"A Tank by Any Other Name" Topic

I get irritated when people claim that anything with tracks is a tank. After I got annoyed at her for claiming that an ASU-57 was a tank, my wife challenged me to write a simple guide to let people like her identify whether or not a given vehicle is a tank. The result is a blog post and short quiz.

So next time someone claims that an M113 is a tank, point them at that blog post

The definitions you give in your article don't match your quiz. You say the turret should be in the center, but most of the vehicles you call tanks in the quiz have turrets toward the front. your other definitions of a vehicle being too light to be a tank or having too big or too small of a gun are too arbitrary to be helpful.

S-Tank?

Not always cut and dry – S-tank isn't a tank in my book, but if you stick a PT-76 and a BMD-1 side by side, confusion is likely….

(Oh and the big and heavy with a big gun doesn't wash IMO – a Scorpion is definitely a tank, and arguably a Scimitar too, but they're outweighed and often outgunned by many IFVs.)

Is this a tank?

Weight 6.5 tons, armament either a single MG or 37mm gun, 30mm of armour, barely room for the two crew members. Fails on almost every count!

There is no tank.

Or spoon.

I'd say really it boils down to; tracked, armoured, turreted *direct fire* main armament, purpose is fighting itself, not infantry transport. The last one is really all that separates most modern IFVs from "tankness" and also the one that isn't always obvious to the casual observer.

You have answered 10 of 10 (100%) correctly.
Very well done!

:-)

Tempting to answer them as a press officer, in which case they are all tanks.

"Results
You have answered 0 of 0 correctly."
unyet each one was correct and stated as such. :-(

Well this isn't a tank then as she only has machine guns and no turret.

Strange really as this absolutely IS a tank so it must be the AFVs that have come since that need to be called something different.

So those WWI monsters with the machineguns on the sides, from which we get the name "tank," were not, in fact, tanks?

There is a definition of a tank that was agreed in the arms limitation treaty. Scorpion/Scimitar are CVR(T)

And 10/10 in the quiz, but recognition has always been my thing!!

Tally Ho!

Lol, Genorm and I thought alike!

Is this a tank ?

The WWI ones are awkward; do sponsons count as turrets? Or would they be some kind of SPAT monstrosity in modern parlance? Because I think the turret *is* essential to the modern tank….

St Thomas Aquinas would be proud of you lot.
Once you get that settled, let's go after the "angels dancing on the head of a pin" issue.

I was holidaying with friends down at Eastbourne and I got wound up by them referring to the self-propelled gun by the redoubt as a tank. No amount of me lecturing them would get them to change their terminology. There are some people in this world who refer to anything military as "army type things".

It's easy.

All tanks are heavy (apart from the light ones).

All tanks have thick armour (apart from the thin ones).

All tanks have tracks (apart from the Guy wheeled tank).

All tanks have a big gun as main armament (apart from females, and CS tanks).

All tanks have their main armament mounted in a fully-rotating turret (apart from the S-tank, Lee, Grant, Char B and some Churchills).

At the moment the only rules I can't think of exceptions to are that it must be a direct-fire fightng vehcle armoured over all aspects -- if there was ever an open-topped tank, I've not heard of it.

All the best,

John.

It really depends on context. If you are a military commander figuring out how to get best use from your assets, or assess the threat posed by your opposing force, then the definition could matter.

If on the other hand, you are a civilian and a big armoured vehicle with a gun is coming at you, then the difference between "tank", "apc", "self-propelled artillery" or "oh <censored> I better get as far away from here as possible" is much less important.

Guess which category journalists fall under?

"Once you get that settled, let's go after the "angels dancing on the head of a pin" issue."
Would that not depend on how many angels have taken dancing lessons

90% (I mistook the BMD for a PT-76).

If people who obsess over grammar are called grammar Nazis, should people who obsess over "what is a tank" be called tank Nazis?

Not a tank: M18 Hellcat, M10, Achilles
Tank: St Chamond, Whippet, A7V

We're doomed!

Will the madness ever end?????

But what do I know. I would call a Bradley a "tank"…

The Bradley is a very fine tank in spite of being an infantry carrier.

And… what about the Israeli Merkava, a tank that carries infantry, as did IIRC the French Char 2C?

The thing is that all are tanks in the loosest definition of the word, hence the need for qualifiers like MBT, APC, CVRT etc.

A "Tank" is an Armored Fighting Vehicle that directly engages into the combat enviroment.

The main armament is a direct fire weapon.

It needs/serves no other personnel than the operational crew in it's primary role.

It can directly engage in both/either offense and defense.

It's aspects (mobility, firepower, and armor) directly effect the combat enviroment as a single asset.

Like a Jagdpanther, Stug or SU-76?

While tank destroyers/Stugs do seem to blur the line with tanks, they are not tanks. They engage as fire support/ambush units or as units that serve a single purpose(tank destruction/defense). Tank destroyers and Stugs generally serve the infantry's needs.

Like a Churchill or Matilda?

(apologies, it's just amusing me how difficult a watertight definition is)

Would that not depend on how many angels have taken dancing lessons

Well, if it's the lambada, you can fit quite a few.

Churchill and Matilda are tanks by having the ability to engage in both offense and defence. Their mobility, firepower, and armor directly effect the combat enviroment as a single asset. They do "support" the infantry(later versions less so), but by the virtue of all three aspects generally upon the combat enviroment(a Tiger tank does the same, but with better effect), not just one or two like a tank destroyer.

The Churchill and Matilda were tied to the infantry as a matter of doctrine( and doctrine dictated design), but still follow the rules as Tanks( See the Counterattack at Arras as evidence).

I didn't intend my definition to be "100% watertight", but to at least weed out the SP guns, APCs, Armored cars, ARVs, and TDs. There's a lot of room for "types" of tanks, but the general definitions will apply well.

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and s like a duck…
It's a webbed foot aquatic… tank?

At the moment the only rules I can't think of exceptions to are that it must be a direct-fire fightng vehcle armoured over all aspects -- if there was ever an open-topped tank, I've not heard of it.

The WWII era US M8 HMC,M10, M18 & M36 TD's might blur that distinction, John. The M10 & M36 (at least) both ended up with roofs though. To make it even less clear, the M36B1 variant even used a standard M4A3 tank hull….

Well Ditto,
In some places a station wagon laden with sandbags and a recoiless rifle, and with some dude lying down on the roof luggage rack with a PKM would be issued as a replacement tank. But a tank it is not, even though it does meet my criteria.

Stugs are AFVs and fell into two catagories, fire support and tank destroyer…they were made for those roles, but were pressed into service in lieu of the suitable vehicle. Fighting in defense they did well…but a tank would have done better. ;)

What we are all looking for is a simple, all inclusive definition of "TANK". That might just a bit difficult when trying to include all the various doctrines, ideas, sizes, quality, and even time periods( we are trying cover everything from WW1 to SF). As far as I'm concerned a tank starts out from the planning stage as a tank and gets built as a tank. Thus a STUG is built to be a STUG, not tank, even if you use it like one. Same goes for the station wagon.

Heck, we could have just a time of it just "unicoding" tank classes, let alone armor doctrines. Take for example the Pershing tank, starts out as a heavy then gets demoted to a medium.
We could come up waaay too many exceptions to a definiton of "TANK",and with this crowd that would be one heck of a list to have to argue over( but it's great fun to do so).

I guess otherwise defining a tank is kinda like defining porn, you know it when you see it.

That's why I like term – AFV … covers most bases … Besides design, weapons configuration, etc., a "Tank" is based on it's designed use, ie. a TD vs. an MBT. And IMO a tank is generally turreted. Even though the M10, M18 and M36 were (open) turreted … And I commanded an M113 Mech Co. a few decades ago, and believe me … it ain't no tank ! And I got 0 wrong on the little e-quiz …

What we are all looking for is a simple, all inclusive definition of "TANK".

All?
All of "we"?
I think not. Some of us are ridiculing this silly need to classify and define things.

Don't you "all" have something more constructive to do, like painting tanks?

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

You guys over-geeked yourself!

Congratulations, Pijlie. You've earned yourself one turn in the barrel for breaking the format of this post.

I must admit I didn't expect this many responses. I'll try to address some of the points made.

As I said in my first post, the article is intended to be a simple guide for people like my wife. As I said in the article, "There are exceptions to these rules, but they will suffice for most people." I was trying to write a short, simple guide for people who don't have a great deal of interest in military vehicles, to help them avoid common mistakes like mis-identifying APCs as tanks.

Regarding WWI tanks etc, I was concentrating on post-WWII vehicles, since they're the ones most likely to be seen by the target audience (I figure they'll generally see them in news reports). I've edited the article to make it clearer that it only really addresses post-WWII vehicles.

"Results
You have answered 0 of 0 correctly."
unyet each one was correct and stated as such. :-(

That's odd. Can you tell me what browser you're using?

So what is that gun-on-stilts contraption behind the F17 in willthepiper's 1st post?

Field gun on improvised high angle mounting for anti-aircraft fire. (If you look carefully you can see it has a turntable platform too.)

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck and Bleeped texts like a duck…
It's a webbed foot aquatic… tank?

No, I think we can agree this is not a tank.

So… I'm curious if the OP's wife has any words of wisdom regarding the matter at this point… seeing as how it's all been so clearly clarified and all…?

A Tank is any combat vehicle that contains troops who self identify as tankers.
An infantry combat vehicle is any armored combat vehicle the occupants of which self identify as infantry.

.. and so on, with details depending on national traditions …

A Tank is an armored, turreted, tracked, self-propelled weapons carrier/mobile weapons platform with a crew … An APC is an armored vehicle which carries infantrymen into battle to work with Tanks to provide mutual support for each … Infantrymen normally dismount from their APC to operate effectively on the ground. Tank crews stay in their "Tank" to drive and fire the weapons sytems mounted in and/or on the vehicle. And a DUKW is an amphibious landing vehicle, and is very lightly armed and armored. A tank, an APC, landing vehicle, SPFA, etc. are design for certain missions … and henced are engineered/designed to accomplish those missions …

So… I'm curious if the OP's wife has any words of wisdom regarding the matter at this point… seeing as how it's all been so clearly clarified and all…?

Not really, no. Nor does she care a great deal. The blog post serves the purpose it was intended to – it gives her a short guide that will allow her to get it right most of the time.

TMP link
and this one or have we done this?

I'm afraid that I class TDs, STUGs and the S-Tank as tanks. They were designed to fight on the front line and were given armour and armamaent for it. They were given different names because of doctrine, not what they are.

I think of APCs and IFVs as not tanks as their main role is to carry dismounts to (or near to) the frontline and support them if required.

I think of the CVR(T) and a variety of others as not tanks but recce vehicles, because they were designed to scoot around and see things.

I think of a self propelled guns as not tanks as they were not designed to fight on the frontline – although I did see an AS90 pointining it's gun at a poor Serbian tank at about 50mm and telling them to off (although in that situation it did look a little like a tankette).

All of the examples given now fit neatly into these categories – just because a vehicle has a different doctrine doesn't make it a different type. The UK put Fireflies into recce squadrons and didn't call them recce vehicles, the USSR used MBTs for recce, the Germans used STUGs as Panzers and the Isrealis can carry troops in their Merkarva.

That only leaves the question of wheels vs tracks…I am not convinced that locomotion should upset wargamers covering 'WWI to Science Fiction', after all we like grav-tanks and hover-tanks and accept that history has given us at least one wheeled tank. And so have the Syrian rebels!

Part of the problem comes with 'fighting on the forntline' as expectations vary over time – in WWI machineguns was fine, for where a Stingray would operate the light armour was fine, the lack of off-road mobility from wheels may not be important for some…

That means that anything that is primarily designed to achieve its main impact through a combination of mobility, firepower and armour whilst employed in direct confrontation with the enemy is a tank.

Or not…