Those of you who refuse to acknowledge that this is a tank ..... go to hell

Those of you who refuse to acknowledge that this is a tank ..... go to hell

https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1615799112708026368

  1. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    wait until he learns what is and isnt a rifle

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Does this motherfucker even know what a tank is?

      [...]
      [...]
      Michael Tracey is a paid retard, he exists to purposely act retarded so people who are contrarians can jerk themselves off

      it's not a direct fire gun, and it's not meant to withstand direct fire to perform it's mission, ergo it's not a tank. just because a liberal know-nothing is wrong, doesn't mean reality conforms to their will. XD fuckin' retards, sage for your stupidity, postan so others will mock you too.

      As long as the US distinguishes something well enough so that it is in fact distinguished, then it's good enough. We do not want a repeat of the m1 senario.

      Also military is a technical profession, how does "outsider" comprehension assist?

      https://i.imgur.com/9XaenTv.png

      >has different gun
      >which fires different ammunition
      >for different purpose
      >has less armor
      >not even built on the same chassis
      Don't you just hate it when motherfuckers with no idea what they're talking about have to stick their two cents in?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        TEXTOOOO

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >doubling down or the retardation
        what did he mean by this?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Pick the one source that agrees with you instead of the millions that don't

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          It doesn't even agree with him, in fact it directly contradicts him even more. The first part that he highlighted says "A tank... is defined more by its function than by it construction." He is literally so stupid he is trying to use a source that says function is an important part of what defines a tank to claim a SPH is a tank. He is literally retarded.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            He knows what he's doing.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        This is superb bait because I am fucking fuming.
        You know what isn't mentioned anywhere in this dude's discussion of the definition of the word "tank?" Self-propelled guns, which is what the M109 is. You know why? Because while you can make compelling arguments about TDs and tankettes and flamethrower vehicles like the Crocodile, nobody with even an iota of understanding about how military shit works would argue that an SPG is a tank. It might make an ad-hoc assault gun, but not a fucking tank. Fucking shit, it's been a while since I've wanted to reach through the monitor and throttle somebody.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Moron, if you had this thing in ww2, a single one would massacre a whole tank platoon of any force.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            First question:
            How are you so certain? Application is 90% of the battle, not raw stats, that's why the Sherman was an excellent tank despite having several obvious statistical disadvantages to Kraut cats.

            Second question:
            What do you expect to gain by comparing apples to oranges here? You could arguably produce similar results with a single M48. New shit mogs old shit, wow, who knew?

            Third question:
            Who asked?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >you do not have this thing in ww2 though
            But if I make up this imaginary scenario where my gayry makes sense, I win the aegument!

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            So would an F16 and that's not a tank either

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              So would an a10, which actually IS a (flying) tank

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Actual fucking bullshit. M109s weigh in the neighborhood of 30 tons and have armor lighter than a T-34 or Panzer IV. Its armor is designed to stop shell splinters and direct fire from machine guns, RPGs or grenade launchers. More appropriately, its armor is designed to protect the crew from these threats in an CBRN battlefield.

            If you put one of these up against literally any German, American, British or Soviet tank unit post 1943 it would get fucking slaughtered. If you had it fight said tank unit by using indirect fire, that's fucking pointless because that's what artillery has always been used for.

            >you do not have this thing in ww2 though
            But if I make up this imaginary scenario where my gayry makes sense, I win the aegument!

            First question:
            How are you so certain? Application is 90% of the battle, not raw stats, that's why the Sherman was an excellent tank despite having several obvious statistical disadvantages to Kraut cats.

            Second question:
            What do you expect to gain by comparing apples to oranges here? You could arguably produce similar results with a single M48. New shit mogs old shit, wow, who knew?

            Third question:
            Who asked?

            The M109 literally has an inch of armor on its front and sides. A 76mm M1 firing ABC-T at its front turret would have ~76 mm of penetration at 2,000 yards.

            https://i.imgur.com/k0Bi4S7.jpg

            This isn't an aircraft carrier

            Correct, it's a LHD. If you replaced the dock, that it is named after, with a huge hangar and beefed up its air component it might become a helicopter destroyer or light carrier.

            His source literally works against him. The bit he didn't highlight
            >A common approach is to see what is "properly" a tank as what is now called a main battle tank (MBT)
            The fact it wasn't a thing until 1960 is irrelevant. That is what people mean by a tank. Also MBT is more of a design concept (i.e, you don't have X Tank Y Tank Z Tank) and was actually done by 1945 with the Centurion.

            Actually it was a thing by the 50s. The M48 Patton is generally agreed upon as one of the first proper MBTs.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous
              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                It gets worse holy fuck.

                You heard it here first gays, a M113 is a tank!

                I wrote my reply right before I saw your mention of the Centurion. Yes, the Centurion is probably the FIRST MBT, but the M48 is probably the first, proper, universally agreed MBT. It's pointless arguing about it though because we both agree the gay in OP is wrong, we just disagree about exactly how severely wrong he is.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                He knows he is wrong, he is just trying to deconstruct the meaning of a word until it fits want he wants it to fit, which in this case he wants to deconstruct the word tank so completely that it becomes a general term that encompasses too many things to be specific. He is unwilling to concede that the word tank can and has been restricted to only certain types of tracked vehicles because that would blow up his whole argument. If you try to tell him that there is a definition of a tank that is restrictive and doesn't include what he wants it to include he will just argue that its invalid just because it doesn't define what he wants it to define.

                You could basically do this tactic with any word. If someone wanted to they could literally challenge the definition of every word because at the end of the day definitions are just arbitrary descriptions society has agreed upon, some more specific than others because humans like to call similar, but still different things, different words so they know what specific thing they are talking about. As well, the things that words describe are in fact part of reality, they don't change. So you could change the definition of a word but not the characteristics of what it describes. So calling an SPG a tank doesn't change the fact that it is a tracked artillery piece that sits miles from the battlefield, fires at enemies indirectly, and doesn't partake in assaults, essentially it doesn't do want an actual tank does. So mikey can wrongly call a M109 or M113 a tank, but that doesn't mean that there can't be a word to describe a vehicle type restricted to just the Abrams, T-72, Leopards, etc..., it just means he has generalized the word tank and now we will need a new word to specifically describe the type of vehicle that is the Abrams, T-72, Leopards, etc... but since we already have one, that being the word tank, I think we should keep it at that.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                IFVs are light tanks with dismounts

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                No you're retarded and know no history of the word you only know common usage because you're a troglodite.

                Nah the analogy is fine, tanks and SPGs both fit the same general definition (big gun, armour, tracks) but serve very different roles. If you wanted to move a couch you wouldn't take a sports car, if you wanted to take a family of six to the beach you wouldn't take a pickup truck, if you want to drive fast you wouldn't drive a pickup truck.

                Tanks are a specific weapon system just like a pickup truck is a specific type of car.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >no argument except to generalize the word tank to mean all tracked vehicles
                kek. So if I want a word that only refers vehicles types such as the Abrams, Leopards, T-90, etc... What should I use then? According to you and mikey, I can't use tank since that refers to every tracked vehicle with a gun on it in existence.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                MBT, but in the field tank would sufficient sure, but only because other vehicles have their specialised names such as BMP or SPG as well.
                Because of the specialisation namea of OTHER vehicles, MBTs are able to be referred to as "Tanks" because everything else has a separate name, but the reality is if MBTs ceased to exist, the word tank wouldn't.
                I would hardly call a reccie tank the same threat as an MBT now would you but by your false definition they are both tanks.

                Working language and talking with actual experts who use the language are two different things and you need to get used to it.

                Outside of combat or general conversation to use tank as such is perfectly fine, but when you're being specific or generalising a whole type of vehicle, such as a line of interchangable tanks that can specialise from anything from SPG, MBT to IFV, they are still all the same tank, with different modifications to specialise them into a role.
                Therefore to use tank to refer to the whole would be fine. But obviously to refer to a specific role, you would be specific, like MAIN BATTLE / TANK
                Or LIGHT / TANK or INFANTRY/ TANK

                We could get into specific as to why they decided to rename APCs as non tanks since they have no guns, but it's really arbitrary as they could be retrofitted with guns that make them into a form of tank regardless if APC beforehand fit them better or not, as it's more specific.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                MBT means "Main Battle Tank" you fucking RETARD. MBT as a term exists to differentiate an MBT from a heavy, medium, or light tank. But all of them (MBT, heavy tank, medium tank, light tank) all exist under the term tank, a term that still excludes APCs, IFVs, SPGs, etc... as each has a very specific role on the battlefield it is designed to do. I wouldn't call a M113 a light tank because it's main purpose and design isn't to assault positions, it's to ferry infantry and equipment to and from the battlefield. I wouldn't call the Bradly a medium tank because it too ferries infantry, lacks armor, and doesn't have a heavy gun. I wouldn't call an M109 a heavy tank because it doesn't participate in assaults nor does it fire at it's enemy directly nor does it have thick armor. And under no circumstances would I call anything other a MBT an MBT. In fact I would call the M113, Bradly, and M109 their respective terms that they have been assigned to them by society as large. Only an idiot would think "tank" is a general term for tracked vehicles used by the military and then argue incessantly that a SPG is in fact a tank simply because it is tracked and has a big gun on it. Tank is a word with a very specific definition, do most laymen know that definition? Probably not, but given the knowledge to see how an SPG is different from a tank they would learn to know it. Ignorance can be corrected.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Excludes APCs IFVs SPGs
                Wrong, though APC is arguably a separate since it doesn't have to have projectile weapons I will give you that.
                APCs can be converted to tanks through the addition of weaponry however.
                IFVs are a blurry separate role to an MBT, is merkava an IFV cause it can carry infantry in the back and on top to disembark? A T90 with mounted infantry an IFV?
                Arguably the definition of MBT is not so solid, neither is IFV, Tank, however is very strictly defined.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >he keeps using the term MBT and tank separately
                I was already aware you are a retard but this repeated mistake confirms it.
                >APCs can be converted to tanks through the addition of weaponry however.
                Crazy, to think physically converting something makes it a physically different thing. I would say its a novel idea except militaries the world over have been using the same track designs for different types of vehicles for decades.
                >is merkava an IFV cause it can carry infantry in the back and on top to disembark
                Is my honda civic a bus because I once has 7 people crammed inside and another 7 riding ontop of it and in the trunk?

