Talk:Armoured warfare

message: The relatively weak articles mechanized force and mechanized warfare should be merged into this article, the best developed of the three.  Let's work on one strong article on military motorization, mechanization, and armoured tactics, which can later spin off reasonably good new articles on the sub-topics. 
This would be a general article on the subject of motorized/mechanized/armoured warfare and not a dictionary definition, so I suggest we don't launch into a discussion on the precise differences between the three, but put the energy into the article. There has also been some relevant discussion at talk:Mechanized warfare.
This merge doesn't stop us from moving the resulting combined article to another title, but that would be a separate issue to vote on. —Michael Z. 2006-10-14 02:25 Z
=== Support ===
# (nominator) —Michael Z. 2006-10-14 02:25 Z
# Certainly.  It might also be a good idea to merge Armoured forces in. --Carnildo 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge 

message: # (nominator) —Michael Z. 2006-10-14 02:25 Z
# Certainly.  It might also be a good idea to merge Armoured forces in. --Carnildo 04:44, 14 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Support 

message: I made some slight modifications and reorganizations. Are they okay? AllStarZ 05:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, such large headings are not conforming to the usual Wikipedia style.--MWAK 07:24, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: A little question

message: With regard to WWI I find written: "tanks were used at the Battle of Amiens ending the stalemate imposed by trench warfare on the Western Front and effectively ending the war". I think that's a very sweeping statement, implying that the use of tanks was solely responsible for the end of the war, when in fact there were many factors. OK if I remove it? 199.71.183.2 20:54, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The sentence is ambiguous. What was probably meant was that the Germans never recovered from the defeat at Amiens, not that the teanks were the sole cause. In such cases it is better to improve then to remove :o).--MWAK 08:21, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Ending the War

message: Disappointed, although not surprised, at absence of reference to French tank development in WWI. It was quite separate and independent from the British; the French ordered larger numbers than the British; they designed the first modern, turreted tank, and manufactured more tanks than all the other combatants combined. But all we get here is the familiar story of the British vehicles and, of course, the German A7V.Hengistmate (talk) 22:33, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  World War One French Tanks.. 

message: Can we get a better picture for the lede?  The current one is mostly dust, with a few vague shapes that may be tanks.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:05, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed, although it is an image of an actual operation, it's hardly lead image material. The one I have replaced it with is more obviously representative of armoured warfare in my opinion, even though it is of an exercise. (Hohum @) 19:13, 31 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks; this new one is certainly better.  The fact it is an exercise instead of a true battle is fine, since the article is about "armoured warfare", something more broad than just tank battles; even a pic of such vehicles lined up for service would be fine.  But thinking about it, I'd guess it would be nice to include some non-tank armored vehicles -- APCs or whatnot.  But if we can't find such, this current pic will do.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:06, 1 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lede pic 

message: Why are most of the images of the French and (of course, as always) the americans? We need some diversity up in here! Let's have some Leopards & Challengers. As in, some decent tanks ;)  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.54.64.45 (talk) 20:43, 20 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Images 

message: Armoured corps article has been converted from a disambiguation page to an article that includes a list of specific armoured corps of various nations (by me, per wp:DABCONCEPT).  I propose there and at Tank Corps that "Tank Corps" be merged in.  I further suggest that Mechanized force, currently a redirect to this Armoured warfare article, be redirected to there, instead.  Could editors here consider these changes and possibly help develop the Armoured corps article to be a good complement to this one.  Basically there is a need for a wp:SIA (set index article) or other list-article to the various significant armoured forces (however they are named) that have Wikipedia articles.  And there is a need for other articles to be able to link to the topic (which they cannot if it is a dab).  (BTW, I came to the Armoured corps article, which was a disambiguation page, as part of helping in wp:DPL's effort to eliminate disambiguation pages with incoming links.)  Help/comments at Talk:Armoured corps would be appreciated. Sincerely, --doncram 15:38, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armoured corps article 

message: And what about the US or the West, were there no such projects ? What's about Pentomic structure, for example ? --129.187.244.19 (talk) 12:24, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, during the Fifties and Sixties for all NATO armies the primary motive for mechanisation was to increase mobility and protection in order to survive the nuclear battlefield.--MWAK (talk) 12:53, 1 March 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:   So, <small>''in the Soviet Army which sought to adopt its existing doctrine evolved during World War II to the nuclear battlefield''</small> - ?