Those of you who refuse to acknowledge that this is a tank ..... go to hell
https://twitter.com/mtracey/status/1615799112708026368
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
TEXTOOOO
>doubling down or the moronation
what did he mean by this?
>Pick the one source that agrees with you instead of the millions that don't
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 moronic.
He knows what he's doing.
This is superb bait because I am fricking 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 fricking tank. Fricking shit, it's been a while since I've wanted to reach through the monitor and throttle somebody.
Moron, if you had this thing in ww2, a single one would massacre a whole tank platoon of any force.
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?
>you do not have this thing in ww2 though
But if I make up this imaginary scenario where my homosexualry makes sense, I win the aegument!
So would an F16 and that's not a tank either
So would an a10, which actually IS a (flying) tank
Actual fricking 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 fricking slaughtered. If you had it fight said tank unit by using indirect fire, that's fricking pointless because that's what artillery has always been used for.
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.
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.
Actually it was a thing by the 50s. The M48 Patton is generally agreed upon as one of the first proper MBTs.
It gets worse holy frick.
You heard it here first homosexuals, 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 homosexual in OP is wrong, we just disagree about exactly how severely wrong he is.
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.
IFVs are light tanks with dismounts
No you're moronic and know no history of the word you only know common usage because you're a troglodite.
>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.
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.
MBT means "Main Battle Tank" you fricking moron. 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.
>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.
>he keeps using the term MBT and tank separately
I was already aware you are a moron 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.
MBTs are tanks, not all tanks are MBTs. Please kindly leave the door open when you decide to off yourself for stupidity.
You are literally moronic. I assume you are the same homosexual as
, 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 moron 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.
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.
Sorry not APC, brainfart, I meant AFV.
APCs are specific to personel.
The definitions of MBT are absolutely blurry.
What kind of moronation are you on have you even read it.
Blurry enough to confuse with an IFV!?!? A fricking vehicle that carries infantry for fricks 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 fricking idiot.
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?
> is merkava an IFV cause it can carry infantry in the back and on top to disembark
Yes. It is an infantry tank
Thanks for confirming that you're delusional.
Literally the scene from Pentagon Wars. I was right. This sonofab***h is a Spreygay. Here's to the F-35's exhaust killing every flower they try to plant on his grave.
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.
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.
>Muh one journalist is infallible
Lmao
You're not him are you Mike?
>is more qualified to comment on such matters
Lmao stop posting Mike. Fellating yourself doesn't make your points any more coherent.
>journalist
>being anymore qualified to speak about any topic
I'd trust a fricking crackhead to make more valid points about any topic than a modern """journalist""". Holy frick twitter is such a stain on western civilization.
>"I'm moronic"
>"but it's OK because 95 out of 100 morons would agree me"
It's spelled "troglodyte"
This is no bullshit, actual, real, post-modernism summed up. As in, the actual historical meaning of the word.
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.
>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.
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?
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.
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
Yes
British Centurions achieved 3:1 kill ratio against brand new M48 Pattons in the Indian-Pakistan War.
Yes, and M50 and M51 Shermans acquitted themselves against everything from T34-85s to T-62s. What is your point?
You are a simpleton.
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.
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
>but that doesnt make it an anti-materiel rifle on wheels
what if you fired 155mm fin stabilized discarding sabot rounds out of it?
I'm not sure you could; don't muzzle breaks have issues with sabot rounds?
conventional ones yes but you can use sabot rouds with pepperbox style breaks fine.
Sigh. Brakes. I need a nap.
so would a humvee with a TOW launcher, what's your point?
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.
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.
Yeah no. Even a moronic 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.
I don't care what morons 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.
You're moronic. 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 homosexual, 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 homosexual. Nobody cares about your opinion.
>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.
>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 fricking moronic, buddy. Nobody who has to actually fight in or against these vehicles uses this moronic term.
>language
Nobody cares about your inexperienced ass deciding a few acronyms are too difficult.
Wow, the moron 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?
The definition of a tank REQUIRING tracks is basically the one part of the entire thing that can be argued.
Guess what, tankers use the same definition too. So do A-10 pilots, and helicopter pilots. And intelligence staff.
You morons are honestly trying to argue that a BMP is a tank. You're so fricking stupid it's not funny.
All this cope because you can't seem to understand how working language and actual language works.
Because you're a moron know it all (that doesn't know it all) that thinks calling a SU52 Felon means that's it's actual name.
>cruiser tank, infantry tank
Deprecated terms for obsolete roles. Keep up gaylord, you're making a fool of yourself.
>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.
>Are MBTs with missiles or top mounted MLRS like shermans not tanks?
>Are MBTs... like shermans
You are unironically moronic.
>MBTs vary widely
Wrong. Incorrect. Not even fricking 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 homosexual as Pierre Sprey and his ilk.
I hope you get fricking 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 moronic as you were in life.
>I hope your last words are "I can't believe they're running me over with a tank."
topkek. that was pretty good anon.
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.
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 moronic, but you aren't doing that, because you're moronic.
You are basically pic related.
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.
What is a subset?
Yeah exactly. That was kind of my point 53 posts ago.
This is objectively incorrect, tanks fill a specific battlefield role that none of these other systems can
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).
>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.
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.
>Pretty sure I've heard volunteers call BMPs tanks before in Ukraine.
They're fricking moronic 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 moronic, 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 moronic 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 moronation 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 frick about some random "historian" on the internet.
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.
I don't care what you think, actually look up the history of the word and shut the frick up already.
This.
>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
>"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."
>Laymen infantry designation means the definition is wrong
Kek
Do you get mad when people call pickup trucks cars.
Because it is. Nobody, except for morons 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.
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.
>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.
This entire post is nihilist bullshit.
Now on this I'm going to turn into that other moron. 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 moronic 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).
>Muh nihilism
Black person 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 morons 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.
>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 frick 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 frick 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 frick 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 morons.
You are the actual personification of this meme.
So we can agree it's a tank.
We can agree that you need to go frick yourself, although I'm unsure if you're quite ready for that yet.
>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.
Agreed, kek.
>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.
>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 homosexual, it's time.
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.
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.
>... infront of the barrel of an artillery tank
Fixed that for you anon :^)
Nah, as Tracey has already said using tanks for such moronic goals is a bad idea. We're going to strap you to a SPG, which isn't a tank. :^)
>SPG
You know what. You've won me over with your brilliantly derived terms and naming conventions. Surely they would be better applied universally.
lmfao
>Barracks
Wouldn't bunker be more accurate
That's what we have in German.
Kampfpanzer
Schützenpanzer
Schwimmpanzer
Panzerhaubitze
Transportpanzer
Flakpanzer
Artillerieschlepper
Bergepanzer/Pionierpanzer
Vorstadtpanzer
That's because "panzer" literally means 'armor'. They're armored fighting vehicles.
Technically it's short for Panzerkampfwagen which more or less means Armored Fighting Vehicle.
jimmies rustled
hoes mad
You gay, homie.
>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).
>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
>I've been arguing that (moronation)
Nobody asked you, c**t.
It's an anonymous image board, I know you're new but you'll get used to unsolicited opinions one day.
Acthually the T-44 did it first
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
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.
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.
> 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
>still believes in the Hall of Cost
KEK!!!
many such cases!
The source makes arguable points, except that a fricking 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.
This is why I don't see anything wrong with government censorship like China. You're really gonna let morons 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.
>no 1 Amendment
Thank you CCP consider our record corrected
If we had censorship like China people like this guy could spout nonsense and censor anyone that tries to correct him.
Some article about him from 2019
His whole message is "Russia is always right"
https://dragnetnews.com/2019/10/06/michael-tracey-the-progressive/
>buy a glock
>barrel is rifled
>not a rifle
Please write a 290 page essay about it
Does this motherfricker even know what a tank is?
Michael Tracey is a paid moron, he exists to purposely act moronic so people who are contrarians can jerk themselves off
Who the frick is this guy? I’ve never heard of him
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 moronic hot takes.
>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
>among other moronic hot takes
It’s twitter what do you expect
He is just as knowledgeable, if not more, on military matters as Peter Zeihan, whom /k/ worships
i've never seen any threads about zeihan other than ziggers seething about him. i didn't even know who the fricker was until you ziggers spammed him, same with that reddit group
Who?
I dont think I have ever seen any threads on him is he one of those semi automatic assult clip guys?
who the actual frick is peter zeihan
actually don't answer that I don't really care
Who?
>Peter Zeihan, whom /k/ worships
unironically the only time I hear about this guy is when chinese people are angry online
I wouldn't even know about the motherfricker if people didn't hate link his shit. Which is probably why he acts the way he does.
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.
He's a journalist, of course he doesn't.
"journalist"
This. It's foolish to pretend he does anything in good faith when he constantly throws out brainlet take after brainlet take
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.
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?
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.
Addendum
I forgot to mention the word/category main battle tank itself implies the existence of other types of tanks.
>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
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.
I've got another candidate then.
>autobounce
Bro they could have had this scene in a movie and everyone would have said it was fake af
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.
WTF GAIJIN RUSSIAN BIAS MUCH?!?
Redblocks are iron. You're thinking about the heads, they're aluminium.
Not all of us are Russian, Anon.
#
>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.
the BTR-T is more of an HAPC(H being heavy)
>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
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 frick 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.
IFVs are tanks
Pretty sure that's the consensus and the definition.
>Pretty sure that's the consensus and the definition.
no. they're ifvs
>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.
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
This meme is bad and you should feel bad for posting it. Nobody will ever genuinely believe a toyota is a tank,
>Volvo 740
>Russian
Choose one Black person.
>REEEEE RUSSIANS
God you glowtroons are insufferable.
You fricking moron 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.
>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.
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 frickin' morons, sage for your stupidity, postan so others will mock you too.
Whole twitter thread is shit.
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?
this is basedposting by proxy, op should have a forced colon cleansing
>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 motherfrickers with no idea what they're talking about have to stick their two cents in?
That's most of the internet and it's fricking annoying
Dammit OP you beat me to making this thread
kys redtop Black person
What a massive fricking homosexual. I don't come to his job and tell him that all his fricking tools are the same.
t. Angry soldier
Oh wow, another twitter screencap thread.
What's the purple supposed to be
peawiener tail, like showgirls and the drag queens that emulate them wear.
Feather head dress or cape or something.
if that boy has to use its only antipersonnel weapon sitting on top of the turret it's in trouble
This isn't an aircraft carrier
SSEEXXXOOOO
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.
>48 years after the Russians asspull aircraft cruiser designation for the Kiev-class, the US does the same thing for different reasons
Learn from your enemies methods, but never copy their usecase.
Correct. That's an LHD. And she's very sexy.
I hate VTOL planes.
That's okay, F-35chan still loves you.
It's also not the USS Wasp.
>So you're telling me this isn't an aircraft carrier, despite the fact it obviously carries aircraft.
Why don't they use a ramp?
can't afford one
the israelites told them to cut off the tip of their carriers because they believe it makes their ships look bigger
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.
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
Why would they, when they carry VTOLs and helicopters?
Because VTOL works better as STOVL.
This is a tank, and I don't want to hear no goddamn useless faux-jargon saying it isn't.
This is a tank, and I don't want to hear no goddamn useless faux-insider jargon saying it isn't.
Anon, that’s a cat
Michael Tracey has gone full moron mode over the last year.
He's a known moron that is infamous for being a lolcow. By that logic, every sword is a knife because its sharp.
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.
A better analogy would be to ask to being some wheels and didn't say what for.
Don't strawmen it.
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.
If the AMX-10 is a tank, then so is the M109.
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 109 is perfectly capable of doing LOS attacks, just like all SPGs.
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.
The French don't get to have a say in anything.
Good thing the AMX-10 isn't a tank then.
>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?
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 frick 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 fricking 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.
That's a man
When did they start cloning Belle Delphine? Also, why does 4chinz autofill "Delphine"?
>Rip in glove
Why
Its mobile artillery isn't it?
See first response of
>Size of the gun
Is that some sort of SPG?
>motherfrickers 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 frick, 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 frick it does.
An SPG is a gun that can drive itself.
An MBT is a big frickoff tank that shoots big frickoff bullets and is designed to fight other big frickoff 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 frick, the MIC don't give a frick, the US DOD don't give a frick, nobody that matters gives a frick.
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.
Without googling, how much armor does a M109 have?
>Without googling
Black person I highly doubt you could do that frick 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?
>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
>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 homosexuals 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 moronic he then began b***hing about how the Falcon BMS community was gatekeeping him. Considering it was on reddit nobody told him to read a fricking book and piss off, but that's what he should have done.
>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.
Tank
>Those of you who refuse to acknowledge that this is a tank ..... go to hell
Treads, barrel and a rotating turret.
Don't even need the turret honestly. Just a gun, tracks and armour.
This is the kind of guy to tell a friend not to frick 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.
I'm almost convinced this guy is intentionally saying moronic shit so he can get attention.
Pay attention to who's in his comments. He's clearly taken a side and is concern trolling to run interference.
>trusting what some weird internet tank guys on /k/ say instead of a journalist
He is clearly the most clueless asswitted motherfricker in a long ass time from the way he's insisting an SPG is a fricking tank, and doubling down in his moronation 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
said.
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 moron, 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.
>coming from mr "crimea is russian" and "tanks aren't useful anymore" right before a tank donation to ukraine
He's a homosexual.
Elon is also a fricking moron 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 moron' he goes
>WOW LOOK AT ALL THE UKRAINIAN BOTS!!!!
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.
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 that can't be solved by you slitting your wrists, you gullible subhuman inbred.
>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 frick up already.
Get a better definition of tank you fricking 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.
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 moronic.
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.
Youve described a MBT moron.
Is the Leopard 1 not a tank because of its light armor?
>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 moron. I'm impressed one of you homosexuals had the knowledge required to make that point, good job.
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, Black personman
>Is the Centurion AVRE not a tank
Correct, it's a combat engineering vehicle.
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".
>doesn't understand the term 'light tanks' was a PR thing to try and force Scholz to send fricking 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.
Nonsense he simply won’t send any main battle tank until the US does.
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.
Butter Goblin should just shoot himself in the fricking head already.
THIS IS A MAN
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.
Has anybody asked him what a SPG is then in his mind? As in, why does the SPG definition exist?
Michael Tracey's the perfect example of a moron 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 fricking meaningless.
looks like a self propelled gun to me
These are tanks too
all tanks
all tonks
what's the matter? they're all water tanks.
>Craft that flies in the air
>Throws bombs on strategic targets
And idiots will say this isn't a strategic bomber aircraft
Holy Jesus Christ you all are moronic
Pic related, a tank
No idea what vehicle this is but it look like SPG not a tank.
German here. Are you guys moronic? 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 moron to claim otherwise. What kind of moron definition of a tank do you have in muttland?
>In german
No one cares about your autistic dog latin.
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...
Panzer just means armoured doesn't it? The KampfPanzer is the one that fits the actual definition of a tank
>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
>What kind of moron 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.
>tank is when panzer
Behold! A tank!
Every tank to his time.
I think it's more commonly called a Rüstung.
If you don't clean it regularly you'll certainly have to deal with a lot of rusting
Ok, fine... "With broad, flat, tracks"
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?
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.
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.
thanks bernd
Ah shit. I should've gotten this reference but my autism got the better of me. My apologies.
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.
Would not stop anybody from learning about the nuances.
Every armored tracked vehicle is a tank. Simple as.
Uhhh, dummy. It' "World of TANKS", not "World of Tanks, TDs, SPGs and Armoured Cars".
FACT
Case closed.
Bitch.
never argue with smooth brains any argument just slides off
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.
>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?
On all levels but physical, I am a tank.
*screams*
MBT = Milk Battle Tank
>corrupted agriworld
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.
>Not a tank.
Has gun. Has tread. If you pop it open, there will be fat people inside. Ergo, it's a tank.
> Please clap.
>vice
>tyt
it all makes sense now. why do people give this grifter the time of day?
Self Propelled Artillery SPArty
In german everything is a tank. Official translation of tank = Panzer.
MBT = Kampfpanzer
IFV = Schützenpanzer
APC = Transportpanzer
SPAAG = Flakpanzer
SPG = Panzerhaubitze
Armoured recon = Spähpanzer
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.
Also tracked artillery (with armor)= Panzerhaubitze
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".
It’s the same in German Panzerwagen.
While panzer means tank its actual usage is much closer to armored fighting vehicle.
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 moronic, I daresay its the cutest language currently spoken
>profile picture
Will light tanks ever make a resurgence?
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
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
?
He's a moronic 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 fricking 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.
This is a tank.
All you losers are just making up reasons as to why this isn't a tank.
OH LAWD HAVE MERCY THE SECRET SERVICE AINT GONNA SHOW UP AGAIN AT OUR DOOR ARE THEY?
OH LAWDY!