                You're not worth my time.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                MBTs are tanks, not all tanks are MBTs. Please kindly leave the door open when you decide to off yourself for stupidity.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You are literally retarded. I assume you are the same gay as

                >Excludes APCs IFVs SPGs
                Wrong, though APC is arguably a separate since it doesn't have to have projectile weapons I will give you that.
                APCs can be converted to tanks through the addition of weaponry however.
                IFVs are a blurry separate role to an MBT, is merkava an IFV cause it can carry infantry in the back and on top to disembark? A T90 with mounted infantry an IFV?
                Arguably the definition of MBT is not so solid, neither is IFV, Tank, however is very strictly defined.

                , in which you state "IFVs are a blurry separate role to an MBT" and think that the word tank doesn't exclude APCs, IFVs, or SPGs. I know what an MBT is as I know what a tank is, but you seem to be a massive retard who thinks that the role of an IFV can be "blurred" with the role of a MBT or that an APC is a tank. MBT is defined to differentiate a tank that fits the MBT definition from other tanks, such as: heavy tanks, light tanks, medium tanks, etc.... but MBT is not used to differentiate a MBT from an IFV as the more simple and general word tank all ready differentiates it from that different form of vehicle.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                APC isn't a tank I gave you the definition, I just said it can very well be a tank with just one gun modification.
                Tanks are APCs by definition, though.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Sorry not APC, brainfart, I meant AFV.
                APCs are specific to personel.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                The definitions of MBT are absolutely blurry.
                What kind of retardation are you on have you even read it.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Blurry enough to confuse with an IFV!?!? A fucking vehicle that carries infantry for fucks sake.

                > " [A MBT is] a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops."[34]

                What about that is blurry you fucking idiot.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Depends, yeah. If a country ran only IFVs with tows and 30mm cannon for fast breakthroughs because heavy armour and large guns were considered useless for non siege warfare then that would be the new MBT.
                The "most numerous" part of the secondary definition you did not supply is a fluff definition and the "not primarily meant to transport combat troops" could be applied to half of IFVs lmao.
                Is the Bradley really an IFV? Because it's there to support the troops really, is a soviet MBT an IFV because it carries troops on its roof in pretty much all societ doctrine?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                > is merkava an IFV cause it can carry infantry in the back and on top to disembark

                Yes. It is an infantry tank

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Thanks for confirming that you're delusional.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Literally the scene from Pentagon Wars. I was right. This sonofabitch is a Spreyfag. Here's to the F-35's exhaust killing every flower they try to plant on his grave.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Laypersons are not really the experts on language (though common usage does usually apply to definitions to general language). If you ask the average person to label some form of chemical bond they would just call them atoms and we just ignore that because they don't have the specialised expertise needed to define things properly.

                But even the experts and the laymen agree on tank being a rather all encompassing word that follows the definition to the T. It's only autistics that can't seem to disassociate MBT from tank for some reason that can't accept it.
                Yes, in field you will use tank to define an enemy MBT, but short-speech designed for quick communication is not common language.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Mike Tracey is not just any layperson. He is a journalist, and is more qualified to comment on such matters than some autistic pedant chuds on a javanese shadow puppet board.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Muh one journalist is infallible
                Lmao
                You're not him are you Mike?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >is more qualified to comment on such matters
                Lmao stop posting Mike. Fellating yourself doesn't make your points any more coherent.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >journalist
                >being anymore qualified to speak about any topic
                I'd trust a fucking crackhead to make more valid points about any topic than a modern """journalist""". Holy fuck twitter is such a stain on western civilization.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >"I'm retarded"
                >"but it's OK because 95 out of 100 retards would agree me"

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                It's spelled "troglodyte"

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                This is no bullshit, actual, real, post-modernism summed up. As in, the actual historical meaning of the word.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Best post ITT. The Twitter ""journalist"" has no interest in armored warfare. The whole context of this discussion is that he wants to characterize the war in Ukraine as not only a western-backed proxy conflict, but as a full on NATO military intervention, and for some reason he thinks America sending over tanks is a requisite to call it that. But America hasn't sent over tanks, we've sent SPGs and IFVs, so now he has to redefine those as tanks so that he can justify the broader conclusion he's actually interested in.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >and for some reason he thinks America sending over tanks is a requisite to call it that.
                Honestly, that's a much more interesting point than the whole SPG=tank nonsense.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                So by his definition, if I stick corrugated metal sheets, tracks and rotatable gun to my wooden go cart then terrorised a local police shop, I would be the proud owner of a tank?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                That is pretty much some of the original tanks, yes. But heavy armour is the subjective part, you would have to successfully argue that it had the ability to stop at least some sort of enemy fire. Pillows for instance would be fine if you were in a pillow fight, and it would still be a tank.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                If my opponent we using a car against me i could strap a car on top for amour
                And call it a tank, sweeet. Catch me on i95

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Yes

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            British Centurions achieved 3:1 kill ratio against brand new M48 Pattons in the Indian-Pakistan War.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Yes, and M50 and M51 Shermans acquitted themselves against everything from T34-85s to T-62s. What is your point?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            You are a simpleton.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            No. The M109 *can* be used in direct-fire mode in an emergency, but it's not really designed for that. It doesn't have the sensors, the fire control, the rate of fire, and certainly not the armor protection that it would need to survive against a platoon of WWII tanks. Sure, it might get one or two, but it'd still end up dead.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Just to add to the point, you can use an M777 for direct fire too, but that doesnt make it an anti-materiel rifle on wheels

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >but that doesnt make it an anti-materiel rifle on wheels
                what if you fired 155mm fin stabilized discarding sabot rounds out of it?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I'm not sure you could; don't muzzle breaks have issues with sabot rounds?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                conventional ones yes but you can use sabot rouds with pepperbox style breaks fine.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Sigh. Brakes. I need a nap.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            so would a humvee with a TOW launcher, what's your point?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        His source literally works against him. The bit he didn't highlight
        >A common approach is to see what is "properly" a tank as what is now called a main battle tank (MBT)
        The fact it wasn't a thing until 1960 is irrelevant. That is what people mean by a tank. Also MBT is more of a design concept (i.e, you don't have X Tank Y Tank Z Tank) and was actually done by 1945 with the Centurion.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I've been arguing that while MBTs and tracked scout vehicles are commonly referred to as tanks by laymen, and IFVs are not, they are still tanks.
          Tanks are pretty much tracked vehicles with armour that can stand small arms and can be used as a mobile gun platform. Yes, even APCs with mounted 50's.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Yeah no. Even a retarded Ukrainian conscript is going to call out a BTR as a BTR and an BMP as a BMP, because they have completely different weapons and armor suites. The only person calling any tracked/armored vehicle a tank is one hiding behind a tree shitting himself because he can hear a tracked vehicle but won't risk having a look.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              I don't care what retards like you call it. That is what it is.
              The variations in designation is fine, such as BMP, MBT, recon, but they still overall fit into the category of tank regardless of what you say.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You're retarded. You don't get to arbitrarily decide the definition of tank just because you don't like how others use the term.

                BMP isn't a designation either gay, it's a family of vehicles. BMP and BTR are commonly used to describe not particular vehicles, but the difference between a tracked IFV of Soviet manufacture (a BMP) and a wheeled AFV of Soviet manufacture (BMP). It's used to describe the nature of the vehicle, if I'm a tank commander going into an area and I get a call about a few BTRs 700 meters away I'm not going to be overly concerned while I might change my priorities if I hear about some BMPs 1,100 meters away.

                It's just like a Russian describing something American looking, with wheels and a machine gun on top as a Stryker. Does he know it's actually a M1130 CV, a juicy target that he should prioritize? No, but now everyone knows they're dealing with an AFV with light armor and a machine gun, not an IFV with ATGMs and a 30mm cannon.

                In short, stop being a gay. Nobody cares about your opinion.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Arbitrary
                Anon the entire definition is pretty arbitrary, since it means something to hold water.
                Anyone from its original inception would regard any metal tracked vehicle that carried men and had weaponry to be a tank. That is where it comes from and it's what it means and has always meant.

                This is reality.

                We may have specialisd the language to refer to things in different ways, such as cruiser tank, infantry tank, reconnaissance tank but they all revolved around the same definition.
                Infantry fighting vehicles are a form of tank who's primary purpose is to being infantry to the front and support them.
                Heavy artillery such as OPs are tanks that would be put under the designation of artillery since that is their purpose, but they are still tanks.

                Deal with it.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Anyone from its original inception would regard any metal tracked vehicle that carried men and had weaponry to be a tank. That is where it comes from and it's what it means and has always meant.
                You're completely fucking retarded, buddy. Nobody who has to actually fight in or against these vehicles uses this retarded term.

                >language
                Nobody cares about your inexperienced ass deciding a few acronyms are too difficult.

                I don't care what you think, actually look up the history of the word and shut the fuck up already.
                [...]
                This.

                Wow, the retard in OP has more followers than I thought.

                Tell me, how does it feel knowing you're so aggressively wrong about something you don't even need to be concerned about?

                Disagree. The AMX-10RC is designed for direct line of sight fire. The M109 is specialized for indirect fire. That's what distinguishes a tank from a well armored SPG.

                Now, if you had a vehicle designed from the outset to serve both roles, I guess you'd call it a tank? But that's not the M109.

                The definition of a tank REQUIRING tracks is basically the one part of the entire thing that can be argued.

                >Laymen infantry designation means the definition is wrong
                Kek

                Do you get mad when people call pickup trucks cars.

                Guess what, tankers use the same definition too. So do A-10 pilots, and helicopter pilots. And intelligence staff.

                You retards are honestly trying to argue that a BMP is a tank. You're so fucking stupid it's not funny.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                All this cope because you can't seem to understand how working language and actual language works.

                Because you're a retard know it all (that doesn't know it all) that thinks calling a SU52 Felon means that's it's actual name.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >cruiser tank, infantry tank
                Deprecated terms for obsolete roles. Keep up faglord, you're making a fool of yourself.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Muh obsolete roles
                Lmao
                If you say so anon.
                MBTs vary wildly, and they're gonna vary even more as time goes on. Are the variants that aren't MBTs no longer tanks? Are MBTs with missiles or top mounted MLRS like shermans not tanks?
                One day you will learn that the word never changed it's definition, but you did in your head for some reason.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Are MBTs with missiles or top mounted MLRS like shermans not tanks?
                >Are MBTs... like shermans
                You are unironically retarded.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >MBTs vary widely
                Wrong. Incorrect. Not even fucking close to the mark. And yes, many of the variants of MBTs (like the M104 Wolverine built off the Abrams' chassis) are not tanks. Things like the Calliope sit in a strange netherworld, and I'm not about to let you bog me down by arguing over outlier cases. The point here is you busted out outdated tank designations, revealing your status as the same kind of dimwit who watched a lot of History Channel WWII documentaries, assumed everything in there was 100% gospel truth, and that nothing has changed in the 80 years since that war. You are the same kind of stupid gay as Pierre Sprey and his ilk.

                I hope you get fucking squashed by a Bradley ISIS execution style, and I hope your last words are "I can't believe they're running me over with a tank." That way, everyone can laugh at your dumb ass for going to the grave as retarded as you were in life.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >I hope your last words are "I can't believe they're running me over with a tank."

                topkek. that was pretty good anon.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Wrong.
                You can cry and seethe but the definition of tank is still "a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track." and there is NOTHING you can do about it but cry and seethe about other definitions as if they have any relevance at all (They do not), since they are more specific.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                If you had a clue you'd realize that all you have to do is replace the word "tank" with "AFV" in your posts and suddenly you'd be correct and we'd be retarded, but you aren't doing that, because you're retarded.

                You are basically pic related.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                We literally call tanks fighting vehicles anon.
                They're also armoured.
                🙂
                All tanks are by definition AFVs, too. Do you want to get into that as well.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                What is a subset?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Yeah exactly. That was kind of my point 53 posts ago.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            This is objectively incorrect, tanks fill a specific battlefield role that none of these other systems can

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              And, while we're on the subject, APCs and IFVs fill distinct roles, and a tank can't fill either of theirs (not even the Merkava).

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >We've spotted a tank at 3 o'clock about 500 meters ahead
            >Got it, load APFSDS
            >See's a BTR-50
            >Fire!
            >Well we killed that tank
            >Gets shot by a T-62 which is what the person meant
            Specific terminology exists for a reason, any soldier who uses such uselessly vague terminology should be beaten until they learn.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Pretty sure I've heard volunteers call BMPs tanks before in Ukraine. But regardless, there is nothing wrong with being more specific of course such as calling OPs vehicle artillery, or even generalising tank to mean only MBT when in the field, but the real designation of tank is an overarching one that includes all such vehicles. That includes any enclosed tracked vehicle with armour and a weapon.
              You can cope about it with "but much common usage by laymen" but experts, linguists, and historians, who are the people who made these designations know what the words actually mean and use it correctly.

              If you can't cope with that though, you're in the wrong place, autism wins here.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Pretty sure I've heard volunteers call BMPs tanks before in Ukraine.
                They're fucking retarded and should have been immediately, harshly scolded for doing so.

                >being more specific
                >calling OPs vehicle artillery
                OP's vehicle literally is artillery. The only person who would look at pic related and think "looks like a tank to me" is a retarded, literally sub 80 IQ, infantryman who slept through all of the vehicle identification classes and closed his eyes whenever an artillery piece went past. Someone who has a clue is going to put a rocket where the commander sits, and he's going to know where that is because he's not retarded like you are.

                >the real designation of tank is an overarching one that includes all such vehicles.
                Why are you so deliberately avoiding the use of the term AFV?

                >experts, linguists, and historians, who are the people who made these designations
                Experts, aka soldiers, vehemently disagree with your retardation because incorrectly calling a vehicle with 15mm of armor a "tank" results in poor prioritization and subsequent loss of actual tanks. Because they're exposing themselves trying to kill a glorified taxi.

                Linguists are irrelevant and nobody gives a fuck about some random "historian" on the internet.

                IFVs are light tanks with dismounts

                Nah, IFVs are armored vehicles designed to carry infantry (protected) into battle, dismount them then stick around. An IFV is capable of keeping its dismounts mounted while it deals with a threat, while an AFV like the Stryker might have to kick out its dismounts and leave if it encounters a threat it can't handle.

                You could arguably turn a Stryker into an IFV with the addition of a larger cannon, several TOWs and an armor package allowing it to tank 30mm rounds to the front. You can't turn a Stryker into a tank.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I don't care what you think, actually look up the history of the word and shut the fuck up already.

                >Arbitrary
                Anon the entire definition is pretty arbitrary, since it means something to hold water.
                Anyone from its original inception would regard any metal tracked vehicle that carried men and had weaponry to be a tank. That is where it comes from and it's what it means and has always meant.

                This is reality.

                We may have specialisd the language to refer to things in different ways, such as cruiser tank, infantry tank, reconnaissance tank but they all revolved around the same definition.
                Infantry fighting vehicles are a form of tank who's primary purpose is to being infantry to the front and support them.
                Heavy artillery such as OPs are tanks that would be put under the designation of artillery since that is their purpose, but they are still tanks.

                Deal with it.

                This.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >gets shot by a T-62
              >poing
              >it's a T-62 firing 3BVM-1
              >almost a full minute passes
              >point
              >at this point the T-62 has been NLAW'd, or abandoooons spontaneously

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >"Sir there's a tank outside!'
            >"Oh shit! If it fires its 125mm on our bunker we're done for! I'll call in our tank for support, get the javelin."
            >"No sir, it's not that kind of tank.."
            >"Want kind of tank is it then?"
            >"One of those aluminum box ones with a 50 cal on top that a bunch of infantry ride in."
            >"..."
            >"..."
            >"We should probably come up with more specific words."

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >Laymen infantry designation means the definition is wrong
              Kek

              Do you get mad when people call pickup trucks cars.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Because it is. Nobody, except for retards like you and mike, think that the word tank is generalized to mean APC, IFV, SPG, etc... In fact the terms APC, IFV, and SPG, etc... were created in order to make sure the term tank wasn't applied general to all tracked armored fighting vehicles.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Wrong.
                Those designations are sometimes forms of tanks.
                SPGs do not always need armour or tracks, so not all are tanks.
                The designations are overlapping.

                For the love of god this is NOT a hard concept to grasp you baboon tier mongoloid.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >SPGs do not always need armour or tracks, so not all are tanks.
                A VEHICLE WITH ARMOR OR TRACKS IS NOT A TANK. IT IS AN ARMORED FIGHTING VEHICLE. EVEN WIKIPEDIA DISAGREES WITH YOU ON THIS.

