Can?

Can /k/ define what is and is not a tank?

Is Scimitar a tank?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is stank?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/cgayF1d.jpg

      Is OTOMATIC a tank?

      doesn't have the big gun that shoots rounds designed to destroy MBTs from the front for it's generation, also needs armor that can withstand most rounds from the front except the big guns designed to destroy MBTs from the front for it's generation.

      https://i.imgur.com/Ff8IdLG.jpg

      Surely - surely! - the Mark IV Tank has to be, by definition, a tank, right?

      yes

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        The S tank certainly fills both of those criteria tho

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        So no "tank" before the invention of the MBT is a tank? Why does the Mk IV count? There were no MBTs in its generation.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >Why does the Mk IV count?
          Legacy mostly. Sort of like how no one today looks at a WW1 era bolt action rifle and thinks that it is fit to be a service rifle you can modern issue infantry. Ye old definitions of tanks do not fit the modern mold but did during their time so we will continue to call them that. Maybe some day people will be asking on a forum how an Abram's can be a tank despite lacking a full auto 100mm coil gun and laser defense system... it even uses ye old treads to move around.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Stank has the standard T-72 popping 105mm NATO gun, the same armament as contemporary NATO MBTs, and designed specifically to engage Warsaw Pact MBTs with fire and maneuver. Stank is tank.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Tragic that they never saw combat. The fuel tank side skirt armor is also cool

  2. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is OTOMATIC a tank?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      No.
      OTOMATIC is God.

  3. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    yeah

  4. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Surely - surely! - the Mark IV Tank has to be, by definition, a tank, right?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >Armored
      can resist incomeing small arms fire and nearby artillery shrapnel
      >Fighting
      has some offence capability
      >wagon
      is mobile

      it gets naming dibs

  5. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    None of these are tanks. Tanks are where you store liquid.

    • 11 months ago
      Sage

      Humans are mostly liquid

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        yeah maybe you are, soft ass homie

        • 11 months ago
          Sage

          hard where i should be though
          ya mudda can attest to that

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Where do you think they keep the fuel dumb dumb, all of these vehicle have tanks

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      No, a Tank is the plate wearing dude in World of Warcraft who soaks up damage while the others do DPS spam.

  6. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Can /k/ define what is and is not a tank?
    In the modern sense, treads, armor, turret, single shot cannon above 75mm(probably closer to 100mm now), direct fire role and troop carrying ability not a core role.
    I would say that about covers it. The definition has changed over time, WW1 and interwar tanks were often machine gun / auto cannon carriers, smaller single shot cannons are not really in vogue like 37mm, 50mm and really basically anything below 100mm. The S-Tank alone is a rabbit hole of autism that its very mention might eat this thread alive. Then there is snowflake designations like the Mobile Protected Firepower which is a tank in every fashion except stated role... but might be pressed into a tank role in a war. Then there is the Lynx with the 120mm cannon but it still retains some real troop carrying capability unlike the Merkava which can shelter a couple of guys.
    The problem with military definitions is you have everything nice and defined, this here is a fork, this here is a spoon and then some butthole comes along and invents a fricking spork.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >reads, armor, turret, single shot cannon above 75mm(probably closer to 100mm now), direct fire role
      this

      >The problem with military definitions is you have everything nice and defined, this here is a fork, this here is a spoon and then some butthole comes along and invents a fricking spork
      Nonetheless there are very few if any vehicles which prove the rule to that extent

      The Stridsvagn 103 is more properly a tank destroyer since it was built to optimise defensive capability. Modern armour commanders insist on turreted AFVs for offensive operations and the S-Tank would be regarded as a terrible compromise

      Stank has the standard T-72 popping 105mm NATO gun, the same armament as contemporary NATO MBTs, and designed specifically to engage Warsaw Pact MBTs with fire and maneuver. Stank is tank.

      >maneuver
      lol

      https://i.imgur.com/T3xTLmw.jpg

      Can /k/ define what is and is not a tank?

      Is Scimitar a tank?

      >Is Scimitar a tank?
      Yes
      A reconaissance tank, not a main battle tank

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >optimise defensive capability
        You mean like literally every western tank designed from the beginning of the cold war up through the 80's? Fulda Gap was the center of western military thought for decades. And remember that it was designed in 1957, its competition for Swedish service was Pattons and Centurions against which the contest is much, much closer.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >In the modern sense, treads, armor, turret, single shot cannon above 75mm(probably closer to 100mm now), direct fire role and troop carrying ability not a core role.
      Add in a reasonable lower limit for armour thickness to ensure its not some upgunned tracked IFV and this definition is pretty solid

  7. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Tank
    >Heavily armoured, able to withstand high calibre weaponry, has a weapon that is above 40mm
    >IFV
    >Able to withstand high calibre weaponry but not dedicated anti-tank weapons, has infantry capacity, has a weapon 20mm or above
    >APC
    >Able to withstand at least intermediate rounds, primarily for infantry transport, may or may not have a weapon of some sort
    >AFV
    >Same as IFV except no transport capacity

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      probably about right, but note that AFVs (withstands high calibre weaponry, gun above 20 mm, limited detachment) and "light tanks" ("heavy armor" + 105mm+ gun) have overlapping definitions, so good luck nuancing out the real difference between the two
      Bionic AFV is my favorite example because the "light tank" version they tested is just the turreted AFV version with a larger gun, while the IFV is the same thing but turretless - and you can't say it isn't armored enough to count, because MEXAS-M is the exact same shit that a significant number of Leo1s and Leo2s with transport capacity used

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        I was counting 'light tanks' in AFVs t b h. It allows a wide definition and it fits in. Like, the Stryker with various weapon options fits neatly in there when you could argue the 105mm variant is a light tank. Just easier to cover all.

        It only gets a bit complicated with things that Russia dishes out. For example the T-15 is just a T-14 hull but an IFV instead (as in it has transport capacity) so that kinda makes it a straddler. Since it is fundamentally a tank from a defensive aspect but not from a weapon aspect and my definition of IFV is that it can shrug off shit like 12.7mm and maybe autocannons but it won't take direct hits from 90mm+ and likely be unharmed (at least relatively). But the T-15 (and Namer I think?) probably could. But the T-15 is a mythical legendary Pokemon in reality so kinda moot.

  8. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes
    But It's also more accurately defined as Combat reconnaissance vehicle tracked, or a reccie vehicle kek.

  9. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I find it amusing how most people on /k/ just straight up make up their own definitions of what a tank is from videogames and movies.

    Of course it's a fricking tank. It's a light reconnaissance tank

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Enlighten us with your definition of a tank. In words. Not just a "gut feeling of tankiness".

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        A heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.
        Reminder that when the definition was created, CVRT would not be considered lightly armoured by any means.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          behold! A tank

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            you laugh, but a Puma IFV absolutely is a tank by 1942 standards

  10. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Tank is a catch all.
    People just think MBT = tank because they watch too many movies/vidya or just follow military grunt shorthand (For MBT) as gospel

  11. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Depends on your alignment.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Doctrine radical, structure purist or die.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Sheeny claws typed this post

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Frick you, anything with tracks, armor, and a big gun in an armored turret is cool.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        but that would make the Mk I tank "not a tank" despite literally being the eponymous tank.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          Acceptable, the Brown Bess isn't even a rifle despite being one of the most prolific of the first class of weapon that would evolve into what you or I would call a service rifle.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Move over.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        those 3 can reasonably be called tanks. basically you can have some non-purist structural or doctrinal elements - but not too much and the more unorthodox it is in structure or doctrine the less it can deviate in the other.

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          yup
          for this meme to work, the top-left corner entries should be reasonable
          the humour is in the other quadrants especially bottom right

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous
    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      is the STRV103 really used in the breakthrough and breakthrough? Seems kinda difficult to do without a turret, no?

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        At the time it was new the fancy hydraulic suspension offset the lack of the turret since nobody was effectively firing on the move anyways and it could come to a halt and aim really quickly

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      A tank is any vehicle protected against HMGs with a cannon primary armament.
      >but that makes some IFVs tanks
      Yes, they are light tanks
      >what about wheels
      Don't care.
      >what about weight
      Tankettes are still tanks

      The only non-tank is the technical.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/7ULwweR.png

      Move over.

      Would be nice if these charts ever actually made a point instead of going for meme humor points.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        I made the second one, and while the rest are for fun, the top left four quadrants address the actual debate
        >which is the point of these charts IMHO

  12. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It fits the technical definition of a tank, but obviously when you say "tank" nowadays everyone assumes mbts, but I would say the best way to describe this tank would be ww2 designation of either a light tank or a scout tank

  13. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Damn nu/k/ autists educated by vidya categories.

    "A tank" is not a set of capabilities or features, it is a designation by a military. One military will have different requirements to another and will therefore issue different requirements when procuring their tanks, so asking "what makes something a tank?" is irrelevant.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      shut the frick up it's a deep philosophical discussion about the platonic ideal of an tank, ur mum's a tank

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >bitches about muh nu/k/ while being ignorant of the existing NATO technical definition of a tank
      homosexual

  14. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Scimitar is a ifv

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >ifv
      >doesn't carry infantry

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >ifv
      >no space to carry infantry
      >supports tanks, not infantry

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Anon the gunner, turret and ammo takes up what space there was for infantry.
      It's not the APC/IFV variant that has most of that removed for carrying (some) infantry/gear with a tiny machine gun hatch, it's tiny.

  15. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, tanks can be armed with autocannon, see Panzer II.

  16. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    The real non-midwit argument is whether the Sprut-SD is a tank?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Looks like a lightweight tank destroyer/assault gun, like the LKV91 or AGS.

      On paper they look like light tanks, but they don't have the recce purpose.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Looks like a lightweight tank destroyer/assault gun, like the LKV91 or AGS.

      On paper they look like light tanks, but they don't have the recce purpose.

      >armored
      >primarily armed with a 125mm smoothbore gun
      >turret
      >used in a direct fire anti-tank and anti-personnel role
      >deployed in the support of airborne or amphibious assaults
      It's a light tank.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I loved these on bf3, does it have the same shit armour as a BMD?

  17. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Scimitar is a light tank in the reconnaissance role. Scorpion and Scimitar have both seen combat in the tank role where they have engaged and destroyed infantry and tanks.

  18. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Big gun that fires shells >75mm
    >Fully rotatable turret

  19. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    It isn't a tank but its scimitar.

    I'm here all week, remember to tip your waitress.

  20. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    If it has treads and armor, it's tank. It's juts a variation of a tank. It's got a gun for shooting things far away? That's a Siege tank. It's artillery with tank body.

  21. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >tank
    >made for direct action
    >gun designed for direct fire
    >heavily armored
    >large bore main gun
    this is an infantry fighting vehicle

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Light tank.

      https://i.imgur.com/2xKmyyT.jpg

      Little willie, c1915, the first tank. It was given the name 'tank' because it looked like a fricking water tank and is easier to say than 'Land Ironclad Dreadnought'.. All later definitions "Nooo, it has to have a turret!" are just modern armchair autists splitting hairs.

      Tank.

  22. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Little willie, c1915, the first tank. It was given the name 'tank' because it looked like a fricking water tank and is easier to say than 'Land Ironclad Dreadnought'.. All later definitions "Nooo, it has to have a turret!" are just modern armchair autists splitting hairs.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It was called a "tank" because it was a large and heavy classified project that had to be transported by people that didn't know about it.
      If people are transporting anything classified you want to tell them it's something physically similar to what they are transporting so they use appropriate techniques.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >"Nooo, it has to have a turret!" are just modern armchair autists splitting hairs.
      More like the definition narrowed as the types of specialized armor expanded. By the WW1 definition an M113 is a tank. It blows autists minds that we can recognize something is historically a tank while simultaneously knowing it does not fit the modern definition and would be classified differently in a modern army.

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        Nah, you just struggle to use MBT because of decades of media morons who listened to the last generation of media morons telling you that's what a "tank" is, despite the fact that there were various "types" of "tank" within WW2 that would not fit your current definitions.

        >Gun on a turret or some kind
        >Track
        >Any sort of armour that stops common military projectiles (This include small arms).

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >despite the fact that there were various "types" of "tank" within WW2 that would not fit your current definitions.
          This is a facetious argument because we aren't beholden to past usages of words. Or even present usages of words when the source is ass.

          >What is a tank?
          and
          >What has been described as a tank?
          are different questions.

          You see this with other weapons too where what shit was called at the time isn't necessarily going to have any reflection on its modern classification or terms could refer to a bunch of unrelated bullshit.

          You can either have a rigorous classification system OR you can debate translations of an incomplete and biased historical record.

          And I don't recommend the latter or you'd have to call pic related a fricking destroyer.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >multi-purpose aviation destroyer
            ...yes, and?

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            Experts call them all tanks, sorry.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              >Experts
              Ask me if I give a frick? And by "expert" you mean "historians".

              People do this bullshit with climate change too. No some rando geologist that also thinks the moon is hollow doesn't have any valid opinions about climatology.

              The expert you would be looking for would be a "linguist" and they would call you a dumb b***h cause an up-armored bulldozer would have more in common with modern tanks than this bullshit.

              https://i.imgur.com/JgCiQTo.gif

              >multi-purpose aviation destroyer
              ...yes, and?

              Bruh, that shit would be 5 tiles in Battleship and if you're claiming otherwise, you're in denial.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Any definition of tank that doesn't include the eponymous tank is a failed definition. Under almost no circumstance do you go back and reclassify historical vehicles because they no longer fit modern doctrine.

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                Or you could admit the requirements for a tank change over time, especially at the beginning where nobody knew how a tank "should be". I don't think many nowadays or even in the immediate post-world war 1 era thought light machine gun only armaments where adequate for tanks like what we saw in WW1 with Whippet, Mark V females and FT17s. The post war machine gun armed tanks spawned another class called tankettes in recognition of this. The only exception I can think of is Panzer I which was a light tank, but also meant to get around the Versailles treaty as a tractor

              • 11 months ago
                Anonymous

                >Any definition of tank that doesn't include the eponymous tank
                Terms falling out of use for namesakes is a thing that happens, my dude.

                Especially in cases where the term would be less useful for trying to include them.

                And the dispute isn't just doctrinal. You can make a structural dispute that the first tank to fall under the modern use of the term is the Renault FT.

                All the British "tanks" contributed was the name.

            • 11 months ago
              Anonymous

              BEHOLD, a stolen bit

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          BEHOLD, a tank

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      >"Nooo, it has to have a turret!" are just modern armchair autists splitting hairs
      It's an operational requirement, dipshit.
      Even for IFVs.

    • 11 months ago
      Sage

      >Test beds are actual combat vehicles
      Not unless your name is Vlad or Adolf

  23. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is the BMP-3/ZBD-04 a tank?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Yes, light tanks.

  24. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    An armoured vehicle which main purpose is to destroy fortifications and destroy enemy armour in mostly direct fire situations.

  25. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Does it have tracks, does it have a large main gun? If yes then yes, if no then no.

    It's not rocket science homosexuals.

  26. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    WW1: armoured fighting vehicle on tracks
    WW2 and later: armoured fighting vehicle on tracks with a turret in a primarily direct fire ground role, with no or insignificant space for infantry.

    Fricking Hellcat though. I'm saying it's still a tank.

  27. 11 months ago
    Sage

    Scimitar is classed as a Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked), or CVRT for short
    Not a tank

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      It's still a tank moron, the specialised name they gave it to differentiate it from the broad definition doesn't make it not a tank.

  28. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    the real answer is, you'll know it when you see it. standardized definitions are for midwits. people will shit themselves when they find out that tanks sometimes fire missiles. panic will set in, was everything a lie. great anxiety

  29. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    As a somewhat reformed WW2 Tank buff I consider anything with thicker armor than a
    1940s APC with a non machine gun as the primary to be a tank. Alternatly any armored vechile with a turret. Of course this would break my rule.

  30. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    If the army that operates it defines it as a tank, then it is a tank. If they don't then it's not. It's really that simple.

  31. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >Can /k/ define what is and is not a tank?
    >wheelless
    >tracked
    >armored
    >ground vehicle
    >with a single-shot cannon
    >in a turret capable of rotating 360 degrees
    >primarily designed and configured for direct fire

  32. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    If it carries water it's a tank

  33. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Everything is moronic because nowadays most people assume tanks have to be MBTs, and modern MBTs generally are most similar to old heavy tanks in terms of protection requirements (protected vs all but the most powerful of weapons from the front)

  34. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    tanks are dinosaurs. obsolete, soon to be extinct. not worth discussing.

  35. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    its a light tank for recon

  36. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Pic related; it's a tank.

  37. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    If its got armor and treads, its a tank.

  38. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    the truth is that tank is not a term that has a definition. A tank is whatever people choose to call a tank

  39. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    I find it funny that even by the most autistic definitions given itt the Scorpion is a tank no different from an MBT.

    its also cute. CUTE!

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      Oh it definitely is, it's a good little tank too

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I once showed my wife a scimitar, she said it was cute, like a little baby tank. The SSgt I was working with said "its a lethal killing machine, it's not supposed to be cute". To me, that came across as cope, it's cute.

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      I've heard it called a light tank a lot so a lot of people agree with that.

  40. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Did any scimmys participate in the George bush crusades?

  41. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Is an M113 a tank?

    • 11 months ago
      Anonymous

      This thing is probably equivalent to a Panzer II at best

      • 11 months ago
        Anonymous

        >armor's 3 times thicker
        >speed's 60% faster
        >cannon's almost 4 times as large
        >at best

        • 11 months ago
          Anonymous

          >armor's 3 times thicker
          No
          This is the key point - the best A3-upgraded variant of the Australian FSV was still only M2 BMG resistant, like the later ausfs of Panzer II. Perhaps with further upgrades it might be able to resist 20mm, but not in its current form.

          • 11 months ago
            Anonymous

            >No
            The M113A1 FSV has 38mm frontal and 44mm side armor.

            Initial Panzer runs had 14mm armor on the frontal and side armor.

  42. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    Tank = genus

    Light, medium, heavy, battle, infantry, cruiser, scout, anti air etc etc = species. Problem is what most people call a tank today actually only refers to the MBT species. It's like calling all birds as "chickens".

  43. 11 months ago
    Anonymous

    >patent pending

Leave a Reply to Anonymous Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *