Talk:Tank/Archive 8

This edit request to Tank has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In terms of firepower, the focus of 2010s-era R&D is on increased detection capability such as thermal imagers

The 2010s are done. Please change "is" to "was". Thank you. 2601:5C6:8081:35C0:C505:548F:CCD:B5F9 (talk) 22:52, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

 Done - thanks for spotting this. Jr8825 • Talk 02:04, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• 122-я танковая бригада.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

how to edit help — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamesgisby (talk • contribs) 10:11, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

Please can one be chosen? Red Jay (talk) 05:56, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems to be already in British English with 'armour'. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:13, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I changed the page to British/Commonwealth English, but was reverted and told to raise it here. Further down there are non-British/Commonwealth spellings. Red Jay (talk) 06:49, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

I went back three years and it was consistently 'armour' and 'calibre' then. Suspect occasional US spelling may have slipped in along the way. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:33, 29 March 2021 (UTC)

Per MOS:ENGVAR, we should keep whatever version was first used consistently through the article, but when I was spot-checking versions going back 10 years, I didn't find any full consistency. (I could have missed one, since I'm certainly not going to review all the thousands of versions individually.) However, I agree "armour" definitely dominates, which given the subject seems significant. Therefor I've reinstated the version that officially switched to British English, and support maintaining that for this article. Thanks all above for input. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:18, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Also, note that we should remove all the rest of the non-British spellings as soon as possible, to make this fully consistent and official to fulfill ENGVAR. I must leave this to others, since I'm American and unlikely to catch them all. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:26, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

after a quick find-on-page, I don't see any -ize/ise, -or/our, -nse/nce or other usual differences. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:01, 30 March 2021 (UTC)

Issue closed, then. Thanks all again. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:04, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

This important article remains very poorly cited, with some sections and many whole paragraphs not sourced at all. The encyclopedia has moved in the past fifteen years from being edited more or less without attention to sourcing, to a more thorough and careful approach which demands reliable and accurate sources for every subject. Most MilHist articles are indeed extremely attentive to their use of citations. It is time that this article caught up. Chiswick Chap (talk) 19:34, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

https://edition.cnn.com/2022/04/27/europe/russia-tanks-blown-turrets-intl-hnk-ml/index.html Xx236 (talk) 10:39, 29 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to remove an item from the foreign language selection, but it is needlessly confusing that the German article for "Panzer" is listed. This is a false translation. "Panzer" is the German word for "armour" and so refers to armoured fighting vehicles more generally. The German word for tank is "Kampfpanzer".

A recent example of this confusion has been a number of news sites referring to the Gepard as a tank, likely because it has the word "Panzer" in its designation. It's important that we clarify this confusion. Dantai Amakiir (talk) 08:32, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Different language versions are connected through Wikdata. I agree that de:Panzer is about armoured vehicles in general, and the German article that should be linked here is de:Kampfpanzer. I'll see what I can do about it. Sjö (talk) 10:17, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

Fixed it. Sjö (talk) 10:27, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• HIT Al-Zarrar MBT.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2023 (UTC)

Some light tanks today have wheels. See the AMX-10 RC 86.245.28.154 (talk) 13:41, 6 January 2023 (UTC)

A defining feature of tanks is their mobility. Tracked vehicles have notably better mobility over wheeled ones. A paper from the Federation of American Scientists, The Wheel Versus Track Dilemma, highlights the differences between tracked and wheeled vehicles. https://man.fas.org/dod-101/sys/land/docs/2wheels98.pdf

The AMX-10RC is called a light tank by many news articles and even its own Wikipedia page. However the AMX-10RC may be more appropriately designated as an armored car rather than a light tank. An article from popular mechanics discusses the terminology over the AMX-10RC in some detail and arrives at the conclusion that it should be called an armored reconnaissance vehicle.

My view is that this Wikipedia article on tanks does not need to be edited in regard to whether tanks are tracked or not.

Let me know what you you think. Primprazed (talk) 08:52, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

First section states, regarding tanks: "due to the near invulnerability to common infantry small arms and good resistance against most heavier weapons", citing a 1960 publication.

Since that book was written, highly effective man-portable anti-tank weapons such as NLAW have been developed, along with any number of heavier and also highly effective anti-tank weapons such that this claim no longer appears to be true.

A reliable source needs to be found to deal with this, and I'm not at all sure I know how to approach the job of re-writing this bit.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2022 (UTC)

@Michael F 1967 What about citing the proven effectiveness of javelin missiles against Russian tanks in Ukraine? 85.155.77.88 (talk) 21:45, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Excellent idea! Now, where is the WP:RS?—it's been more than 60 years since the 1960 publication I remarked on.

Michael F 1967 (talk) 04:41, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Added reference to Macmillans work and his comment suggesting NBL in Glasgow had a role in the construction and development of tanks Sulzer55 (talk) 06:12, 21 May 2023 (UTC)

• There's no question that NBL had a hand in the production, but I think we can dismiss the Macmillan reference to the adoption of the name. Certainly, NBLC received orders for the Mark VIII, and they doubtless used the term "tank" when discussing them, but they were bound to, since the word had been in common use in this context for over two years by the time the order was placed. Everybody knew about tanks, so there was no need for code words. In fact, development of the Mark VIII began on December 4th, 1917, while the battle of Cambrai was under way and the whole world knew what tanks were. The evidence overwhelmingly supports Swinton's version.