                MBT, but in the field tank would sufficient sure, but only because other vehicles have their specialised names such as BMP or SPG as well.
                Because of the specialisation namea of OTHER vehicles, MBTs are able to be referred to as "Tanks" because everything else has a separate name, but the reality is if MBTs ceased to exist, the word tank wouldn't.
                I would hardly call a reccie tank the same threat as an MBT now would you but by your false definition they are both tanks.

                Working language and talking with actual experts who use the language are two different things and you need to get used to it.

                Outside of combat or general conversation to use tank as such is perfectly fine, but when you're being specific or generalising a whole type of vehicle, such as a line of interchangable tanks that can specialise from anything from SPG, MBT to IFV, they are still all the same tank, with different modifications to specialise them into a role.
                Therefore to use tank to refer to the whole would be fine. But obviously to refer to a specific role, you would be specific, like MAIN BATTLE / TANK
                Or LIGHT / TANK or INFANTRY/ TANK

                We could get into specific as to why they decided to rename APCs as non tanks since they have no guns, but it's really arbitrary as they could be retrofitted with guns that make them into a form of tank regardless if APC beforehand fit them better or not, as it's more specific.

                This entire post is nihilist bullshit.

                That's a man

                Now on this I'm going to turn into that other retard. It's not in fact a man, we can define the gender of a person according to the role they fit in society, even though some people might use the exact same term to describe biological sex. Despite being told repeatedly that the other party is specifically referring to biological sex, I am electing to ignore that and continue arguing as if the other party is using my definition.

                Blah blah blah, meaning is relative, all words are made up, we can use any term for any thing, you can not hold me to an actual definition, I will justify my retarded delusions with my self-proclaimed "sourcing" from "experts".

                Now that we have all that sorted,

                It's in a dress and takes it up the butt, it presents as feminine. It is a woman, or if you wish to be pedantic a girl(male).

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Muh nihilism
                moron don't be reductionist. To recognise the word meaning a generalisation of vehicle with tracks, a gun and some form of armour, and the common usage by retards or the military in situ as shorthand for MBT can both be correct usage for different situations.

                But the reality is the definition exists for a reason, and of you can't get your head around people calling SPGs tanks you're gonna have a hard time living in this world because the entire educated world talks like this, uses words like this, defines specifics, like this.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >But the reality is the definition exists for a reason, and of you can't get your head around people calling SPGs tanks you're gonna have a hard time living in this world
                Oh shut the fuck up. You, and the guy in OP, are people who despite being told several times to use correct terminology for things stubbornly refuse to do so. Using some pissy academic language when called out for being purposely obtuse would get you insulted and walked away from IRL.

                Nobody gives a fuck about what one particular country who built some prototype tanks in the 1910s used as a codename for their tanks, nor does anyone give a fuck that they picked the word "tank" instead of dog, wire, or star. The language used to describe the vehicles you're talking about very quickly converged on terms that make actual sense and differentiate between different types of vehicles.

                The only people who use the word "tank" to describe an AFV are people who don't know what an AFV is. Stop aligning yourself with uninformed and aggressively incompetent retards.

                You are the actual personification of this meme.

                https://i.imgur.com/KJ2OiEt.png

                Not all of us are Russian, Anon.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                So we can agree it's a tank.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                We can agree that you need to go fuck yourself, although I'm unsure if you're quite ready for that yet.

                >Wrong terminology
                Anon, the literal definition is "a heavy armoured >>[...] vehicle<<<<< carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track."
                And the definition of "heavily armoured" varies to hell and back.

                Accept and concede gay, it's time.

                >the literal definition
                Not the one used by anyone who knows what they're talking about. Go and check the definition of assault rifle for me please.

                >And the definition of "heavily armoured" varies to hell and back.
                Posted by someone who doesn't know how armor works on an AFV, or that "armored fighting vehicle", aka AFV, is a very precise term that you don't get to repurpose by picking various parts of the term and deciding they mean different things.

                >I hope your last words are "I can't believe they're running me over with a tank."

                topkek. that was pretty good anon.

                Agreed, kek.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Literal definition
                >Not used by anyone
                Nah, keep making shit up there are countless examples of it being used broadly. Feel free to use a search engine to gratify your curiosity, or read a bit more it won't take too long.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Wrong terminology
                Anon, the literal definition is "a heavy armoured >>

                [...]

                vehicle<<<<< carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track."
                And the definition of "heavily armoured" varies to hell and back.

                Accept and concede gay, it's time.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                I don't give a shit what the "correct" terminology is. If the military wasn't run by autistic bureaucracies and MIC salesmen then the names of armoured vehicles would and SHOULD be pic related.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                If the military wasn't run by autistic bureaucracies we would have already convinced it to place people like you infront of the barrel of a self propelled gun.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >... infront of the barrel of an artillery tank

                Fixed that for you anon :^)

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Nah, as Tracey has already said using tanks for such retarded goals is a bad idea. We're going to strap you to a SPG, which isn't a tank. :^)

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >SPG

                You know what. You've won me over with your brilliantly derived terms and naming conventions. Surely they would be better applied universally.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                lmfao

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Barracks
                Wouldn't bunker be more accurate

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                That's what we have in German.
                Kampfpanzer
                Schützenpanzer
                Schwimmpanzer
                Panzerhaubitze
                Transportpanzer
                Flakpanzer
                Artillerieschlepper
                Bergepanzer/Pionierpanzer
                Vorstadtpanzer

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                That's because "panzer" literally means 'armor'. They're armored fighting vehicles.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Technically it's short for Panzerkampfwagen which more or less means Armored Fighting Vehicle.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                jimmies rustled
                hoes mad

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                You gay, bro.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >It's in a dress and takes it up the butt, it presents as feminine. It is a woman, or if you wish to be pedantic a girl(male).

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >SPGs do not always need armour or tracks, so not all are tanks.
                >The designations are overlapping.
                SPGs are usually indirect fire artillery pieces. Whether that's turreted like a Paladin or not like a 2S7 Pion, they're still not a tank.
                The line admittedly gets blurred with something like a StuG, but they don't really exist any more

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >I've been arguing that (retardation)
            Nobody asked you, cunt.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              It's an anonymous image board, I know you're new but you'll get used to unsolicited opinions one day.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Acthually the T-44 did it first

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        https://i.imgur.com/aIfVORm.png

        It gets worse holy fuck.

        You heard it here first gays, a M113 is a tank!

        I wrote my reply right before I saw your mention of the Centurion. Yes, the Centurion is probably the FIRST MBT, but the M48 is probably the first, proper, universally agreed MBT. It's pointless arguing about it though because we both agree the gay in OP is wrong, we just disagree about exactly how severely wrong he is.

        My favorite is the one in which he disparages the OSCE definition of tank. You know, those guys whose job it is to monitor and keep track of national inventories of military equipment under the CFE Treaty and therefore would need to have the strictest and most precise legal definitions of what is a tank and isn't

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I agree. As the source states, a tank is defined by its function. Since an SPG has the same function as an MBT, they are both tanks. Also, a crossbow is a tank.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        This guy literally wrote an article that Hitler was a good boy who dindu nuttin, that the US shouldn't have joined WW2, and that Roosevelt is personally responsible for the murder of the 6 gorillion: https://mtracey.substack.com/p/a-fairy-tale-version-of-world-war?utm_source=profile&utm_medium=reader2
        >What I am saying is that there demonstrably exists a robust body of literature, in thoroughly mainstream, peer-reviewed, credible sources, which provides more than sufficient validity to the following statement: US entry to World War II coincided with, and may well have been a factor in, the acceleration of the most lethal phase of the Holocaust.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          > Hitler was a good boy who dindu nuttin
          he was a mean fella
          >that the US shouldn't have joined WW2
          less lend-lease to commies
          >Roosevelt is personally responsible for the murder of the 6 gorillion
          who cares lmao

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >still believes in the Hall of Cost
          KEK!!!

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            many such cases!

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The source makes arguable points, except that a fucking artillery piece is obviously not a tank because it is used almost exclusively to fire at things miles away, out of sight.

        If you're using a self-propelled gun for direct fire on enemy infantry or vehicles it's because something has gone horribly wrong and you probably should have been blowing up the gun with explosives to deny it to the enemy and fleeing already.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        His source literally works against him. The bit he didn't highlight
        >A common approach is to see what is "properly" a tank as what is now called a main battle tank (MBT)
        The fact it wasn't a thing until 1960 is irrelevant. That is what people mean by a tank. Also MBT is more of a design concept (i.e, you don't have X Tank Y Tank Z Tank) and was actually done by 1945 with the Centurion.

        This is why I don't see anything wrong with government censorship like China. You're really gonna let retards have a platform to stir up shit? People will say the 2nd Amendment is outdated (it isn't) but the 1st Amendment was definitely not intended for the internet age.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >no 1 Amendment
          Thank you CCP consider our record corrected

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          If we had censorship like China people like this guy could spout nonsense and censor anyone that tries to correct him.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Some article about him from 2019
        His whole message is "Russia is always right"

        https://dragnetnews.com/2019/10/06/michael-tracey-the-progressive/

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >buy a glock
      >barrel is rifled
      >not a rifle

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Please write a 290 page essay about it

  2. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Does this motherfucker even know what a tank is?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      https://i.imgur.com/PULOUxJ.png

      Those of you who refuse to acknowledge that this is a tank ..... go to hell

      https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1615799112708026368

      wait until he learns what is and isnt a rifle

      Michael Tracey is a paid retard, he exists to purposely act retarded so people who are contrarians can jerk themselves off

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Who the fuck is this guy? I’ve never heard of him

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          He's an edgy twitter contrarian who gets paid to jerk off other edgy twitter contrarians. He genuinely tried to argue that the US having embassy guards in Ukraine meant we had troops on the ground in Ukraine, among other retarded hot takes.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >He genuinely tried to argue that the US having embassy guards in Ukraine meant we had troops on the ground in Ukraine
            Oh good lord

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >among other retarded hot takes
            It’s twitter what do you expect

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        He is just as knowledgeable, if not more, on military matters as Peter Zeihan, whom PrepHole worships

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          i've never seen any threads about zeihan other than ziggers seething about him. i didn't even know who the fucker was until you ziggers spammed him, same with that reddit group

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Who?
          I dont think I have ever seen any threads on him is he one of those semi automatic assult clip guys?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          who the actual fuck is peter zeihan
          actually don't answer that I don't really care

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Who?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Peter Zeihan, whom PrepHole worships
          unironically the only time I hear about this guy is when chinese people are angry online

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I wouldn't even know about the motherfucker if people didn't hate link his shit. Which is probably why he acts the way he does.

        He is just as knowledgeable, if not more, on military matters as Peter Zeihan, whom PrepHole worships

        Sure, but the key difference is that Zeihan references and attributes outside sources of info regarding military matters. Also, the DoD has actually paid him to speak to their people. By comparison, Tracey probably got tazed trying to break into a speaking event.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      He's a journalist, of course he doesn't.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        "journalist"

        He knows what he's doing.

        This. It's foolish to pretend he does anything in good faith when he constantly throws out brainlet take after brainlet take

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Some definitions say it’s a tank once it’s a tracked armored vehicle. By this definition it is a tank. But most military specialists use tank just for main battle tanks (meaning medium or heavy battle tanks) vehicles which are tracked and geared towards „open“ confrontation/dueling with other heavily armored vehicles. Otherwise it’s specified tracked artillery (indirect fire), IVF (Schützenpanzer meaning riffle troop tank in German), recovery tank or light tank etc. so he is correct on everything being rather murky.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        If you go back to the original design concept of the tank/panzer/char it was always to be a powered, armored, frontal assault vehicle used in ground attacks. Treads turned out to work the best but you can make a tank with wheels if you want, or a troop carrier on tracks like the BFV . And half-tracks exist, are they half-tanks? According to Creasey they must be. And what about bulldozers? Israelis use them to scrape the Palestinian anthills down, there for every D9 with armor on it is a tank, right?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          As I said at some point it’s always murky and even the „experts“ do have different categorization systems. To me the IDF Caterpillar D9 seems to be made for frontal assaults. Sure it’s mostly optimized for civilians and lightly armed hostile forces, but still according to this definition.
          >half tank
          Essentially the IVFs, light tanks/assault tanks/tank hunters are in such a category.
          The Sonderkraftfahrzeug 251 is more of an APC in most versions. But it is armored has tracks and some versions are even designed for frontal assaults on main battle tanks.
          Even the definitions based on cannon length or diameter or thickness of the amor would exclude old tanks, which clearly were designed and used as MBT.
          Look at this https://www.army-technology.com/projects/kodiak-vehicle/
          it’s a mine clearing tank, but just because it’s not a MBT like the Sherman M4 Mine Exploder T1E1 Roller and subsequent mine clearing variants many call it mine clearing vehicle.
          Some nerds get hung up on it, but to me it’s more about truly describing the vehicle. I personally also prefer references to specific versions and upgrades and don’t even like the term MBT for obvious reasons, but usually I know what people are talking about. Traceys point about there not being to much of any difference once you are supplying artillery to also supply battle tanks from an escalatory point of view is valid. All weapons/weapon systems do have offensive and defensive uses and often even components. Arguably artillery is more offensive.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Addendum
            I forgot to mention the word/category main battle tank itself implies the existence of other types of tanks.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            >not being to much of any difference once you are supplying artillery to also supply battle tanks from an escalatory point of view is valid.
            No its not. Artillery is fundamentally different from combat vehicles no matter how it gets around, and selling/donating crew weapons is a far cry from sending in armor or aircraft. Creasey is being a hack because he thought he coukd score cheap points
            If he wasnt just looking for dunks, he would have said the same thing about HIMARS or PATRIOT, or even Bayraktar, but he didn't because they aren't tanks and neither is the M109.
            The US is sending lethal aid. They are not sending war fleets of capital equipment. NATO will take direct action before that happens

  3. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      You really can't kill a 740, Anon. That 5% nickel aluminum block is pretty rock solid. Calling it a tank wouldn't be inaccurate.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I've got another candidate then.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >autobounce

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Bro they could have had this scene in a movie and everyone would have said it was fake af

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Reality is funny that way. Export the Battle of Samar Sea to your space opera or something, and watch critics complain about how laughable it is that some rinky-dink escort vessels commanded by guys with brass balls the size of Jupiter chased off the pride of the enemy's fleet, along with sinking or damaging a number of cruisers.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          WTF GAIJIN RUSSIAN BIAS MUCH?!?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Redblocks are iron. You're thinking about the heads, they're aluminium.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Not all of us are Russian, Anon.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        #
        >MTLB
        >Amphibious APC
        Nah, it's another artillery tractor just slightly armoured. It was never meant to be used as APC, though since it is cheap, has armour, and enough space to carry infantry squad this technically performs role of an APC.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        the BTR-T is more of an HAPC(H being heavy)

        https://i.imgur.com/syGvBRZ.png

        [...]
        [...]
        [...]
        [...]
        [...]

        >The term "battle tank" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
        >Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16,5 metric tons unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre. In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.
        t. NATO
        notice the direct fire and high levels of self protection

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Everything in the first two rows minus the BMP would be my definition. The PT-76 is universally referenced to as a tank. The Mark IV is universally referenced as a tank. Military definitions should serve a purpose rather than just be an attempt at anal classification. I can vaguely understand wanting to reduce infantry carrying capacity (aside of desants riding atop) from a tank, but the merkava is fine as a blurred lines situation. Honestly half the reason people'll hate trannies is the same reason people would hate someone trying to argue a BMP Is a tank - it's contrarianism that goes against consensus and disrupts shit like some BPD fuck for no reason other than it's fun for them to disrupt shit.

          A BMP-2 is an IFV, not a tank. Why? Because that's the consensus and that's all that needs to be said.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            IFVs are tanks
            Pretty sure that's the consensus and the definition.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >Pretty sure that's the consensus and the definition.
              no. they're ifvs

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              >The 1990 Treaty on Conventional Armed Forces in Europe defines an infantry fighting vehicle as "an armoured combat vehicle which is designed and equipped primarily to transport a combat infantry squad, and which is armed with an integral or organic cannon of at least 20 millimeters calibre and sometimes an antitank missile launcher".

              >The United Nations Register for Conventional Arms (UNROCA) simply defines an IFV as any armored vehicle "designed to fight with soldiers on board" and "to accompany tanks".

              I'm pretty sure you're wrong.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            the merkava doesn’t actually carry troops
            it’s reserved for special situations and evacuations

            if someone built the mark IV today it wouldn’t be considered a tank
            the only ones i would consider a tank in the chart is the first row and first column from the left

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          This meme is bad and you should feel bad for posting it. Nobody will ever genuinely believe a toyota is a tank,

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Volvo 740
        >Russian
        Choose one moron.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >REEEEE RUSSIANS
        God you glowchuds are insufferable.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          You fucking retard the abbreviations for those other vehicles in the original picture are literally Russian words that describe those vehicles' function. BMP for example is an acronym for "Boyevaya Mashina Pyekhoty." - lit. "Infantry Fighting Vehicle."
          This place has gone way downhill since the Ukraine war happened and all you dipshit redditors and TLA's flooded in.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Volvo = Tank
      No lie, from ages 4-10 every time I saw a Volvo I would point it out to my parents and call it a tank.

  4. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    it's not a direct fire gun, and it's not meant to withstand direct fire to perform it's mission, ergo it's not a tank. just because a liberal know-nothing is wrong, doesn't mean reality conforms to their will. XD fuckin' retards, sage for your stupidity, postan so others will mock you too.

  5. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Whole twitter thread is shit.

  6. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    As long as the US distinguishes something well enough so that it is in fact distinguished, then it's good enough. We do not want a repeat of the m1 senario.

    Also military is a technical profession, how does "outsider" comprehension assist?

  7. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    this is basedposting by proxy, op should have a forced colon cleansing

  8. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >has different gun
    >which fires different ammunition
    >for different purpose
    >has less armor
    >not even built on the same chassis
    Don't you just hate it when motherfuckers with no idea what they're talking about have to stick their two cents in?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      That's most of the internet and it's fucking annoying

  9. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Dammit OP you beat me to making this thread

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      kys redtop moron

  10. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    What a massive fucking gay. I don't come to his job and tell him that all his fucking tools are the same.

    t. Angry soldier

  11. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Oh wow, another twitter screencap thread.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      What's the purple supposed to be

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        peacock tail, like showgirls and the drag queens that emulate them wear.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Feather head dress or cape or something.

  12. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    if that boy has to use its only antipersonnel weapon sitting on top of the turret it's in trouble

  13. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    This isn't an aircraft carrier

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      SSEEXXXOOOO

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Damn right it's not. If the plebs find out the USN has twice as many carriers as claimed funding could be cut. In fact the Ford class should be redesignated as cruisers.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >48 years after the Russians asspull aircraft cruiser designation for the Kiev-class, the US does the same thing for different reasons

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Learn from your enemies methods, but never copy their usecase.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Correct. That's an LHD. And she's very sexy.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

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

      SSEEXXXOOOO

      I hate VTOL planes.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        That's okay, F-35chan still loves you.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It's also not the USS Wasp.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >So you're telling me this isn't an aircraft carrier, despite the fact it obviously carries aircraft.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Why don't they use a ramp?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        can't afford one

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        the garden gnomes told them to cut off the tip of their carriers because they believe it makes their ships look bigger

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The non-sarcastic answer is that a ramp would remove the first two helo spots, and 'phibs are helo carriers first, and jump jet carriers second. The primary mission set of a 'phib is to move troops around. CV duties are secondary, because the USN has supercarriers that are much, much better at CV missions. So, no ramp, at least for now.

        If you really want to get into a can of worms, start researching the history of the Sea Control Ship. The USN debate over supercarriers vs. light carriers has been going on for literally over half a century now, and so far, the supercarrier has won out every single time. Thanks to jump jets, the helo phibs get to pretend to be light carriers as needed, which is a somewhat-useful compromise at times.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          the trend seems to be that in a china war, the super carriers are just big first strike targets
          it looks like the world should be moving to more, less expensive targets, since defense capabilities aren't keeping up

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Why would they, when they carry VTOLs and helicopters?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Because VTOL works better as STOVL.

  14. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    This is a tank, and I don't want to hear no goddamn useless faux-jargon saying it isn't.

  15. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    This is a tank, and I don't want to hear no goddamn useless faux-insider jargon saying it isn't.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Anon, that’s a cat

  16. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Michael Tracey has gone full retard mode over the last year.

  17. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    He's a known retard that is infamous for being a lolcow. By that logic, every sword is a knife because its sharp.

  18. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    When my friend said he would bring his pickup truck to help me move I was a little pissed when he showed up in a go cart until he explained that it had four wheels and an engine.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      A better analogy would be to ask to being some wheels and didn't say what for.
      Don't strawmen it.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Nah the analogy is fine, tanks and SPGs both fit the same general definition (big gun, armour, tracks) but serve very different roles. If you wanted to move a couch you wouldn't take a sports car, if you wanted to take a family of six to the beach you wouldn't take a pickup truck, if you want to drive fast you wouldn't drive a pickup truck.

        Tanks are a specific weapon system just like a pickup truck is a specific type of car.

  19. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    If the AMX-10 is a tank, then so is the M109.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Disagree. The AMX-10RC is designed for direct line of sight fire. The M109 is specialized for indirect fire. That's what distinguishes a tank from a well armored SPG.

      Now, if you had a vehicle designed from the outset to serve both roles, I guess you'd call it a tank? But that's not the M109.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The 109 is perfectly capable of doing LOS attacks, just like all SPGs.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      The AMX-10RC isn't a tank. It's an armored car, designed for recon and screening work for the actual tanks like AMX-30s or Leclercs.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The French don't get to have a say in anything.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Good thing the AMX-10 isn't a tank then.

  20. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >be me
    >not be knowledgeable on tanks let alone military vehicles
    >look at pic
    >kinda looks like a tank?
    >that turret kinda big for its chassis though
    >also positioned a bit too far back, isn't it? One would want recoil to be centered around the center of gravity for the chassis, wouldn't it?
    >isn't this design something they would use for self-propelled artillery platforms?
    It's not a tank, is it?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It's an M109 anon. The armor is only meant to stop shell splinters from counterbattery fire, plus provide a bit of protection if infantry sneak up on the artillery piece. The morons in this thread don't understand that it has very little armor relative to a tank, probably because to the completely untrained eye it kinda looks like a tank, it has the same size and general shape as one.

      Literally any soldier in any army with the slightest amount of training is going to look at that and immediately identify it as, at the very least, not a tank. One with a bit of a clue is going to realize that it has a very high power gun and will fuck them up if it fires directly at them. One who knows what he's doing will cum in his pants immediately since that means he's just walked up to an enemy SPG battery with three infantry squads.

      All this cope because you can't seem to understand how working language and actual language works.

      Because you're a retard know it all (that doesn't know it all) that thinks calling a SU52 Felon means that's it's actual name.

      This is something I dislike about wannabe academics. If you want to sit here and argue about the exact definition of a tank, vs an AFV, vs an IFV, vs any other type of armored vehicle invented throughout history, then sure we can do that. But you're not doing that. You're putting your head in the sand and making worthless statements that any box with tracks and a gun is a tank, an absurdly stupid statement to make. In fact, one only possible to make by someone who despite their claims actually hasn't read about history, or language, or anything else.

      Nobody fucking cares that a complete layman, a random member of the public, describes anything boxy looking with a cylindrical protusion and a belt type thing on the sides as a tank. That has no meaning, the use of that term is so vague that you might as well describe an M113 as a big bangy thing.

      Please stop posting anon. Seriously.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        That's a man

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        When did they start cloning Belle Delphine? Also, why does 4chinz autofill "Delphine"?

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >Rip in glove
        Why

  21. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Its mobile artillery isn't it?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      See first response of

      https://i.imgur.com/jaDFxc2.jpg

      It's an M109 anon. The armor is only meant to stop shell splinters from counterbattery fire, plus provide a bit of protection if infantry sneak up on the artillery piece. The morons in this thread don't understand that it has very little armor relative to a tank, probably because to the completely untrained eye it kinda looks like a tank, it has the same size and general shape as one.

      Literally any soldier in any army with the slightest amount of training is going to look at that and immediately identify it as, at the very least, not a tank. One with a bit of a clue is going to realize that it has a very high power gun and will fuck them up if it fires directly at them. One who knows what he's doing will cum in his pants immediately since that means he's just walked up to an enemy SPG battery with three infantry squads.

      [...]
      This is something I dislike about wannabe academics. If you want to sit here and argue about the exact definition of a tank, vs an AFV, vs an IFV, vs any other type of armored vehicle invented throughout history, then sure we can do that. But you're not doing that. You're putting your head in the sand and making worthless statements that any box with tracks and a gun is a tank, an absurdly stupid statement to make. In fact, one only possible to make by someone who despite their claims actually hasn't read about history, or language, or anything else.

      Nobody fucking cares that a complete layman, a random member of the public, describes anything boxy looking with a cylindrical protusion and a belt type thing on the sides as a tank. That has no meaning, the use of that term is so vague that you might as well describe an M113 as a big bangy thing.

      Please stop posting anon. Seriously.

  22. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Size of the gun
    Is that some sort of SPG?

  23. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >motherfuckers be arguing about abstractions again
    It's not a tank because the people that use/build/maintain tanks don't call it a tank.
    >But most people-
    I don't give a fuck, most people don't drive/build/maintain tanks, and the people that do disagree, and they know more about tanks.
    >But why is it called a-
    Because it makes it easier to tell what the fuck it does.
    An SPG is a gun that can drive itself.
    An MBT is a big fuckoff tank that shoots big fuckoff bullets and is designed to fight other big fuckoff tanks.
    An IFV carries troops and fights with them.
    An APC carries troops and doesn't fight with them unless it has literally no other choice.
    >But muh minutia and technical details!
    I don't give a fuck, the MIC don't give a fuck, the US DOD don't give a fuck, nobody that matters gives a fuck.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      All those (besides APCs) are tanks though.
      It's ok that they have their own specialised designation used to specify what their role is, but they are still all tanks as long as they fit the definition.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Without googling, how much armor does a M109 have?

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Without googling
          moron I highly doubt you could do that fuck off can I either.
          You know full well "Heavily armoured" on the definition is variable, specifically when compared to others in its specified class.
          A light tank is still a tank with paper thin aluminium armour.
          You could penetrate the original tanks with small arms from the side.

          You do not compare it to the average tank, but the class that it is in and the things that it faces in battle.
          An SPG is considered heavily armoured if it can protect against some shrapnel from counter battery fire. Any SPG with little to no armour to protect from that would be considered an SPG but not a tank.

          Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >It's not a tank because the people that use/build/maintain tanks don't call it a tank.

      What those people call a tank or not, is irrelevant. I don't give a shit what the so-called experts on tanks at the DoD/STAVKA/OCSE definition of a tank is. Official military jargon isn't about describing things for maximum calrity, it's about obscuring things in a web of useless faux-insider lingo

      https://i.imgur.com/PULOUxJ.png

      Those of you who refuse to acknowledge that this is a tank ..... go to hell

      https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1615799112708026368

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >all language must be reduced to the lowest common denominator and anyone trying to define a concept or object with a more specific term is using "useless faux-insider lingo"
        No, you're just angry that you have trouble reading any of the open source documents about military hardware. I see a lot of you gays in milsim gaming communities too, you claim that things like squad tactics, proper radio procedure or fire discipline are "too complicated" and "gatekeeping". Just yesterday I saw a thread written about a hardcore military flight sim, Falcon BMS, claiming that the 7 separate 300+ page well written manuals about all aspects of the simulation are "too difficult" to read, and that someone should dumb it down to a 5 page document. When told that that's retarded he then began bitching about how the Falcon BMS community was gatekeeping him. Considering it was on reddit nobody told him to read a fucking book and piss off, but that's what he should have done.

        >Without googling
        moron I highly doubt you could do that fuck off can I either.
        You know full well "Heavily armoured" on the definition is variable, specifically when compared to others in its specified class.
        A light tank is still a tank with paper thin aluminium armour.
        You could penetrate the original tanks with small arms from the side.

        You do not compare it to the average tank, but the class that it is in and the things that it faces in battle.
        An SPG is considered heavily armoured if it can protect against some shrapnel from counter battery fire. Any SPG with little to no armour to protect from that would be considered an SPG but not a tank.

        Why is this so hard for you to grasp?

        >I highly doubt you could do that
        I've already done it, but believe me I double checked my numbers. My original estimate was up to 50mm of armor (an Abrams has in excess of 600mm), and it turned out to be 38mm according to a source I found. That's about right for a vehicle that has to withstand artillery and small arms fire.

        If you lack the knowledge to roughly estimate how much armor a vehicle has, that's your problem.

        >You know full well "Heavily armoured" on the definition is variable
        Nope. Not at all. You're trying to appear educated to people who don't know what they're talking about either.

        >An SPG is considered heavily armoured if it can protect against some shrapnel from counter battery fire.
        No, it's considered adequately armored if its intended use involves withstanding counterbattery fire for enough time to displace. Pic related isn't "under armored", it's just designed with different assumptions. Neither are tanks.

  24. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Tank

  25. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Those of you who refuse to acknowledge that this is a tank ..... go to hell
    Treads, barrel and a rotating turret.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Don't even need the turret honestly. Just a gun, tracks and armour.

  26. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    This is the kind of guy to tell a friend not to fuck up the steak next time if she doesn't want to get beat. These creeps assign Russia no agency whatsoever, as if Uncle Sam has any say in whether or not Russia decides to use their nuclear weapons.

  27. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    I'm almost convinced this guy is intentionally saying retarded shit so he can get attention.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Pay attention to who's in his comments. He's clearly taken a side and is concern trolling to run interference.

  28. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >trusting what some weird internet tank guys on PrepHole say instead of a journalist

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      He is clearly the most clueless asswitted motherfucker in a long ass time from the way he's insisting an SPG is a fucking tank, and doubling down in his retardation to avoid being wrong and losing face.
      Journalists in general are about as trustworthy as car salesmen, and that's before you take the possibility of outright concern trolling into equation, like

      Pay attention to who's in his comments. He's clearly taken a side and is concern trolling to run interference.

      said.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        The sad thing is something Elon brought up in a recent post. If some shit is dead wrong and stupid, and you want to put the truth out there, doing it by commenting on somebody's post pushes them up. Even if you're calling them a retard, as far as twitter's algorithms are concerned, you're saying "I like this content and more people should see it!" And because of the way twitter is designed to be used, it's likely that people only see the original, incorrect post. Lends itself really well to the modern, Russian brand of propaganda.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >coming from mr "crimea is russian" and "tanks aren't useful anymore" right before a tank donation to ukraine
          He's a gay.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          Elon is also a fucking retard who named his kid something incomprehensible and thinks that Ukraine should just give in and tried to charge USA and UK millions for Starlink by lying about what service he was providing for Ukraine and whenever somebody says 'Elon, you're a retard' he goes
          >WOW LOOK AT ALL THE UKRAINIAN BOTS!!!!

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            He's also the guy who had one of his adult children change their name and disown him, giving up any inheritance, because he was apparently a neglectful and abusive parent. When this was pointed out he then claimed that his kid was brainwashed into being LGBT (the kid was trans) and went on a 6 month shitposting spree about leftists and LGBT interests that ended up making him buy Twitter for 44 billion dollars.

            I don't think you should listen to anything the moron says.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              The stuff about trans and brainwashing is real though, have you not seen the studies on rapid onset gender dysphoria and discord (and other social media) trans predation tactics?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                Nothing that can't be solved by you slitting your wrists, you gullible subhuman inbred.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          >Tank
          "A heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track"
          >Main battle tank
          "1: The primary tank of a country or armed forces.
          2: A tank with a good balance of firepower, cross-country mobility, and armoured protection, and therefore capable of carrying out the roles of breakthrough, exploitation and infantry support"

          Can this thread shut the fuck up already.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Get a better definition of tank you fucking twat.

            >A tank is an armoured fighting vehicle intended as a primary offensive weapon in front-line ground combat. Tank designs are a balance of heavy firepower, strong armour, and good battlefield mobility provided by tracks and a powerful engine; usually their main armament is mounted in a turret.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            Nah, you've been proven wrong and are now trying to falsely claim consensus. Your "definition" of a "tank" is some bullshit you pulled off google.

            The real, practical definition of a tank is an armored fighting vehicle, on tracks, with armor capable of stopping high caliber armor penetrating guns, a gun capable of penetrating other vehicles of its type and all lesser armored vehicles when used in a direct fire capacity, a sensor suite dedicated to hunting and killing other vehicles (and infantry/emplacements/fortifications), used in a unit that's primary role is the penetration of enemy lines and subsequent breakout.

            This is the definition that literally every army on the planet uses for a tank.

            It allows you to specify the vehicle's role (to kill other vehicles and penetrate enemy lines, ie if you hear a "tank" is spotted near your front line you should be very concerned as this vehicle is purpose built to kill you and keep going), its sensor capabilities and crew training (killing other vehicles and infantry, ie it's going to blow your truck up then murder you with it's machine gun), it's armor (very heavy, unless you have an antitank gun of high caliber you are going to be physically unable to kill it), its gun (high caliber, generally using a high density armor penetrating round but not always, ie you should be prepared to be killed basically in line of sight), and it's form of propulsion (tracks, ie it's not going to get bogged down easily).

            You've been sitting here for over 150 posts trying to reduce the term "tank" to that of a metal box with tracks. You're retarded.

            The stuff about trans and brainwashing is real though, have you not seen the studies on rapid onset gender dysphoria and discord (and other social media) trans predation tactics?

            Nothing to do with my point, see? That's why he brought up the trans bit. It makes morons like you forget the part about him neglecting his kid to the point said kid abandoned a multi billion dollar inheritance just to change their name.

            • 1 week ago
              Anonymous

              Youve described a MBT retard.
              Is the Leopard 1 not a tank because of its light armor?

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Developed in an era when HEAT warheads were thought to make conventional heavy armour of limited value, the Leopard-design focused on effective firepower and mobility instead of heavy protection.
                >105mm tank gun
                >used as a tank
                >even wikipedia describes it as a MBT
                Yep, still a tank retard. I'm impressed one of you gays had the knowledge required to make that point, good job.

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                So you admit your definition on what a tank is fallible. Is the Centurion AVRE not a tank because its primary mission isnt the destruction of vehicles?
                Tank is a broader definition than MBT, moronman

              • 1 week ago
                Anonymous

                >Is the Centurion AVRE not a tank

                Correct, it's a combat engineering vehicle.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Too true... I have just read an article in my subscription online newspaper where th author claimed that Taiwan was so important for the West (and the world) because they produced "invisible nano chips".

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >doesn't understand the term 'light tanks' was a PR thing to try and force Scholz to send fucking Leopards because he keeps screeching and blocking people from sending Leopards by saying 'Nobody has sent tanks' and when you mention Poland et al he goes 'I mean nobody has sent Western tanks' and so you call it a 'light tank' so you can go 'Well there you go Scholz, sent' so he then changed to 'Well nobody has sent Western MBT's' so then the UK sent 14 Challenger 2's and Scholz went 'Well I don't care the USA has to send Abrams before we will'
      Scholz is just a prick. This guy doesn't understand shit.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Nonsense he simply won’t send any main battle tank until the US does.

  29. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    According to official jargon, this animal at the local zoo is also "Not A Dog," because something something something. Hence: official zoology jargon isn't about describing things for maximum clarity, it's about obscuring things in a web of useless faux-insider lingo.

  30. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Butter Goblin should just shoot himself in the fucking head already.

