral statement, nor historically correct. It is popularisti myths that can be easily disproven and has no place on wiki.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.187.116.238 (talk) 12:45, 28 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Seriously, enough with the T-34 fanboyism. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion