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?
>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.
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.
>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.
>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
>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.
>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
>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
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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
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
"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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
>"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.
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).
>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.
>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.
1 year 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.
1 year 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
1 year 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.
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.
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
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.
>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
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)
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.
>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.
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".
Is stank?
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.
yes
The S tank certainly fills both of those criteria tho
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.
>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.
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.
Tragic that they never saw combat. The fuel tank side skirt armor is also cool
Is OTOMATIC a tank?
No.
OTOMATIC is God.
yeah
Surely - surely! - the Mark IV Tank has to be, by definition, a tank, right?
>Armored
can resist incomeing small arms fire and nearby artillery shrapnel
>Fighting
has some offence capability
>wagon
is mobile
it gets naming dibs
None of these are tanks. Tanks are where you store liquid.
Humans are mostly liquid
yeah maybe you are, soft ass homie
hard where i should be though
ya mudda can attest to that
Where do you think they keep the fuel dumb dumb, all of these vehicle have tanks
No, a Tank is the plate wearing dude in World of Warcraft who soaks up damage while the others do DPS spam.
>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.
>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
>maneuver
lol
>Is Scimitar a tank?
Yes
A reconaissance tank, not a main battle tank
>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.
>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
>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
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
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.
Yes
But It's also more accurately defined as Combat reconnaissance vehicle tracked, or a reccie vehicle kek.
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
Enlighten us with your definition of a tank. In words. Not just a "gut feeling of tankiness".
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.
behold! A tank
you laugh, but a Puma IFV absolutely is a tank by 1942 standards
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
Depends on your alignment.
Doctrine radical, structure purist or die.
Sheeny claws typed this post
Frick you, anything with tracks, armor, and a big gun in an armored turret is cool.
but that would make the Mk I tank "not a tank" despite literally being the eponymous tank.
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.
Move over.
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.
yup
for this meme to work, the top-left corner entries should be reasonable
the humour is in the other quadrants especially bottom right
is the STRV103 really used in the breakthrough and breakthrough? Seems kinda difficult to do without a turret, no?
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
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.
Would be nice if these charts ever actually made a point instead of going for meme humor points.
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
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
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.
shut the frick up it's a deep philosophical discussion about the platonic ideal of an tank, ur mum's a tank
>bitches about muh nu/k/ while being ignorant of the existing NATO technical definition of a tank
homosexual
Scimitar is a ifv
>ifv
>doesn't carry infantry
>ifv
>no space to carry infantry
>supports tanks, not infantry
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.
Yes, tanks can be armed with autocannon, see Panzer II.
The real non-midwit argument is whether the Sprut-SD is a tank?
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.
I loved these on bf3, does it have the same shit armour as a BMD?
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.
>Big gun that fires shells >75mm
>Fully rotatable turret
It isn't a tank but its scimitar.
I'm here all week, remember to tip your waitress.
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.
>tank
>made for direct action
>gun designed for direct fire
>heavily armored
>large bore main gun
this is an infantry fighting vehicle
Light tank.
Tank.
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.
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.
>"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.
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).
>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.
>multi-purpose aviation destroyer
...yes, and?
Experts call them all tanks, sorry.
>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.
Bruh, that shit would be 5 tiles in Battleship and if you're claiming otherwise, you're in denial.
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.
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
>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.
BEHOLD, a stolen bit
BEHOLD, a tank
>"Nooo, it has to have a turret!" are just modern armchair autists splitting hairs
It's an operational requirement, dipshit.
Even for IFVs.
>Test beds are actual combat vehicles
Not unless your name is Vlad or Adolf
Is the BMP-3/ZBD-04 a tank?
Yes, light tanks.
An armoured vehicle which main purpose is to destroy fortifications and destroy enemy armour in mostly direct fire situations.
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.
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.
Scimitar is classed as a Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked), or CVRT for short
Not a tank
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.
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
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.
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.
>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
If it carries water it's a tank
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)
tanks are dinosaurs. obsolete, soon to be extinct. not worth discussing.
its a light tank for recon
Pic related; it's a tank.
If its got armor and treads, its a tank.
the truth is that tank is not a term that has a definition. A tank is whatever people choose to call a tank
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!
Oh it definitely is, it's a good little tank too
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.
I've heard it called a light tank a lot so a lot of people agree with that.
Did any scimmys participate in the George bush crusades?
Is an M113 a tank?
This thing is probably equivalent to a Panzer II at best
>armor's 3 times thicker
>speed's 60% faster
>cannon's almost 4 times as large
>at best
>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.
>No
The M113A1 FSV has 38mm frontal and 44mm side armor.
Initial Panzer runs had 14mm armor on the frontal and side armor.
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".
>patent pending