>it's not an MBT therefore it's not a tank
>it's designed to support infantry therefore it's not a tank
when did /k/ get flooded by complete dilettantes? don't speak if you don't know shit, moron.
>it's not an MBT therefore it's not a tank
>it's not an MBT therefore it's not a tank
>it's designed to support infantry therefore it's not a tank
when did /k/ get flooded by complete dilettantes? don't speak if you don't know shit, moron.
You're the newbie, OP. Don't make new threads when you got BTFO if yourold ones.
Structure purist doctrine radical or die.
>PT-76 isn't a tank
actual moron definition
>25mm of armor tops
I see you have chosen "die."
It's amphibious.Compared to anything else that could do that at the time it was well armored.
That sounds like very cold comfort when a .50 MG with literally any AP round loaded starts penetrating your turret (and the rest of your amphibious vehicle) from any orientation it feels like.
.50 BMG was designed as an antitank round so you're just proving it's a tank :^)
Damn, you got me. PT-76 now meets my definition of heavily armored ground combat vehicle with a fully rotating turret and tracks that may be used for anything it is good at. Structure purist doctrine radical or die.
>heavily armored
somehow you've added a requirement that's both hopelessly vague and eliminates dozens of historical tanks nobody would argue aren't tanks
Thank you, I'm a man of many talents, and language by necessity is contextual.
"It's not a tank because it isn't invincible" is a moron definition by which no tanks exist
BMP is a tank
IFVs confuse my definition of a tank because they're infantry carrying light tanks, but the infantry carrying is their primary mission rather than tank duties
"tank duties" are anything a tank is good at. if it's an armored ground vehicle with tracks and a turret, then it's a tank.
There's plenty of not tanks that meet those definitions. M109 isn't a tank. Gepard isn't a tank. The Michael Tracy definition is actually even more moronic than the hardliner position.
this is a picture of a tank. deal with it, autismo.
>deal with it
I'll take solace in the fact literally every authoritative source that isn't Michael Tracy agrees with me
I don't know who the frick Michel Tracy is.
Would you accept the definition "armored ground vehicle with tracks and a turret that is designed to be fired while in motion"
Actually it isn't "in motion" that makes M109 not a tank, it's "direct fire". Tanks can fire on the move or still, directly or indirectly. Artillery only fires indirectly and if you're direct firing an M109 something has gone horribly wrong.
Okay, so a tank is any armored ground vehicle with tracks and a turret capable of direct fire.
You can do a lot worse than that definition but there's still a bunch of edge cases that frick with it, like Strv 103.
Okay, then it doesn't even need a turret. Just a gun capable of direct fire.
Strv 103 is closer to being an assault gun/tank destroyer than an out-and-out 'Tank' (doctrinally designed to wait behind berms, ambush soviet tanks then retreat to new firing position). Id put it in the same category as the Stug III, i.e. "not a tank"
There's actually a video of some model of Russian self propellered artillery direct firing into a building twenty feet in front of it.
To add: you can see pieces of kit flying off the superstructure of the artillery as it does this.
>Russian self propellered artillery direct firing into a building twenty feet in front of it.
and that was entered into the regimental records as the longest range hit Russian artillery had ever achieved.
Artillery train direct fire, both self propelled and field guns. Yes something horrible has gone wrong, but the system and crews are capable of it.
Anon, the problem isn't moving, the problem is the caliber.
If it only has machineguns and/or missiles then who the frick cares about its capacity to shoot and scoot?
What you gotta add is something to the effect of "has a main gun designed for direct fire capable of penetrating armor of its era."
Hell, russian tanks can't shoot on the move, not even one of them. Neither chinese ones, their stabilizers are too shit for that.
IFVs don't have the firepower to be light tanks, also may IFVs are wheeled.
Define firepower.
TOW2B will destroy any tank with ease. Unlike 105mm gun.
But why?
'tank' doesn't necessarily mean 'effective tank on a modern battlefield'. Remember that the WWI Mk. V tank is still considered a tank. It was the absolute bleeding edge of modern warfare when it was introduced, and it's an absolute, fricked up, unarmoured, death-trap by modern standards.
Structural and doctrinal radical or die.
Mark IV's are landships, not tanks.
Structure Purist, Doctrine Radical
>strv 103
>breakthrough doctrine
moronic graph
Of course it's moronic. It's trying to make a dumb joke for the sake of it.
Did I miss some big /k/ argument about the Matilda?
M10 Booker "isn't a tank" despite being objectively an infantry tank
It's pretty clearly a tank, albeit a shit one that doesn't even meet the requirements set for it
the infantry tanks were meant to spearhead assults alongside infantry. the booker is an assault gun meant to provide fire support to the infantry from as far away as it can manage
uhh what?
Cruiser tanks were meant to be the spearhead for assaults.
Hell the fricking distribution of the MPF and British Infantry tank in WWII is almost fricking identical but on a different.
MPF Battalion is held at the divisional level and parcelled out to IBCT
Tank Brigades were assigned at the Corps level and parcelled out to infantry divisions. Whilst the Armoured Brigade with cruisers were subordinate to the Division.
>but on a different.
on a different scale due to the smaller size of modern armies
>Cruiser tanks were meant to be the spearhead for assaults.
no. cruisers were meant to exploit breakthroughs and act more as cavalry
>M10 Booker
>21st century Assault Gun
Hahaha, I fricking told you all that it was moronic to let that concept die!
can a fully robotic abrams be a tank or is it a drone then?
If they call it a tank, it's a tank. If they don't then it's not. That's literally the only thing that matters.
I hope they continue calling it anything but a tank just so spergs like OP can seethe some more
A tank is a large container meant to store liquid. Nothing in this thread is a tank.
With tanks, the only thing that matters is whether it's a good, solid tank.
Modern definitions for modern times. The tanks used in WW1 wouldn't be considered tanks today too. Only an autist will fail to consider context.
You can only call it a tank if it looks like a water tank. Everything else is a Land Dreadnought.
>the most honest name for an overcompensator vehicle
>The tanks used in WW1 wouldn't be considered tanks today
Nobody would look at an FT-17 and call it not a tank. It defined the "turreted cannon on tracks" format. And if some Syrian or Nigerian rebel built a Mk 1 tank look-alike we'd call it a tank, just a shitty one.
Words have meaning and purpose. Especially for the military, function is more important than appearance. One of the characteristics of a tank is that it is heavily armored. If you're a soldier asking for a tank, you don't want a thing that looks like a tank, you want an thing that does tank things. Your "definition" will cover self-propelled artillery, and only a moron will argue those are tanks. Militray equipment is context-sensitive, depending on time, place, terrain, doctrine etc.
>One of the characteristics of a tank is that it is heavily armored
Forcing the moronic idea that only main battle tanks are tanks won't stick because it's farcical on the surface.
Light tanks exist, but they're intended to be used in places where they're the the most heaviest vehicle available to the forces using them. Are you arguing SPAs are tanks too? If you make a "tank" with a disroportionately large gun and paper-thin armor nobody apart from journalists and uninformed public is going to call it a a tank, /k/ will call it a tank-destroyer or support gun or self propelled gun or something. The armor is important.
> If you make a "tank" with a disroportionately large gun and paper-thin armor nobody apart from journalists and uninformed
So is the M51 Super Sheman not a tank?
It does tank things does it not? Still doesn't carry infantry or primarily engage in indirect fire. Either a tank or tank destroyer depending on how you want to bend the definition
I'm not the one whose saying something with a big gun but little armor isn't a tank
It's not a tank today. By US Army standards. After all military terminology is predicated on the definition of the nation using it. What may be a tank in one place or time is not a tank in another. That's just how military things work. Definitions are proscribed by an authority, not a description of the meanings used by the common people. People are attached to the made up meanings in their head formed from context, but these are indeed made up. Sure, you see a tank and make up your own meaning, but these are indeed made up and the only meaning that matters is the ones used by the ones using it - the military, who proscribe a meaning in accordance with their doctrine and intended use. If they say it is a tank, it is a tank. Sometimes there may be no defined meaning, only that some vehicles are defined as tanks. That is fine too. It can hardly be otherwise.
It is exactly like how some people have a certain definition of assault weapon in their head, made up from their own context. But they are wrong, and assault weapons are a certain rigid legal definition, and assault rifles are also a certain rigid definition as defined in the official definition of terms. And if you go to any other country, where burst fire has never existed as an alternative for automatic fire, they have another definition for assault rifles. These are all true.
>if we call it a 105mm light armored full tracked combat vehicle and not a light tank it isn't a tank!
>also please ignore that the deployment structure of the MPF Battalion is a scaled down version of the British Infantry Tank Brigades 80 years ago.
I've made my mind up, it's an infantry tank
Infantry tanks and assault guns basically perform the same role but one thing i've noticed is that assault gunstend to be directly subordinate to the unit they support (e.g. StuG battalion -> infantry division, Stryker MGS company > SBCT, while infantry tanks were held at a higher level and parcelled out as needed, which is exactly how the MPF will be used
>I've made my mind up, it's an infantry tank
If you wrote the field manual, it would be true. But you're just some random guy on the internet, so it's only true in your head.
Gay, homosexual relativism and subjectivism.
t. upset that the made-up meanings in their heads are wrong and can't handle the truth that someone else is the arbiter of the definition of a tank.
>Infantry tanks and assault guns basically perform the same role
Nah.
Matilda was supposed to roll ahead of infantry formation.
Stug was supposed to roll behind infantry formation.
>tank is that it is heavily armored
This has never been true, pic related being a good example
A heavy tank is heavily armored. Any tank being heavily armored? You are moronic if you believe it as such
Naw, it's all marketing by the arms industry.
"That isnt a tank, THIS is a tank! Buy 200 now please!"
Why is the Bradley an IFV and not a tank?
Because it's main purpose is to carry armored infantry into battle and support them once dismounted. No tanks or assault gunscan carry infantry under armor (not even the fricking Merkava)