>Why talk so smugly about something you clearly have no fricking knowledge on?
He was a member of the Young Turks and supported Bernie Sanders - they're all like this.
>Why talk so smugly about something you clearly have no fricking knowledge on?
He was a member of the Young Turks and supported Bernie Sanders - they're all like this.
It's an internet generation thing. The terminally online manbaby who thinks a google search makes him an instant expert on everything.
Do normies really think a tank is any tracked vehicle with a gun?
That said both are capable of easily destroying any Russian tank in service, so good enough.
Some normies would think that a Bradley is a tank, but for the most part they would STFU instead of digging out citations from WWI when told that they were wrong (he literally did this)
Plenty of people wouldn't even go that far, they just think any military vehicle with tracks is a tank. If you took a random selection of people and showed them an unarmed M113 at least a third of them would consider it a tank.
>Do normies really think a tank is any tracked vehicle with a gun?
As long as the gun looks like a turret, then yes.
Shit I've personally handled and processed ABCD data files for paladin vehicles and my first thought at seeing the paladin picture up top was "That's not a tank?"
takes literally 3 minutes to google why they're classified the way they're classified. or just ask any 14 year old who played a bit of military vidya games.
A tank is a tracked vehicle that's designed to support infantry with direct fire.
This is distinct from an IFV (a heavy vehicle designed to carry infantry and also provide fire support), an APC (lighter than an IFV, also carries infantry), a self propelled gun (an artillery piece with armor and tracks) and a bunch of other shit.
>A tank is a tracked vehicle that's designed to support infantry with direct fire.
The Howitzer and Bradley are and can be tracked.
You can support infantry with direct fire from either.
Therefore.
Howitzers and Brads are tanks.
neverserved noguns pacifist tourist here's my idea of how this works based on my BF2142 knowledge:
MBT>modern IFV>light tanks>IFV>everyone else>ATGMs>AFV
This is excluding planes, ships, artillery and all but you might want to consider attack helicopters somewhere below IFVs and my ranking does of course generalize things a fair bit.
also I just learned this to fall under assault gun because it's a self propelled artillery platform with auxiliary machine gun
I don't understand why my autism compells me to learn this but please r8 my wikipedia snippets and bradley is a modern IFV, but I don't know anything about it specifically
>with a rotating turret
Please you explain what stridsvagn 103 is
>stridsvagn 103
looks like a tank destroyer which I have omitted from my ranking because it's an obsolete concept from what I gathered on 4chin
It's not really a ranking thing so much as a role thing
>MBT
A tracked vehicle designed to serve as a general purpose tank, combining the mobility of a medium tank with the lethality of a heavy tank. In modern contexts, generally the only kind of tank that a military uses
>IFV
A heavy vehicle that carries infantry but is also designed to participate directly in combat, including against enemy tanks
>light tanks
A lighter tank designed for reconnaissance, airborne operations, or other tasks where a heavy tank is too logistically difficult to field. Was obsolete for a while, but is coming back in some roles because of how difficult force projection is in a world with cheap missiles.
>ATGM
A missile designed to destroy tanks
>AFV
A general term for vehicles that engage in combat, including tanks, IFVs, APCs, and so on.
>I just learned this to fall under assault gun
Not really. It's a self propelled howitzer, i.e. indirect fire long range artillery piece put onto armored chassis to give it protection and mobility to increase it's chances of survival against counterbattery fire, enemy air assets and other nuisance.
Assault guns were armored vehicles intended to bring big guns to forward areas (i.e. into direct combat) mostly to blow up enemy fortifications, buildings etc. plus a little bit of that good old shelling. A bit of an outdated concept now when tanks with 100+ mm guns can do most of the direct fire work themselves and modern communications let you precisely direct artillery from far away. There was some overlap between assault guns and tank destroyers, and they fell out of favor some time after WWII, with Swedes being probably the last ones to design and put into service new assault guns (they mostly repurposed older tank chassis for that to extend their useful lifespan and give their infantry units more firepower).
Depends on if theres a real difference between a Casemate Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun, and Self propelled Artillery, but yes it did happen a lot in WW2, including using direct fire SPAA.
A Casemate TD/assault gun is or was an artillery gun on a chasis designed for direct fire, but could also be used for indirect fire, being essentially mobile artillery pieces. However they were generally more useful as multi-role Tank Destroyers as well as assault guns, despite them not being originally intended for that role. Ones which received a heavily armoured superstructure (Stug, SU-85, SU-152, Bishop) and those which received a more lightly armoured and open top superstructure (Sexton, Hummel, Marder) were both extremely similar and often used for direct fire as well as indirect fire, although the more open top ones had more elevation and so were better at indirect fire but more vulnerable for direct fire.
Even vehicles which were just cars or tractors with guns attached on for mobile artillery or AA support could and did use them in direct fire, often by neccessity in the early war when the long 88s were pressed from AA/artillery into killing KV-1s which panzer III's were having a hard time with.
That being said, depending on the vantage point and elevation, direct fire and indirect fire can just be the same thing. For example the FV4005 tank destroyer was designed to lob 183mm explosive shells across the fulda gap to blow up T-55s, it wasnt designed for front line use but was intendended to see its target directly, although it was absolutely capable of acting like artillery, is it direct fire or indirect fire when its at a vantage point where it can see enemies 10km away? Modern self propelled howitzers arent designed for direct fire but are still capable of it, its just if theyre used for that, then 'direct fire' is ideally (unless theyre caught out of position) going to mean from a good vantage point where they can directly see what theyre shooting at.
I have an unwavering faith that during ww2 Russians probably tucked at least one [pic related] in a city alley to point blank a passing panzer iv from 2 yards away
the second image is a self propelled artillery and it is exactly what it sounds like.
It's not supposed to fight on the front line or survive any anti vehicle munitions, and is wholly incapable of preforming independent operations.
Depends on context imo.
By strict technical/academic definition, no, SPGs and IFVs arent tanks. But if a giant armoured box turns up in your town and starts blowing things up, then sure its a tank. If youre looking at it from a. distance and cant tell, then sure its a tank. If youre getting shot by it and dont have heavy weapons, then as far as youre concerned, its a tank. Really originally tanks were anti infantry weapons, and todays IFVs arent a million miles away from interwar or early ww2 light or medium tanks in terms of their calibre and (base) armour. The difference between an artillery gun and a tank cannon is a bit wishy washy, especially as many WW2 SPGs outright did just have howtizers, and the origins of many famous tank guns are in repurposed artillery guns, e.g. Long 88. So yeah sure, if youre a military planner its not a tank, if youre on the receiving end then its a tank as far as you care, the difference is role related, which you wont care about if its trying to kill you.
>The difference between an artillery gun and a tank cannon is a bit wishy washy,
Artillery is rifled while modern tanks are smoothbore (except for British ones).
You might say that mortars are also smoothbore but they have far lower pressure.
Yes but thats just a prevalent modern feature, not entirely inherent to tank cannons. Imo a SPG is of the class of 'tanks', even if it isnt a 'tank' in its modern role, as its a heavily armed armoured box with tracks. If you saw it from a distance or were subject to direct fire, you'd say its a tank. In ww2 the class of SPGs were often used in a direct fire role or specifically built as tank destroyers, in fact they most commonly were built as multi-role vehicles capable of being tank destroyers, they were tanks as far as anyone was concerned. Its not the intended role of modern ones, as theyre ot primarily intended for direct fire, but theyre able to fill that role if need be, and so can be called 'tanks' imo. Its just MBTs are a lot better at being a tank as opposed to artillery.
Has a Paladin ever been recorded going head to head with an actual tank? And if not, could it feasibly do so? Does the gun aim low enough to shoot in a straight direction?
Wow this man is fricking moronic. Why talk so smugly about something you clearly have no fricking knowledge on? >howitzers are tanks
https://i.imgur.com/7kyrp5L.jpg
The evolution of Michael Tracy
>"The Russians won't invade Ukraine" >"The Russians are only putting their troops into the separatist regions to stop Ukrainian aggression. This is just like when the West supported Kosovo but I condemned that and support this." >"Okay, the Russians invaded but it's too late to support them and it was the West's fault for starting all this." >"Heh, you say Ukraine is doing well but how come the Russians took Mariupol after two months HMMMMM?!" >"Bucha didn't happen, and I will turn down multiple offers to go to Bucha to see for myself what's going on because it could be used for Pro-Ukraine propaganda." >"Ukraine is losing and any other news is false. Also if the West sends ammunition to Ukraine it will start World War 3!" >"If the West trains Ukrainian troops it will start WW3." >"If the West provides military intel it will start WW3!" >"If the West provides anti-tank weapons it will start WW3!" >"If the West sends HIMARS it will start WW3!" >"If Ukraine takes Kherson it will start WW3!" >"The Crimean Bridge Attack was a terrorist incident comparable to 9/11" (Fricking seriously) >"You keep comparing stopping Putin to stopping Hitler? Actually stopping Hitler in World War 2 wasn't justified either." (Fricking seriously)
Is this guy trolling or legit moronic?
Former ex-Young Turk guy was talking about the donation of US tanks to Ukraine. He stated that the US donating the Paladin was them using 'official military jargon' to get around the fact that had actually already donated tanks. Because the Paladin is a tank. After all, it has a gun, it has SOME armour and it has tracks. So it is tank. People called him out on it and went 'Yeah that isn't a tank' and he went on an autism rant going >UM WELL THIS BOOK SAYS THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF TANK SO FRICK YOU LOL
Instead of admitting he was wrong, he doubled down for days and is now so mindbroken he is calling Bradley's tanks because... um... um... THEY JUST ARE, OK?????
You guys are either not mentioning or haven't seen him have a mental breakdown and get arrested after he couldn't get an autograph from Ann Coulter. Enjoy
https://twitter.com/haramcart/status/1437608552395378690
The crew would die and their platoon commander would be court-martialed for being so incompetent a howitzer was able to somehow ambush a tank in his unit and direct fire on it.
Direct hit with a 155mm HE? Best case is that the tank is mission killed by all its optics being shattered by overpressure and shock, worse case is that said shock and overpressure both ruptures the crews organs and makes it look like they slammed into a concrete wall at 50 miles per hour.
It would kill the tank. However, the M109 doesn't have the direct-fire fire control, the sensors, the rate of fire, or the armor to survive an encounter with a M1 unless it gets very, very lucky. Dueling tanks is *not* an intended mission for a howitzer; it's a capability reserved for self-defense when there are no other options.
One could call this a tank yes, an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks, but it would make as much sense as calling a M16 a machine gun.
The concept evolved.
This age old nerd debate was reignited by the delivery of the AMX-10 and now involves normies, so there is a lot a of brain fart gas filling the forums.
If the AMX-10 is a tank then pic related was one too, because the have the same role on the battlefield.
The first use of a tank was in the battle of the battle of the Somme. British Mk.I tanks were used. >Enclosed, on tracks, integrated guns and armored
>M1A2 sep v3 >Hit in the turret cheek by PzH. 2000 using dm121 with full propellant load
-Turret ring bent, turret stays slightly lifted, potentially letting pressure enter the tank
-All optics shattered
-Most electronics fricked
-Cannon bent
-Suspension in the front blown out
-Upper front plate of hull potentially deformed so much that it tore and let the pressure enter the tank
-Crew deaf and shell shocked at best and dead from internal bleedings at worst
>but it would make as much sense as calling a M16 a machine gun.
According to the ATF it is.
There's various assault/battle rifles with a machine gun equivalent that simply has some modifications to easier sustain automatic fire such as a heavier barrel, option for belt feeding or a swapping mechanism.
The difference between assault rifle and machine gun is more a question of doctrine than design.
>Is he right, /k/? These are tanks, right?
Just because it's stupid to hold tanks as some hyper special thing when compared to other military vehicles they sent, doesn't mean you can play fast and loose with the definition of a tank... that's Sweden's job.
>use chemical propellents,
Shovels of excavators can use chemical propellents too.
[...]
how would you keep the cannon stable?
There is no need for the cannon to stay stable to be considered a tank.
>What definition of a cannon are you using?
A cannon is a large-caliber gun.
That is not a gun of any caliber.
What is a gun?
It moves something something something in a direction. Yaddah yaddah yaddah, it's a cannon because it can move something by propelling it downward using the shifting apparatus.
>This Black person literally went into a mental. breakdown after people from both sides dog piled on him.
He thought because he can shitpost in normie Twitter and jerk off to the angry replies that he could cope with angering tank posters. Silly man. Silly, silly man.
>"The Russians won't invade Ukraine" >"The Russians are only putting their troops into the separatist regions to stop Ukrainian aggression. This is just like when the West supported Kosovo but I condemned that and support this." >"Okay, the Russians invaded but it's too late to support them and it was the West's fault for starting all this." >"Heh, you say Ukraine is doing well but how come the Russians took Mariupol after two months HMMMMM?!" >"Bucha didn't happen, and I will turn down multiple offers to go to Bucha to see for myself what's going on because it could be used for Pro-Ukraine propaganda." >"Ukraine is losing and any other news is false. Also if the West sends ammunition to Ukraine it will start World War 3!" >"If the West trains Ukrainian troops it will start WW3." >"If the West provides military intel it will start WW3!" >"If the West provides anti-tank weapons it will start WW3!" >"If the West sends HIMARS it will start WW3!" >"If Ukraine takes Kherson it will start WW3!" >"The Crimean Bridge Attack was a terrorist incident comparable to 9/11" (Fricking seriously) >"You keep comparing stopping Putin to stopping Hitler? Actually stopping Hitler in World War 2 wasn't justified either." (Fricking seriously)
>"You keep comparing stopping Putin to stopping Hitler? Actually stopping Hitler in World War 2 wasn't justified either." (Fricking seriously)
We know what stopped hitler.
>"You keep comparing stopping Putin to stopping Hitler? Actually stopping Hitler in World War 2 wasn't justified either."
Many Ukranians would agree lol
>"You keep comparing stopping Putin to stopping Hitler? Actually stopping Hitler in World War 2 wasn't justified either." (Fricking seriously)
My God, so he's actually based?
>rig debate to your own favor >”if you ragequit, you lose, this is blood sports!!” >a fat gay drunk scotsman manages to stick it out >get angry and triggered >kick fat gay scotsman out of debate after yelling at him that you hope he dies horribly
I really hope he didn’t think he won that moronic debate
Yes. I'm pretty sure all those PUA will eventually look like aging pedophiles. Ironically not all their advice is bad. I do wish there were people trying to install confidence in men that wasn't a grift.
Seeing Viva and Barnes act like this guy was some type of war correspondent made me realize just how shit youtubers are, did literally 0 research on him, or they are propagandists themselves, so sketch. Felt like Alex in Clockwork Orange seeing your former droogs working as police officers
Is there a reason he's always wearing the same shirt? I was wondering if theres an in-joke with his audience or if it's some kind of schtick but I dont want to watch hours of this moron to find out. Every thumbnail, grey shirt orange hat.
According to Russia, this area is also "Russia" because something something something.
Hence: official Russian jargon isn't about describing things accurately, it's about creating reasons to grab land from other countries for it's resources. Labels are funny that way.
He spent much of his early career snorting coke off prostitutes in Moscow and writing about it like some wannabe Hunter S. Thompson, I'm not entirely sure if that makes him easier or harder to blackmail.
I don't even get the autism anyway. Okay you think an SPG is a tank. So? What does that change? What does this mean? That USA has been giving tanks to Ukraine since the start so why not Abrams? I mean if so, go for it. But I don't get what this actually means.
This is Michael Tracey, who is simultaneously intelligent, but also moronic about how the world works. Chalk it up to being an insulated leftist. A life changing moment for him was when he was canvasing for Obama's election campaign. He was shocked, floored, flabbergasted, gobsmacked when a woman called Obama a Black person, but also said that she was going to vote for him because he is a Democrat and also half White.
>who is simultaneously intelligent
He acts like he was the smartest kid in high school and felt like he never needed to learn anything new. The guy is an idiot.
Some moron on twitter is doubling down on being wrong instead of just admitting fault. No idea why this seems to be such a foreign concept to these sorts of people.
Former ex-Young Turk guy was talking about the donation of US tanks to Ukraine. He stated that the US donating the Paladin was them using 'official military jargon' to get around the fact that had actually already donated tanks. Because the Paladin is a tank. After all, it has a gun, it has SOME armour and it has tracks. So it is tank. People called him out on it and went 'Yeah that isn't a tank' and he went on an autism rant going >UM WELL THIS BOOK SAYS THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF TANK SO FRICK YOU LOL
Instead of admitting he was wrong, he doubled down for days and is now so mindbroken he is calling Bradley's tanks because... um... um... THEY JUST ARE, OK?????
It doesn't even need to be armored or have a turret, just tracks and a gun. Most people will call SPG's tanks and a lot of them don't have turrets.
In short the killdozer is a tank.
Is there any consensus over whether tank destroyers are tanks?
Is there even a consensus on what a tank destroyer is beyond a vehicle that can destroy tanks?
They're not. Naming conventions in militaries are doctrinal, not based on their external features. A tank destroyer is a tank destroyer, no matter if it would qualify as a tank based on its other features. It's the stumbling block most people have when they try to understand what constitutes a certain piece of equipment.
>a heavily armored, tracked, self propelled gun carriage designed for direct fire and optimized for the rapid assault of enemy positions primarily using its gun, as opposed to the transportation of infantry or the use of missile launchers
A heavily armor high mobility land vehicle with powerful direct fire capability. Whatever form that takes is secondary I think. A very heavily armored 8-wheeler with a VLS array could be a tank for all I care as long as it can be used as one.
>heavily armored
M22 Locust is a tank, MBTs must be armored to resist their own firepower but that hasn't historically been a requirement for light tanks or tankettes
You know it when you see it. Only normoids lack a fully internalized definition of every possible armored fighting vehicle, warplane, warship, or firearm. You're not a loser, right anon?
A tank is a container for storing liquids or gases.
The military hardware with big guns, heavy armor and tracks should be called something else. >armored wagon
Panzerwagen, panssarivaunu >battle wagon
stridsvogn, stridsvagn, kampvogn >armed wagon
carro armato >assault vehicle
char d'assaut >battle vehicle
sensha, jeoncha, zhànchē
"Tank" was a secret codename bongs used for their first ones and somehow it stuck. It's stupid. MBT is okay I guess.
I also don't know what "Zhanche" is. In Chinese I have always just heard "Tan ke", i.e. transliteration of "Tank". ZTZ = Main Tank for Battle in Chinese and T stands for Tank
A heavily armor high mobility land vehicle with powerful direct fire capability. Whatever form that takes is secondary I think. A very heavily armored 8-wheeler with a VLS array could be a tank for all I care as long as it can be used as one.
It's kinda like the different between the nude model in a medical text book, and a nude model in a porno mag.
One was made to be fapped to. The other is just reperposed
A tank is something that can literally tank high explosive damage and support infantry.
A howitzer cannot tank these RPGs or atgm's, they can barely handle Anti Material rifles.
Anybody armed with anything above 14mm amr can frick up a spg with africking amr.
an armored fighting vehicle intended to engage enemy vehicles and personnel in direct fire for the purposes of breakthrough, exploitation, or reconnaissance but specifically without the ability to carry troops because then it's an IFV and IFVs aren't tanks
whether tracks are necessary be called a tank is personal preference
M3 Bradley should probably be considered a tank in a vacuum, people don't want to call it a medium tank because it's a repurposed IFV and IFVs are specifically not tanks and shouldn't be used as such
>Featherless.
Yep. >biped
Tanks typically have two sets of tracks >with broad, flat nails
That's basically what tank tracks consist of.
Does a tank meet Plato's revised definition of a man?
>Diogenes walks into Plato's lecture hall >holds a plucked bird in it with broad, flat nails >"HAHA, PLATO! IS THIS A TANK?" >"Frick off Dio, Jesus Christ what did you do to that chicken."
No one should (or does) give a shit what the "offical" terminology is. Tank being short for armoured tracked vehicle makes more sense than the autistic distinction between MBTs and IFV.
>Does any APC have really great mobility?
Sure, for example the cv90 has a better ability to climb steep inclines than leo2s and does much better in deep snow.
The whole thing was hilarious. >Reuters journos are accompanying insurgents armed with clearly identifiable AKs and RPGs right next to a spot where a patrol was attacked earlier that day >there is another patrol on the ground at the time >journo points his frickoff huge telescope at a Humvee, making the pilot think it's another RPG >the whole huddle is vaporized by 30mm HEDP
"What do you mean that if I'm hanging out with armed insurgents, I'm also gonna get lit the frick up?! Warcrimes REEEEEEE!!!"
>Rifle side
AKM
M16
P90
Uzi
some sort of Barrett 50. cal anti material rifle (but not an m80 because its a bullpup)
A childs pellet gun
Nerf Vulcan EBF-25
RPG7 (with optic)
Some kind of Glock
Some kind of Ford
>Pistol side
Walther ppk
Taser
Classic toy pirate pistol with "bang" flag
Browning Hi Power
Hand crossbow
Classic water pistol (fill with lemon juice for maximum effect)
Some kind of Colt revolver (I think chambered in .45)
Flintlock dueling pistol (too short for actual combat)
Just did a quick scroll of his Twitter and he's a massive fricking moron. He even doubled down on the Paladin being a "tank" because this frickin moron legitimately thinks "tank" is a catch-all term for something with armor and a gun.
Early game devs are moronic, or genius.
I chose to believe that the Nod light tanks (Bradleys) are heavily modified, considering they have a real single shot gun and not an autocannon.
In the remaster, they retconned them to be fricking t64s or something similar.
Early game devs are moronic, or genius.
I chose to believe that the Nod light tanks (Bradleys) are heavily modified, considering they have a real single shot gun and not an autocannon.
In the remaster, they retconned them to be fricking t64s or something similar.
They are heavily modified Bradleys, yeah, with the troop transport replaced with more ammo and the autocannon replaced with something more comparable to the tank cannons used by GDI.
Later in the war they would replace that Black person-rigged stupid contraption with the actual purpose built light tanks we see in Renegade.
cause it's fricking fun and there's very little like it. You'd think an RTS game but it's a wide open shooter where you play as one of the units would have been a no-brainer but Renegade is kinda 'it' as far as the subgenre goes.
Oh, and if you're interested check out Renegade X. It's a freeware, standalone remake of Renegade's multiplayer on the unreal engine, and got a reasonably active playerbase.
>In the remaster, they retconned them to be fricking t64s or something similar.
No one tell him about NOD Light Tanks in Renegade
https://i.imgur.com/XRRsDc2.png
[...]
They are heavily modified Bradleys, yeah, with the troop transport replaced with more ammo and the autocannon replaced with something more comparable to the tank cannons used by GDI.
Later in the war they would replace that Black person-rigged stupid contraption with the actual purpose built light tanks we see in Renegade.
Bradley's appear in some of the first games cutscenes but there was also a unique light tank design used in one of the cutscenes where it follow 2 recon bikes and 2 Nod buggy's. Here are all Nod light tanks in the cutscenes.
yes this was part of an insidious plot dating back to the BMP so that the west could transfer tanks to Ukraine without saying they are transferring tanks to Ukraine because some how tanks would be different
It's like non car people equating a shitty little FWD biased AWD crossover to a true 4x4 with a transfer case and locking diffs etc. They simply do not understand the objective mechanical differences. The Bradley is great but it is not a MBT. Simple.
typical moron trying to make arguments based solely on appearances despite is very obvious extreme ignorance of the subject matter.
this is exactly the type of people who freak out over barrel shrouds and shit and throw around the term "assault weapon" at anything that looks scary.
This shit isn't confusing and it doesn't take anything beyond some basic research and an IQ over 90 to understand it.
>Kampfpanzer >Schützenpanzer >Spähpanzer >Panzerhaubize
Yes, depending on your language most tracked and armed military vehicles are technically tanks.
Not that it fricking matters.
Panzer in this case is short for Panzerkampfwagen, literally "armored fighting vehicle", but sure, pretend that it means something other than armor in this context, morono.
>Panzer in this case is short for Panzerkampfwagen
That's not how language works you absolute mongoloid.
Panzer is not short for Panzerkampfwagen it is a word on it's own that can, depending on context, mean armor OR tank.
Or are you going to tell me that Kampfpanzer is short for Kampfpanzerkampfwagen?
Let me translate that to german. >That'snothowlanguageworksyouabsolutemongoloid. PanzerisnotshortforPanzerkampfwagenitisawordonit'sownthatcan, dependingoncontext, meanarmorORtank. OrareyougoingtotellmethatKampfpanzerisshortforKampfpanzerkampfwagen?
>That's not how language works you absolute mongoloid.
t. absolute cretin
1 year ago
Anonymous
>look mom I found something on wikipedia
At least look at the German version of the article and you will learn that Panzer can be an abreviation of Panzerkampfwagen, Panzerwagen or Panzerfahrzeug or and really try to wrap your head around this one, can be used on it's own as a translation for "tank".
And now kindly have a nice day in the attic.
Let me translate that to german. >That'snothowlanguageworksyouabsolutemongoloid. PanzerisnotshortforPanzerkampfwagenitisawordonit'sownthatcan, dependingoncontext, meanarmorORtank. OrareyougoingtotellmethatKampfpanzerisshortforKampfpanzerkampfwagen?
>most linguistically gifted American
1 year ago
Anonymous
Germans love to put existing words together to make new ones, panzer means armor and thats it, but its used by morons to say "tank".
My language calls tanks "Combat wagons"
Tracked+big indirect fire gun=SPG/tank
Tracked+big direct fire gun=tank
Tracked+autocannon=light tank/IFV
Wheel+big indirect fire gun=tank destroyer/SPG
Wheel+big direct fire gun=tank destroyer/armoured car
Wheel+autocannon=armoured car/IFV
IFVs are light tanks, SPGs are tanks, multiple terms can be used for any single AFV, arent really many strict definitions, its mostly role related.
They hated him because he told the truth. >takes out the troop compartment of the M3 Bradley so they can carry more shells and missiles >bro it's still not a tank bro even though it's a 30-ton tracked vehicle with an integrated cannon that can't carry troops it's uhhhhh a cavalry vehicle
To allow U.S. Army cavalry units to be equipped with armored fighting vehicles, the tanks developed for the cavalry were designated "combat cars".[note 1]
[note 1] The same loophole was used for Japan's Type 92 heavy armoured car, a light tank for the cavalry.
It *was* official called the M1 Combat Car by the cavalry. They wouldn't have been able to operate it otherwise, as only the infantry was allowed to have tanks under the National Defense Act of 1920.
The 1992 Treaty On Conventional Armed Forces in Europe attempted to formalize the classifications a bit. An APC was said to be a self-propelled armored vehicle with an integrated gun of less than 20 mm, an IFV was the same but with a gun of 20 mm or more (and usually also missiles), and a "battle tank" was one with an integrated gun of 75 mm or more. Both IFVs and APCs were further distinguished from battle tanks by the requirement that they're "designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad", and that a battle tank had to be at least 16.5 tons while the APC and IFV classification had no weight limit. Self-propelled guns, weirdly, were not classified, though the battle tank classification did have its own requirements of "360-degree traverse gun" and "high self-protection" to seemingly avoid self-propelled guns being classified as such.
the US Army just refuses to use the term "light tank" for some reason. The M551 Sheridan was officially a "Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle."
Is he butthurt because they changed the name to "not a tank" due to possibly losing funding for new tanks? Or is he just too moronic to realize tracked vehicles have more than one purpose and don't need to be officially called "water tanks" because we're not trying to hide their production for war?
A former Young Turk who had a melt down because he couldn't get somebody's autograph and got arrested. Has doubled down on his moronicness. Russia propagandist consumer and promoter.
If I were Russia I'd be declaring war on these countries sending shit that's killing my troops. Not dropping bombs or sending troops, just declare war and see what they do. It's an act of war what they're doing after all. The US is especially brash for pulling the Ukraine coup in the first place and putting a bunch of their suspiciously israeli agents in place.
>It's an act of war what they're doing after all.
If It wasn't an act of war when Russia did it to the west in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan I don't see why it would be an act of war when the west does it to Russia now
Today the Bradley fighting vehicle system, takes mobility and firepower a leap forward, giving the United States Army a combined arms team. to keep paste with the main battle, move troops rapidly and towards it's own survivability. Bradley has outstanding mobility, mobility that results from a optimium combination of enginepower, powertrain efficiency and suspension. The commercial proven Cummins 500 horsepower turbocharged diesel engine deliver rapid acceleration and battlefield agility. The hydromechanical transmission by General Electric combines steering braking and gearselection as a single unit. resulting in outstanding movability and the capacity to climb slopes at 60%. The suspension sytem with 14 inches of vertical wheeltravel and high performance shock absorbers carries the vehicle over rough terrain with minimum shock and stress to troops and vehicle. Firepower, mobility and survivability make a potent weaponsystem. operating on a mechanized battlefield with the Abrams main battle tank, artillery and the attack helicopters the bradley fighting vehicle guarantees the united states army as a combined arms team that is SECOND TO NONE
Wow this man is fricking moronic. Why talk so smugly about something you clearly have no fricking knowledge on?
>howitzers are tanks
>Why talk so smugly about something you clearly have no fricking knowledge on?
He was a member of the Young Turks and supported Bernie Sanders - they're all like this.
It's an internet generation thing. The terminally online manbaby who thinks a google search makes him an instant expert on everything.
>paladin
>tank
good god this level of moronation is actually painful to behold.
Well I've always thought paladin would be a cool name for a tank, but maybe better suited for a British or French one
>paladin
>better suited for a British or French one
bro
>Has gun
>Will travel
>A knight without armor
He's *that* close to being a tank.
Do normies really think a tank is any tracked vehicle with a gun?
That said both are capable of easily destroying any Russian tank in service, so good enough.
Some normies would think that a Bradley is a tank, but for the most part they would STFU instead of digging out citations from WWI when told that they were wrong (he literally did this)
Plenty of people wouldn't even go that far, they just think any military vehicle with tracks is a tank. If you took a random selection of people and showed them an unarmed M113 at least a third of them would consider it a tank.
>Do normies really think a tank is any tracked vehicle with a gun?
As long as the gun looks like a turret, then yes.
Shit I've personally handled and processed ABCD data files for paladin vehicles and my first thought at seeing the paladin picture up top was "That's not a tank?"
Dat is a Schützenpanzer, nein a Panzerwagen! Both are Panzerfahrzeuge.
Dat is a Panzerhaubitze, nein a Panzerwagen! Both are Panzerfahrzeuge.
Scheiße, forgot mein image!
He is so fricking moronic he got fact checked on Twitter... You gotta be REALLY fricking stupid to get fact checked on Twitter
>normie finds out proper nomenclature exists
>has a meltdown
Many such cases.
takes literally 3 minutes to google why they're classified the way they're classified. or just ask any 14 year old who played a bit of military vidya games.
moron here, care to explain it to me?
A tank is a tracked vehicle that's designed to support infantry with direct fire.
This is distinct from an IFV (a heavy vehicle designed to carry infantry and also provide fire support), an APC (lighter than an IFV, also carries infantry), a self propelled gun (an artillery piece with armor and tracks) and a bunch of other shit.
I see now, thanks.
>A tank is a tracked vehicle that's designed to support infantry with direct fire.
The Howitzer and Bradley are and can be tracked.
You can support infantry with direct fire from either.
Therefore.
Howitzers and Brads are tanks.
Next time watch your definitions.
neverserved noguns pacifist tourist here's my idea of how this works based on my BF2142 knowledge:
MBT>modern IFV>light tanks>IFV>everyone else>ATGMs>AFV
This is excluding planes, ships, artillery and all but you might want to consider attack helicopters somewhere below IFVs and my ranking does of course generalize things a fair bit.
also I just learned this to fall under assault gun because it's a self propelled artillery platform with auxiliary machine gun
I don't understand why my autism compells me to learn this but please r8 my wikipedia snippets and bradley is a modern IFV, but I don't know anything about it specifically
>stridsvagn 103
looks like a tank destroyer which I have omitted from my ranking because it's an obsolete concept from what I gathered on 4chin
It's not really a ranking thing so much as a role thing
>MBT
A tracked vehicle designed to serve as a general purpose tank, combining the mobility of a medium tank with the lethality of a heavy tank. In modern contexts, generally the only kind of tank that a military uses
>IFV
A heavy vehicle that carries infantry but is also designed to participate directly in combat, including against enemy tanks
>light tanks
A lighter tank designed for reconnaissance, airborne operations, or other tasks where a heavy tank is too logistically difficult to field. Was obsolete for a while, but is coming back in some roles because of how difficult force projection is in a world with cheap missiles.
>ATGM
A missile designed to destroy tanks
>AFV
A general term for vehicles that engage in combat, including tanks, IFVs, APCs, and so on.
The S-tank was built, designed, and used as a main battle tank. In testing it legitimately gave the M60 a run for its money.
thanks for the update, I'll be more careful about the identification of turretless tracked armored fight vehicles in the future
>looks like a tank destroyer
And that's wrong, it's a MBT.
>I just learned this to fall under assault gun
Not really. It's a self propelled howitzer, i.e. indirect fire long range artillery piece put onto armored chassis to give it protection and mobility to increase it's chances of survival against counterbattery fire, enemy air assets and other nuisance.
Assault guns were armored vehicles intended to bring big guns to forward areas (i.e. into direct combat) mostly to blow up enemy fortifications, buildings etc. plus a little bit of that good old shelling. A bit of an outdated concept now when tanks with 100+ mm guns can do most of the direct fire work themselves and modern communications let you precisely direct artillery from far away. There was some overlap between assault guns and tank destroyers, and they fell out of favor some time after WWII, with Swedes being probably the last ones to design and put into service new assault guns (they mostly repurposed older tank chassis for that to extend their useful lifespan and give their infantry units more firepower).
Has anyone ever been moronic enough to use self propelled artillery as a front line tank?
I play war thunder all the time.
war thunder handholds SPGs with timetravel though, it's horseshit that the bkan 1 can bonk WWII attacker planes with HE-VT.
Depends on if theres a real difference between a Casemate Tank Destroyer/Assault Gun, and Self propelled Artillery, but yes it did happen a lot in WW2, including using direct fire SPAA.
A Casemate TD/assault gun is or was an artillery gun on a chasis designed for direct fire, but could also be used for indirect fire, being essentially mobile artillery pieces. However they were generally more useful as multi-role Tank Destroyers as well as assault guns, despite them not being originally intended for that role. Ones which received a heavily armoured superstructure (Stug, SU-85, SU-152, Bishop) and those which received a more lightly armoured and open top superstructure (Sexton, Hummel, Marder) were both extremely similar and often used for direct fire as well as indirect fire, although the more open top ones had more elevation and so were better at indirect fire but more vulnerable for direct fire.
Even vehicles which were just cars or tractors with guns attached on for mobile artillery or AA support could and did use them in direct fire, often by neccessity in the early war when the long 88s were pressed from AA/artillery into killing KV-1s which panzer III's were having a hard time with.
That being said, depending on the vantage point and elevation, direct fire and indirect fire can just be the same thing. For example the FV4005 tank destroyer was designed to lob 183mm explosive shells across the fulda gap to blow up T-55s, it wasnt designed for front line use but was intendended to see its target directly, although it was absolutely capable of acting like artillery, is it direct fire or indirect fire when its at a vantage point where it can see enemies 10km away? Modern self propelled howitzers arent designed for direct fire but are still capable of it, its just if theyre used for that, then 'direct fire' is ideally (unless theyre caught out of position) going to mean from a good vantage point where they can directly see what theyre shooting at.
I have an unwavering faith that during ww2 Russians probably tucked at least one [pic related] in a city alley to point blank a passing panzer iv from 2 yards away
arent paladins tanks in cnc generals/zero hour? i thought they were the big brother of the crusader tank
Umm but it has tracks and a turret? It's a tank, deal with it chuds
is not a tank because the gun is too skinny, but is a tank with what looks like not very much armor
the second image is a self propelled artillery and it is exactly what it sounds like.
It's not supposed to fight on the front line or survive any anti vehicle munitions, and is wholly incapable of preforming independent operations.
Depends on context imo.
By strict technical/academic definition, no, SPGs and IFVs arent tanks. But if a giant armoured box turns up in your town and starts blowing things up, then sure its a tank. If youre looking at it from a. distance and cant tell, then sure its a tank. If youre getting shot by it and dont have heavy weapons, then as far as youre concerned, its a tank. Really originally tanks were anti infantry weapons, and todays IFVs arent a million miles away from interwar or early ww2 light or medium tanks in terms of their calibre and (base) armour. The difference between an artillery gun and a tank cannon is a bit wishy washy, especially as many WW2 SPGs outright did just have howtizers, and the origins of many famous tank guns are in repurposed artillery guns, e.g. Long 88. So yeah sure, if youre a military planner its not a tank, if youre on the receiving end then its a tank as far as you care, the difference is role related, which you wont care about if its trying to kill you.
>The difference between an artillery gun and a tank cannon is a bit wishy washy,
Artillery is rifled while modern tanks are smoothbore (except for British ones).
You might say that mortars are also smoothbore but they have far lower pressure.
Yes but thats just a prevalent modern feature, not entirely inherent to tank cannons. Imo a SPG is of the class of 'tanks', even if it isnt a 'tank' in its modern role, as its a heavily armed armoured box with tracks. If you saw it from a distance or were subject to direct fire, you'd say its a tank. In ww2 the class of SPGs were often used in a direct fire role or specifically built as tank destroyers, in fact they most commonly were built as multi-role vehicles capable of being tank destroyers, they were tanks as far as anyone was concerned. Its not the intended role of modern ones, as theyre ot primarily intended for direct fire, but theyre able to fill that role if need be, and so can be called 'tanks' imo. Its just MBTs are a lot better at being a tank as opposed to artillery.
>ITS A CONSPIRACY OF THE HIGHEST ORDER AGAINST moronic JOURNOS LIKE ME
kek. They aren’t sending their best.
This is what happens when journos are moronic drunk micks instead of amoral high iq israelites
Thank God nobody takes these morons seriously
these are the exact same people who think every gun is a 'glock' an 'ar' or an 'ak'
>it's real lmao
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1615799112708026368
>Light or medium armor
>Made for reco, to be in a mechanized infantry unit or as arty
>Tanks
Has a Paladin ever been recorded going head to head with an actual tank? And if not, could it feasibly do so? Does the gun aim low enough to shoot in a straight direction?
There were stories of AS90 engaging Iraqi tanks in direct fire.
M109 is capable of doing to the same.
Michael Tracey is cheating
You guys are either not mentioning or haven't seen him have a mental breakdown and get arrested after he couldn't get an autograph from Ann Coulter. Enjoy
https://twitter.com/haramcart/status/1437608552395378690
What would happen if you shot an Abrams with a self propelled howitzer directly?
the crew of the abrams would turn into ragù sauce
>the crew of the abrams would turn into ragù sauce
LOL
Depends on the ammo user but it would be incredibly painful.
bump
It’s a big tank
I did a simulation and everybody died.
>UFP
You stupid moron Black person, now try the turret cheeks or LFP
tanks can be killed by 155mm splinters so I'd say it wouldn't go well
Follow-on question: What are the direct-fire sights like on modern SPGs?
The crew would die and their platoon commander would be court-martialed for being so incompetent a howitzer was able to somehow ambush a tank in his unit and direct fire on it.
>howitzer was able to somehow ambush a tank
in full concealment under foliage with engine off laying in ambush
>boy that sure is a lot of teeth and blood
>better stick my head in there
Literal birdbrain move
Direct hit with a 155mm HE? Best case is that the tank is mission killed by all its optics being shattered by overpressure and shock, worse case is that said shock and overpressure both ruptures the crews organs and makes it look like they slammed into a concrete wall at 50 miles per hour.
It would kill the tank. However, the M109 doesn't have the direct-fire fire control, the sensors, the rate of fire, or the armor to survive an encounter with a M1 unless it gets very, very lucky. Dueling tanks is *not* an intended mission for a howitzer; it's a capability reserved for self-defense when there are no other options.
One could call this a tank yes, an enclosed heavily armed and armored combat vehicle that moves on tracks, but it would make as much sense as calling a M16 a machine gun.
The concept evolved.
This age old nerd debate was reignited by the delivery of the AMX-10 and now involves normies, so there is a lot a of brain fart gas filling the forums.
If the AMX-10 is a tank then pic related was one too, because the have the same role on the battlefield.
The first use of a tank was in the battle of the battle of the Somme. British Mk.I tanks were used.
>Enclosed, on tracks, integrated guns and armored
>M1A2 sep v3
>Hit in the turret cheek by PzH. 2000 using dm121 with full propellant load
-Turret ring bent, turret stays slightly lifted, potentially letting pressure enter the tank
-All optics shattered
-Most electronics fricked
-Cannon bent
-Suspension in the front blown out
-Upper front plate of hull potentially deformed so much that it tore and let the pressure enter the tank
-Crew deaf and shell shocked at best and dead from internal bleedings at worst
>but it would make as much sense as calling a M16 a machine gun.
According to the ATF it is.
There's various assault/battle rifles with a machine gun equivalent that simply has some modifications to easier sustain automatic fire such as a heavier barrel, option for belt feeding or a swapping mechanism.
The difference between assault rifle and machine gun is more a question of doctrine than design.
>The difference between assault rifle and machine gun is more a question of doctrine than design.
That was the point.
>Enclosed, on tracks, integrated guns and armored
Behold, a tank!
[Take 2]
>Enclosed, on tracks, integrated guns and armored
Behold, a tank!
Nailed it.
Heh, you got me.
The alternative name for trains is tank engine though so it's not that far off the mark.
It would be extremely painful
homie what do you think
>Is he right, /k/? These are tanks, right?
Just because it's stupid to hold tanks as some hyper special thing when compared to other military vehicles they sent, doesn't mean you can play fast and loose with the definition of a tank... that's Sweden's job.
I'll agree with you that the bradley is a tank OP as long as you agree my bobcat is also a tank
HELL YEAH
Put a cannon on it and we'll talk.
Oh?
What definition of a cannon are you using?
This is a cannon.
It can launch projectiles (slowly and downwardly)
It can move to aim.
Cannons use chemical propellents, that's clearly a gravity powered siege engine more the vein of a Trebuchet
Bulldozers are propelled by diesel. Diesel is a chemical. Checkmate atheists.
a creative guerrilla warfighter could turn use it as a cannon. a very inaccurate, short barreled cannon.
>use chemical propellents,
Shovels of excavators can use chemical propellents too.
There is no need for the cannon to stay stable to be considered a tank.
What is a gun?
It moves something something something in a direction. Yaddah yaddah yaddah, it's a cannon because it can move something by propelling it downward using the shifting apparatus.
>What is a gun?
A ranged weapon designed to launch projectiles through a barrel.
A shovel is a type of barrel.
It's half a barrel that is used for scooping.
>What definition of a cannon are you using?
A cannon is a large-caliber gun.
That is not a gun of any caliber.
Best I can do is a Black personwhipper.
if you install the cannon on the scoop you can shoot over buildings from behind cover
how would you keep the cannon stable?
baby killdozer
Yeah.
Is soda water because its a liquid? This Black person literally went into a mental. breakdown after people from both sides dog piled on him.
>This Black person literally went into a mental. breakdown after people from both sides dog piled on him.
He thought because he can shitpost in normie Twitter and jerk off to the angry replies that he could cope with angering tank posters. Silly man. Silly, silly man.
The evolution of Michael Tracy
>"The Russians won't invade Ukraine"
>"The Russians are only putting their troops into the separatist regions to stop Ukrainian aggression. This is just like when the West supported Kosovo but I condemned that and support this."
>"Okay, the Russians invaded but it's too late to support them and it was the West's fault for starting all this."
>"Heh, you say Ukraine is doing well but how come the Russians took Mariupol after two months HMMMMM?!"
>"Bucha didn't happen, and I will turn down multiple offers to go to Bucha to see for myself what's going on because it could be used for Pro-Ukraine propaganda."
>"Ukraine is losing and any other news is false. Also if the West sends ammunition to Ukraine it will start World War 3!"
>"If the West trains Ukrainian troops it will start WW3."
>"If the West provides military intel it will start WW3!"
>"If the West provides anti-tank weapons it will start WW3!"
>"If the West sends HIMARS it will start WW3!"
>"If Ukraine takes Kherson it will start WW3!"
>"The Crimean Bridge Attack was a terrorist incident comparable to 9/11" (Fricking seriously)
>"You keep comparing stopping Putin to stopping Hitler? Actually stopping Hitler in World War 2 wasn't justified either." (Fricking seriously)
Oh, can't forget: "You say the US doesn't have boots on the ground in Ukraine? Then how come they have embassy guards?"
Embassy is US soil.
>"You keep comparing stopping Putin to stopping Hitler? Actually stopping Hitler in World War 2 wasn't justified either." (Fricking seriously)
We know what stopped hitler.
Hitler was stopped by appeasement. Chamberlain appeased him then Hitler shot himself.
the chain of events is undeniable
>Major witness "mysteriously" commits "suicide"
My god. The truth has been in front of our eyes this whole time.
>that 3rd post
hello r*ddit!
Holy fricking reddit
The Ukraine War tourists have really done a number on this board
The power of love, obviously
Who is this soiboy looking troon and why do you guys keep spamming him?
>>"You keep comparing stopping Putin to stopping Hitler? Actually stopping Hitler in World War 2 wasn't justified either." (Fricking seriously)
based
>"You keep comparing stopping Putin to stopping Hitler? Actually stopping Hitler in World War 2 wasn't justified either."
Many Ukranians would agree lol
I wonder if people like this are FSB assets or they do it FOR FREE
>"You keep comparing stopping Putin to stopping Hitler? Actually stopping Hitler in World War 2 wasn't justified either." (Fricking seriously)
My God, so he's actually based?
Glad /k/ found a new vatnik lolcow to follow after Armchair Copelord left twitter and gave up on troonygram.
it's a troop carrier.
Kek. Say what you will about the historical and technical accuracy of the movie, but that whole sequence is hillarious.
"If we put a turret on it, people will think it's a tank!"
It's a tank if you are in 1938.
Bradley is just an armoured Jeep!
>rig debate to your own favor
>”if you ragequit, you lose, this is blood sports!!”
>a fat gay drunk scotsman manages to stick it out
>get angry and triggered
>kick fat gay scotsman out of debate after yelling at him that you hope he dies horribly
I really hope he didn’t think he won that moronic debate
Russians had one job while they were bombing Ukraine and they fricked this one as well
can you believe that this guy used to make youtube videos on how to pick up women?
Yes. I'm pretty sure all those PUA will eventually look like aging pedophiles. Ironically not all their advice is bad. I do wish there were people trying to install confidence in men that wasn't a grift.
Seeing Viva and Barnes act like this guy was some type of war correspondent made me realize just how shit youtubers are, did literally 0 research on him, or they are propagandists themselves, so sketch. Felt like Alex in Clockwork Orange seeing your former droogs working as police officers
Is there a reason he's always wearing the same shirt? I was wondering if theres an in-joke with his audience or if it's some kind of schtick but I dont want to watch hours of this moron to find out. Every thumbnail, grey shirt orange hat.
According to Russia, this area is also "Russia" because something something something.
Hence: official Russian jargon isn't about describing things accurately, it's about creating reasons to grab land from other countries for it's resources. Labels are funny that way.
Is this guy trolling or legit moronic?
He's a Russian shill, so the question is if he's legit stupid or a kompromat pedo.
He spent much of his early career snorting coke off prostitutes in Moscow and writing about it like some wannabe Hunter S. Thompson, I'm not entirely sure if that makes him easier or harder to blackmail.
Oh wait no, I confused him with Matt Taibbi, my bad.
He's been defending his shit for over two days now or so. So...
He was so moronic even the Young Turks wouldn't keep him.
Yes
I don't even get the autism anyway. Okay you think an SPG is a tank. So? What does that change? What does this mean? That USA has been giving tanks to Ukraine since the start so why not Abrams? I mean if so, go for it. But I don't get what this actually means.
>But I don't get what this actually means.
It means that USA bad
>he is still seething
did some tank expert rape his kids or something?
This is Michael Tracey, who is simultaneously intelligent, but also moronic about how the world works. Chalk it up to being an insulated leftist. A life changing moment for him was when he was canvasing for Obama's election campaign. He was shocked, floored, flabbergasted, gobsmacked when a woman called Obama a Black person, but also said that she was going to vote for him because he is a Democrat and also half White.
>who is simultaneously intelligent
He acts like he was the smartest kid in high school and felt like he never needed to learn anything new. The guy is an idiot.
What have I missed? Are bluechecks driving themselves into a frenzy about what constitutes a tank?
Some moron on twitter is doubling down on being wrong instead of just admitting fault. No idea why this seems to be such a foreign concept to these sorts of people.
Former ex-Young Turk guy was talking about the donation of US tanks to Ukraine. He stated that the US donating the Paladin was them using 'official military jargon' to get around the fact that had actually already donated tanks. Because the Paladin is a tank. After all, it has a gun, it has SOME armour and it has tracks. So it is tank. People called him out on it and went 'Yeah that isn't a tank' and he went on an autism rant going
>UM WELL THIS BOOK SAYS THAT THERE IS NO DEFINITION OF TANK SO FRICK YOU LOL
Instead of admitting he was wrong, he doubled down for days and is now so mindbroken he is calling Bradley's tanks because... um... um... THEY JUST ARE, OK?????
>tracks
>turret
= IT'S A TONK
This is how normalgays have always seen things.
Shit, wait, I have to revise that.
>tracks
>turret
>gun
= IT'S A TONK
>not armored
here you go
now it’s a tank
It doesn't need to be armored.
It just needs tracks and a turret with some kind of gun. Maybe tape a .22LR rifle to the door?
best i can do is this FN Mag on a tracked armored vehicle
That's an S-tank, right down to the bulldozer blade and slat armor.
>killdozer is a tank
It doesn't even need to be armored or have a turret, just tracks and a gun. Most people will call SPG's tanks and a lot of them don't have turrets.
In short the killdozer is a tank.
so this
I still don't get what he gains by being a moron. There has to be a goal here.
Fame? Some kids are always willing to be the class clown if that makes them popular.
His first post was just misinformed but he's riding it into the ground because his ego won't let him leave it.
wow this homieh has spent days trying to defend his tweets about "tanks" and he's mad that people don't agree with him
Sure why not.
>A tank is to be used for breakthrough and exploitation into the enemy rear
>Strv103
This chart is moronic.
This is what I thought of
Probably the kurds
I think it took some initiative. There were a bunch of them
Is there any consensus over whether tank destroyers are tanks?
Is there even a consensus on what a tank destroyer is beyond a vehicle that can destroy tanks?
A tank destroyer is a thing that fills the doctrinal role of a tank destroyer.
Makes me think of creating that chart for a tank destroyer
But the bottom right box is a guy with a javelin, instead of a Toyota technical
Nah, doctrine radical + structure radical Tank Destroyer is a booze bottle with matchsticks tied to it.
Kek
And what kind of match sticks are those?
Seems.... Aggressive
Heavy duty storm matches.
Those things are impossible to put out once lit.
They're not. Naming conventions in militaries are doctrinal, not based on their external features. A tank destroyer is a tank destroyer, no matter if it would qualify as a tank based on its other features. It's the stumbling block most people have when they try to understand what constitutes a certain piece of equipment.
For me, it's the Marder.
A tank destroyer with wheels is an armoured car or an SPG.
A tank destroyer with tracks is a tank or SPG.
An IFV is a specialised light tank.
>literally an entire whole ass shitlib documentary b***hing and moaning about the Bradley's existence
>"hurr durr, its a tank"
What's the /k/ approved definition of what is a tank then?
>a heavily armored, tracked, self propelled gun carriage designed for direct fire and optimized for the rapid assault of enemy positions primarily using its gun, as opposed to the transportation of infantry or the use of missile launchers
>heavily armored
M22 Locust is a tank, MBTs must be armored to resist their own firepower but that hasn't historically been a requirement for light tanks or tankettes
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_battle_tank
You know it when you see it. Only normoids lack a fully internalized definition of every possible armored fighting vehicle, warplane, warship, or firearm. You're not a loser, right anon?
A tensor is an object that transforms like a tensor.
A tank is an object that fulfils the doctrinal role of a tank.
A tank is a container for storing liquids or gases.
The military hardware with big guns, heavy armor and tracks should be called something else.
>armored wagon
Panzerwagen, panssarivaunu
>battle wagon
stridsvogn, stridsvagn, kampvogn
>armed wagon
carro armato
>assault vehicle
char d'assaut
>battle vehicle
sensha, jeoncha, zhànchē
"Tank" was a secret codename bongs used for their first ones and somehow it stuck. It's stupid. MBT is okay I guess.
Several languages call it some version of "Tank" too. It's "Tank" in Russian. But I guess "tank" probably does not also mean "water tank" there.
>russians got memed on by bongs
wew
I also don't know what "Zhanche" is. In Chinese I have always just heard "Tan ke", i.e. transliteration of "Tank". ZTZ = Main Tank for Battle in Chinese and T stands for Tank
Sorry - upon further inspection sources suggest ZTZ actually stands for "Armored Tank, Medium". Point remains.
>what "Zhanche" is
It's 戦車. Same kanji as Japan's "Sensha"
>Literally battle chariot lmoa
No wonder they got dabbed on so hard by 外人将軍
Many of the terms for "tank" have roots in chariot, from French to the many Scandinavian languages.
Then you also have a series of tanks named Merkava, which is Hebrew for chariot.
A tank is an armored, tracked container with a rotating turret for storing and expelling direct fire munitions.
>with a rotating turret
Please you explain what stridsvagn 103 is
>"Tank" is a dumb name
>MBT is fine
You do realize what MBT stands for, right?
Main battle tank is no longer ambiguous.
Unless you try really, really hard to confuse it with military hydration packs.
A heavily armor high mobility land vehicle with powerful direct fire capability. Whatever form that takes is secondary I think. A very heavily armored 8-wheeler with a VLS array could be a tank for all I care as long as it can be used as one.
It's kinda like the different between the nude model in a medical text book, and a nude model in a porno mag.
One was made to be fapped to. The other is just reperposed
a metal box
A tank is something that can literally tank high explosive damage and support infantry.
A howitzer cannot tank these RPGs or atgm's, they can barely handle Anti Material rifles.
Anybody armed with anything above 14mm amr can frick up a spg with africking amr.
an armored fighting vehicle intended to engage enemy vehicles and personnel in direct fire for the purposes of breakthrough, exploitation, or reconnaissance but specifically without the ability to carry troops because then it's an IFV and IFVs aren't tanks
whether tracks are necessary be called a tank is personal preference
So the M3 Bradley is a tank as are a lot of self-propelled guns.
M3 Bradley should probably be considered a tank in a vacuum, people don't want to call it a medium tank because it's a repurposed IFV and IFVs are specifically not tanks and shouldn't be used as such
Exploitation and reconnaissance, sure. But is the M3 Bradley doctrinally meant to be a breakthrough vehicle?
If you can take a main gun round to the snoot and not die, you're a tank.
A featherless biped
>A featherless biped *with broad, flat nails*
ftfy,
>Featherless.
Yep.
>biped
Tanks typically have two sets of tracks
>with broad, flat nails
That's basically what tank tracks consist of.
Does a tank meet Plato's revised definition of a man?
>Diogenes walks into Plato's lecture hall
>holds a plucked bird in it with broad, flat nails
>"HAHA, PLATO! IS THIS A TANK?"
>"Frick off Dio, Jesus Christ what did you do to that chicken."
He's mad that not all armored tracked vehicles are tanks. Imagine having such a great life that you go batshit crazy over terminology.
No one should (or does) give a shit what the "offical" terminology is. Tank being short for armoured tracked vehicle makes more sense than the autistic distinction between MBTs and IFV.
Pic related is what they should be called
>basedboy amerimutt from twitter has an opinion
Why is the Bradley such a widely hated meme? I genuinely don't know, it looks like a decent enough troop transport...
It's okay. Its mobility isn't very impressive though.
Does any APC have really great mobility? I think their general use and dimensions kind of limit how manoeuvrable they are.
>Does any APC have really great mobility?
Sure, for example the cv90 has a better ability to climb steep inclines than leo2s and does much better in deep snow.
>their general use and dimensions
You might have noticed that these are quite different on the Bradley compared to your average APC...
It's not an APC
bullshit. don't even respond please.
Vaguely related
Brown leftypol fingers posted this.
It's a /k/ classic from about a decade before /misc/ and you.
It was. And then your brown leftypol fingers got hold of it and started posting it.
okay kid
God, old memes were so much better than endless wojaks.
LEL
Always thought the video that was the source of this meme was funnier than the actual meme
The whole thing was hilarious.
>Reuters journos are accompanying insurgents armed with clearly identifiable AKs and RPGs right next to a spot where a patrol was attacked earlier that day
>there is another patrol on the ground at the time
>journo points his frickoff huge telescope at a Humvee, making the pilot think it's another RPG
>the whole huddle is vaporized by 30mm HEDP
"What do you mean that if I'm hanging out with armed insurgents, I'm also gonna get lit the frick up?! Warcrimes REEEEEEE!!!"
rank my austism /k/
>Rifle side
AKM
M16
P90
Uzi
some sort of Barrett 50. cal anti material rifle (but not an m80 because its a bullpup)
A childs pellet gun
Nerf Vulcan EBF-25
RPG7 (with optic)
Some kind of Glock
Some kind of Ford
>Pistol side
Walther ppk
Taser
Classic toy pirate pistol with "bang" flag
Browning Hi Power
Hand crossbow
Classic water pistol (fill with lemon juice for maximum effect)
Some kind of Colt revolver (I think chambered in .45)
Flintlock dueling pistol (too short for actual combat)
>Browning Hi Power
Please turn in your /k/ membership card and leave the premises RIGHT NOW
dammit I knew I'd fricked that one up I thought it was the browning because of that bit at the front of the barrel
He must be doing this on purpose to get more attention.
Just did a quick scroll of his Twitter and he's a massive fricking moron. He even doubled down on the Paladin being a "tank" because this frickin moron legitimately thinks "tank" is a catch-all term for something with armor and a gun.
Michael Tracy is a dumb basedboy that can't understand APCs/IFVs.
How is this a tank but a bradley isn't? Is this some sort of stupid prank?
>These are tanks, right?
In C&C Tiberian Dawn the vehicles Nod calls light tanks are shown in a cutscene to be Bradleys
Early game devs are moronic, or genius.
I chose to believe that the Nod light tanks (Bradleys) are heavily modified, considering they have a real single shot gun and not an autocannon.
In the remaster, they retconned them to be fricking t64s or something similar.
>In the remaster, they retconned them to be fricking t64s or something similar.
No one tell him about NOD Light Tanks in Renegade
They are heavily modified Bradleys, yeah, with the troop transport replaced with more ammo and the autocannon replaced with something more comparable to the tank cannons used by GDI.
Later in the war they would replace that Black person-rigged stupid contraption with the actual purpose built light tanks we see in Renegade.
its amazing how long Renegade has had populated multiplayer servers
cause it's fricking fun and there's very little like it. You'd think an RTS game but it's a wide open shooter where you play as one of the units would have been a no-brainer but Renegade is kinda 'it' as far as the subgenre goes.
Oh, and if you're interested check out Renegade X. It's a freeware, standalone remake of Renegade's multiplayer on the unreal engine, and got a reasonably active playerbase.
Bradley's appear in some of the first games cutscenes but there was also a unique light tank design used in one of the cutscenes where it follow 2 recon bikes and 2 Nod buggy's. Here are all Nod light tanks in the cutscenes.
this is a tank
oh it's not?
>yaddah yaddah reason reason reason
It's a tank and that's final.
Bradley's are basically tanks destroyers
something like these would make more sense
?t=33
yes this was part of an insidious plot dating back to the BMP so that the west could transfer tanks to Ukraine without saying they are transferring tanks to Ukraine because some how tanks would be different
finally the west will wake up and realize sending MBT is no different
I wish someone explained the difference between casualty and killed in action to normies more than the difference between APC, IFV and Tank.
It's like non car people equating a shitty little FWD biased AWD crossover to a true 4x4 with a transfer case and locking diffs etc. They simply do not understand the objective mechanical differences. The Bradley is great but it is not a MBT. Simple.
Okay, it's a tank. Frick yourself
A tank only holds the crew it needs to operate.
It's a medium tank
Tanks are faster
It may not be a tank but it is SECOND TO NONE
?t=26
Man look at that thin zip around on golf courses
>Michael Tracey
>Is he right?
No, he's marginally more moronic than what he thinks he's pretending to be.
A tank is a land battleship. It features powerful armor, powerful weapons and decent mobility.
typical moron trying to make arguments based solely on appearances despite is very obvious extreme ignorance of the subject matter.
this is exactly the type of people who freak out over barrel shrouds and shit and throw around the term "assault weapon" at anything that looks scary.
This shit isn't confusing and it doesn't take anything beyond some basic research and an IQ over 90 to understand it.
tanks dont have turrets, they have sponsons.
what kind of idiot does not know this.
>Kampfpanzer
>Schützenpanzer
>Spähpanzer
>Panzerhaubize
Yes, depending on your language most tracked and armed military vehicles are technically tanks.
Not that it fricking matters.
Literally:
>battle armor
>infantry armor
>recon armor
>armored howitzer
So "depending on your language", where are the tanks, exactly?
"Whats an armoured column? Where are my tanks you idiot?"
>imagine being this autistic
Panzer translates as Armor/Shell,/Carapace /Casing or TANK.
But sure, pick one translation and pretend to be moronic.
Panzer in this case is short for Panzerkampfwagen, literally "armored fighting vehicle", but sure, pretend that it means something other than armor in this context, morono.
>Panzer in this case is short for Panzerkampfwagen
That's not how language works you absolute mongoloid.
Panzer is not short for Panzerkampfwagen it is a word on it's own that can, depending on context, mean armor OR tank.
Or are you going to tell me that Kampfpanzer is short for Kampfpanzerkampfwagen?
Let me translate that to german.
>That'snothowlanguageworksyouabsolutemongoloid. PanzerisnotshortforPanzerkampfwagenitisawordonit'sownthatcan, dependingoncontext, meanarmorORtank. OrareyougoingtotellmethatKampfpanzerisshortforKampfpanzerkampfwagen?
do americans really
>That's not how language works you absolute mongoloid.
t. absolute cretin
>look mom I found something on wikipedia
At least look at the German version of the article and you will learn that Panzer can be an abreviation of Panzerkampfwagen, Panzerwagen or Panzerfahrzeug or and really try to wrap your head around this one, can be used on it's own as a translation for "tank".
And now kindly have a nice day in the attic.
>most linguistically gifted American
Germans love to put existing words together to make new ones, panzer means armor and thats it, but its used by morons to say "tank".
My language calls tanks "Combat wagons"
he's still going at it?
i guess some people just can't accept being wrong.
it can pierce a t-72 so technically yes
Tracked+big indirect fire gun=SPG/tank
Tracked+big direct fire gun=tank
Tracked+autocannon=light tank/IFV
Wheel+big indirect fire gun=tank destroyer/SPG
Wheel+big direct fire gun=tank destroyer/armoured car
Wheel+autocannon=armoured car/IFV
IFVs are light tanks, SPGs are tanks, multiple terms can be used for any single AFV, arent really many strict definitions, its mostly role related.
It's not a tank, it's a troop transport.
Yes, the AMX-10 RC sent to Ukraine were also tanks.
STRYKER-SAN IS A PROUD IFV, SHE IS NOT TREADED!!!!
> Claims to be a war-reporter
> Doesn't fricking know what tank and self-propelled howitzer is
>> Claims to be a war-reporter
>> Doesn't fricking know what tank and self-propelled howitzer is
that checks out for Journalism
>tank thread
>No one posting tanks
Let's fix that
this is not okay, someone needs to explain themselves. Someone built this shit.
It seems a lot of people want to use them as tanks rather than supporting the infantry.
Or put the mounted infantry in danger and have them engage tanks while mounted.
That gear train literally won't move
da vinci intentionally made such "mistakes" in the designs so that if someone copies them they would not have a working design
Technically a Leo-1 variant.
>has tracks
>has weapons
>can take a few hits
This is a tank.
Also this.
>Krupp
>Siemens
checks out
No, thats a tracked MLRS system.
They hated him because he told the truth.
>takes out the troop compartment of the M3 Bradley so they can carry more shells and missiles
>bro it's still not a tank bro even though it's a 30-ton tracked vehicle with an integrated cannon that can't carry troops it's uhhhhh a cavalry vehicle
>it's not a tank it's a cavalry vehicle
correct, see picrel
>The M1 Combat Car, officially Light Tank, M1,
DisCARded.
To allow U.S. Army cavalry units to be equipped with armored fighting vehicles, the tanks developed for the cavalry were designated "combat cars".[note 1]
[note 1] The same loophole was used for Japan's Type 92 heavy armoured car, a light tank for the cavalry.
As far as Congress knows it's not a tank :^)
It *was* official called the M1 Combat Car by the cavalry. They wouldn't have been able to operate it otherwise, as only the infantry was allowed to have tanks under the National Defense Act of 1920.
The 1992 Treaty On Conventional Armed Forces in Europe attempted to formalize the classifications a bit. An APC was said to be a self-propelled armored vehicle with an integrated gun of less than 20 mm, an IFV was the same but with a gun of 20 mm or more (and usually also missiles), and a "battle tank" was one with an integrated gun of 75 mm or more. Both IFVs and APCs were further distinguished from battle tanks by the requirement that they're "designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad", and that a battle tank had to be at least 16.5 tons while the APC and IFV classification had no weight limit. Self-propelled guns, weirdly, were not classified, though the battle tank classification did have its own requirements of "360-degree traverse gun" and "high self-protection" to seemingly avoid self-propelled guns being classified as such.
No, I don't know where this leaves the M3.
the US Army just refuses to use the term "light tank" for some reason. The M551 Sheridan was officially a "Armored Reconnaissance/Airborne Assault Vehicle."
Is he butthurt because they changed the name to "not a tank" due to possibly losing funding for new tanks? Or is he just too moronic to realize tracked vehicles have more than one purpose and don't need to be officially called "water tanks" because we're not trying to hide their production for war?
I don't know the details either, but I'm definitely not going to pretend I know more about it than the people that deal with it every day.
Better question is who is this blue mark butthole, and who was the butthole who started this twitter screencap thread?
A former Young Turk who had a melt down because he couldn't get somebody's autograph and got arrested. Has doubled down on his moronicness. Russia propagandist consumer and promoter.
lol
lmao
> heavy, direct fire weapons
> talks about a fricking Bradley
Kek
But the the M119 & M109 aren't protected weapon platforms, so that isn't a tank using his own definition.
If I were Russia I'd be declaring war on these countries sending shit that's killing my troops. Not dropping bombs or sending troops, just declare war and see what they do. It's an act of war what they're doing after all. The US is especially brash for pulling the Ukraine coup in the first place and putting a bunch of their suspiciously israeli agents in place.
>It's an act of war what they're doing after all.
If It wasn't an act of war when Russia did it to the west in Korea, Vietnam, Iraq and Afghanistan I don't see why it would be an act of war when the west does it to Russia now
>putting a bunch of their suspiciously israeli agents in place
Anti-Semitism is illegal in Russia as Putin is israeli by blood.
tonk
MLR-tonk
That's not a tank, that's a tink
These have been recorded destroying enemy tanks in combat
Not with the tinker though
is the Centurion AVRE FV4003 a tank?
Yes, why wouldn't it be?
Yes
>Armoured
>Tracked
>Cannon as main gun
>Thick armour that can resist heavy fire
Today the Bradley fighting vehicle system, takes mobility and firepower a leap forward, giving the United States Army a combined arms team. to keep paste with the main battle, move troops rapidly and towards it's own survivability. Bradley has outstanding mobility, mobility that results from a optimium combination of enginepower, powertrain efficiency and suspension. The commercial proven Cummins 500 horsepower turbocharged diesel engine deliver rapid acceleration and battlefield agility. The hydromechanical transmission by General Electric combines steering braking and gearselection as a single unit. resulting in outstanding movability and the capacity to climb slopes at 60%. The suspension sytem with 14 inches of vertical wheeltravel and high performance shock absorbers carries the vehicle over rough terrain with minimum shock and stress to troops and vehicle. Firepower, mobility and survivability make a potent weaponsystem. operating on a mechanized battlefield with the Abrams main battle tank, artillery and the attack helicopters the bradley fighting vehicle guarantees the united states army as a combined arms team that is SECOND TO NONE