  31. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    THIS IS A MAN

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      This comment will go over way too many people’s heads. I literally laughed out loud and had to explain this whole thread and Diogenes to my Dad because he asked me what’s so funny. I’m gonna screenshot this.

  32. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Has anybody asked him what a SPG is then in his mind? As in, why does the SPG definition exist?

  33. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Michael Tracey's the perfect example of a retard peddling Russian propaganda, be it willingly or without him even knowing it.
    This dumbass has kept himself and others talking about 'what makes a tank?' for 24 hours now with a passion and hostility that makes it look like their life is on the line. Even though the whole debate's fucking meaningless.

  34. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    looks like a self propelled gun to me

  35. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    These are tanks too

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      all tanks

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        all tonks

  36. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    what's the matter? they're all water tanks.

  37. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Craft that flies in the air
    >Throws bombs on strategic targets
    And idiots will say this isn't a strategic bomber aircraft

  38. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Holy Jesus Christ you all are retarded
    Pic related, a tank

  39. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    No idea what vehicle this is but it look like SPG not a tank.

  40. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    German here. Are you guys retarded? Serious question. In german a tank is called panzer.

    KampfPANZER (Leo, Tiger, etc.) = Tank
    SchützenPANZER (Marder, Puma, etc.)
    FlugabwehrPANZER (Gepard, Roland, etc.)
    PANZERhaubitze (PzH2000, M109, etc.)
    BergePANZER (Büffel, M74, M578, etc)
    List goes on.

    Literally all of them are tanks, you have to be a massive retard to claim otherwise. What kind of retard definition of a tank do you have in muttland?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >In german
      No one cares about your autistic dog latin.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        If the Roman Empire was a viable social system it wouldn't have collapsed under slight outside pressure.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        If the Roman Empire was a viable social system it wouldn't have collapsed under slight outside pressure.

        The Roman Empire collapsed from *internal* pressure. In short, power centralized to such a degree that everyone figured out that the best way to get rich and powerful was to knock over the current Emperor, rather than accomplish actual achievements like conquering distant lands. Good thing that would never happen to us tod...

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Panzer just means armoured doesn't it? The KampfPanzer is the one that fits the actual definition of a tank

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        >armored fighting vehicle, usually equipped with a gun and machine guns, rolling on tracks [with a rotating gun turret].
        That's the translated definition of a tank in the German dictionary. But I guess it's used more loosely when it comes to stuff like bridge laying tanks

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >What kind of retard definition of a tank do you have in muttland
      Big armor, big gun for ground targets, no passengers. But it's less about the specific properties of the vehicle and more about what role it plays on the battlefield.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >tank is when panzer
      Behold! A tank!

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Every tank to his time.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        I think it's more commonly called a Rüstung.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          If you don't clean it regularly you'll certainly have to deal with a lot of rusting

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Ok, fine... "With broad, flat, tracks"

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          If I drive picrel while wearing a suit of armor, does it constitute a tank?
          Besides, how wide? How flat? Does the outer surface of a tyre qualify as a "track"? It's somewhat articulated and it's continuous, is it not a type of track?

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            There have been diggers used as tanks and you know its true.
            It has no gun though. Mount a gun and make the armour attached to the digger and it would be a tank.

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I got that reference.

          According to Diogenes Laërtius, when Plato gave the tongue-in-cheek definition of man as "featherless bipeds", Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man", and so the academy added "with broad flat nails" to the definition.

          • 1 week ago
            Anonymous

            thanks bernd

        • 1 week ago
          Anonymous

          I got that reference.

          According to Diogenes Laërtius, when Plato gave the tongue-in-cheek definition of man as "featherless bipeds", Diogenes plucked a chicken and brought it into Plato's Academy, saying, "Behold! I've brought you a man", and so the academy added "with broad flat nails" to the definition.

          Ah shit. I should've gotten this reference but my autism got the better of me. My apologies.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Germans are insufferable when acting superior over how autistic they are.
      Anglosphere does not use the work tank the way germans use the word panzer.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        Would not stop anybody from learning about the nuances.

  41. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Every armored tracked vehicle is a tank. Simple as.

  42. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Uhhh, dummy. It' "World of TANKS", not "World of Tanks, TDs, SPGs and Armoured Cars".
    FACT
    Case closed.
    Bitch.

  43. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    never argue with smooth brains any argument just slides off

  44. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    According to official jargon, this object in normal US households is also "not a glass of water", because something something something. Hence: official product labelling isn't about describing things for maximum clarity. It's about obscuring things in a web of useless faux-scientific lingo.

  45. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >Over the years I have contributed to a wide range of publications across the political spectrum, from The Nation to The American Conservative, the New York Daily News to the New York Post, and many more. A substantial portion of recent columns can be found at the website Unherd. From 2017 to 2018, I was a correspondent for The Young Turks, which was a peculiar adventure; prior to that I was a columnist for VICE.
    I was a journalist
    >Since 2019, I have been largely funded by online supporters to engage in independent journalism and analysis.
    I'm now a social media influencer
    >This Substack will be a fusion of journalism and commentary of a heterodox bent that my loyal readers/viewers/followers have come to expect and demand. Audio/video offerings will also follow. Some may call the political orientation “contrarian,” but if you don’t find yourself feeling “contrary” to the force-fed impositions of the new hegemonic media culture, maybe you’re the one who should re-evaluate. You dope.
    I'm contrarian for the sake of it, and proud of it

    why is this guy given the time of day again?

  46. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    On all levels but physical, I am a tank.
    *screams*

  47. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  48. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    MBT = Milk Battle Tank

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >corrupted agriworld

  49. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Problem here is he thinks his opinion matters or is relevant
    >I have a problem with the definition of a tank
    >Here is my argument
    Didnt ask. Don't care. Not a tank.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >Not a tank.
      Has gun. Has tread. If you pop it open, there will be fat people inside. Ergo, it's a tank.

  50. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  51. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    > Please clap.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      >vice
      >tyt
      it all makes sense now. why do people give this grifter the time of day?

  52. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Self Propelled Artillery SPArty

  53. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    In german everything is a tank. Official translation of tank = Panzer.

    MBT = Kampfpanzer
    IFV = Schützenpanzer
    APC = Transportpanzer
    SPAAG = Flakpanzer
    SPG = Panzerhaubitze
    Armoured recon = Spähpanzer

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Well play the pedant MBT=Hauptkampfpanzer
      Otherwise yes. The German language is very precise. Once there are is a reasonable amount of armor (Panzerung) it’s a tank (Panzer). If it’s mobile and focus is laid on being quick it’s wagen (vehicular). Fast mobile, but also well armored vehicles are a mix Panzerspähwagen (Armored scout vehicular).
      If it’s special it’s called Spezial.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Also tracked artillery (with armor)= Panzerhaubitze

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      I am a firm supporter of languages that do it like that, even if it means the literal swedish translaton of "Pansarvagn" is the woefully un-intimidating phrase "Armored Carriage/Wagon".

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        It’s the same in German Panzerwagen.

      • 1 week ago
        Anonymous

        While panzer means tank its actual usage is much closer to armored fighting vehicle.

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      It's such an efficient language
      >Schwimmwagen
      >a wagen that schwimms
      >Flammenwerfer
      >it werfs the flammen
      >Panzerfaust
      >it fausts the panzer
      Anyone that says German is scary is retarded, I daresay its the cutest language currently spoken

  54. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    >profile picture

  55. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Will light tanks ever make a resurgence?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      Griffin II currently in production for US Army. Looks promising, and also exactly what a tinpot dictator would want to suppress urban unrest, so we'll sell a shitload of them overseas

  56. 1 week ago
    Anonymous
  57. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    Can anyone help me figure out the point of this guys day long attempt at redefining every armored vehicle sent to Ukraine as "tank" ?
    >m-muh provocation
    ?

    • 1 week ago
      Anonymous

      He's a retarded wannabe journalist who made a statement on a topic that a lot of educated people feel very strongly about, was immediately called out, then showed off his personality disorders (or revealed his power level if you like that term more) by doubling down. At this point the original topic of the argument doesn't matter, what matters is that he can continually worm his way out of admitting he was wrong in the first place.

      Also there's probably some "Americans are controlling the entire world/have caused the invasion of Ukraine" in there. He tweeted something a few hours ago about how all sorts of western politicians are "using the same phrasing" and literally said that they acted like they had brain chips connected back to DC. He's fucking crazy. In this case he probably said this to begin with to make laymen think that America sending M109s or Bradleys to Ukraine (artillery pieces and IFVs respectively) is equivalent to sending M1A2SEPV3s.

      It's kinda like an antigunner saying that any AR pattern rifle is the same thing as an M27 or M249. It's not, but it's easier to pass gun control laws if everyone thinks you can just buy an LMG at a sports store.

  58. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    This is a tank.
    All you losers are just making up reasons as to why this isn't a tank.

  59. 1 week ago
    Anonymous

    OH LAWD HAVE MERCY THE SECRET SERVICE AINT GONNA SHOW UP AGAIN AT OUR DOOR ARE THEY?

    OH LAWDY!

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