"Journalist's Guide to Tank Identification" Topic

Apologies if posted elsewhere.

Yep, that about sums it up nicely….

Now the Ukrainian Farmer's Guide

Not to cut journalists a break, but to be fair, they are writing for the general public. If they called a SAU a SAU instead of a tank, that would necessitate a few paragraphs on the difference between a tank and self-propelled artillery. And since there is no in-depth operational or tactical analysis in the general journalism, those differences make no difference to the point of the story.

From another perspective, try this one on:

"My computer is acting up, can you help?"

"Sure, so it's your computer, not your firmware, network connection, data, software…"

"Well, I mean my software."

"Oh, ok, so not your middleware, operating system, BUIS, UI, …"

"Never mind."

Good comparison, etotheipi! Don't worry. Be happy!

Bandolier your Su-25 looks more like a Yak-130…

Very good ! And very true ! Just like many things in the media. You really need to check if what you're being reported in the "news" is true ! 😎

FWIW – Of course, in reality, the current Russian MBTs look similar then with added ERA, stowage etc., make it a bit hard to ID "accurately". Back in the day, we had T54/55s, T62s, T64s, T72s and maybe the odd T34/85 or even T-10s. To ID and kill if the Cold War went hot …

Saw a similar one on a website, but with a civilian vehicle like the Russians are using in place of the dog.

Being cynical the 'dog' should read 'Western human interest' instead of tank.

There has also got to be a shoulder-launched missile version which just reads 'Javelin'!

Too funny, now do fully automatic weapons

Simple: Anything betreen a dime-store sqirt gun and Mons Meg is an AK-47.

The main difference between and old journalist of the past and modern journalist is logical reasoning and objectivity. Modern journalist are mostly mouth pieces of a political party.

I've had YouTube suggest me a video by one of these so-called military history buffs insisting that the BMP was a "terrible tank" and giving several reasons why it wouldn't fare well against other tanks. Maybe you've seen it, it's recent. Thankfully one commenter politely pointed out BMPs are IFV and so of course they cannot go toe to toe against tanks…

On a serious note, this drives me crazy and never found the explanation: can someone tell me why T-72 tanks have their pintle mounted MG pointed *backwards* (see image in first post here), while other tanks such as T-64 and T-80 derivatives have their MG pointed forward?

This is similar to all WW2 German tanks being referred to as "Tigers".

The MG is movable on a ring mount can point backward, foreword, any way in between.

Black Bull: but why is the MG (almost) always depicted pointing backwards in T-72s and (almost) always pointing to the front in T-64/80?

It think you all are being a little harsh on journalist, 2/3 of those vehicles have treads, turrets and guns, and it can be really difficult when their in several burned out pieces.

"…never found the explanation: can someone tell me why T-72 tanks have their pintle mounted MG pointed *backwards*…'

It's the only tank with a tailgunner…

but why is the MG (almost) always depicted pointing backwards in T-72s and (almost) always pointing to the front in T-64/80?

As Black Bull said the T-72's TC's MG is on a ring mount and it can slew into position as needed.

T-72 with MG pointing to the front – link

T-72 with MG pointing to the rear -
link

Now if you look at the model of this T-72. link The TC's hatch opens to the front to give him some protection when "un-buttoned". However, to use the DshK MG. The TC hatch cover rotates to the rear. And the MG rotates into the forward position. And can be fired to the front, etc., by the TC … IIRC

@Legion 4, that's actually a perfect explanation: the MG on T-72 usually points backwards because this means the open hatch will point forward, providing some protection when un-buttoned.

If the hatch of the T-64 is NOT tied to the MG in the ring, unlike the T-72's, this explains the difference!

Thanks!

Well glad to help. It used to be part of my job to know that stuff.

IIRC, Soviet tank commanders were trained to put the cupola hatch between them and and the enemy if they were not actively engaging with the MG. I remember watching some British Army training films from the 80's that showed that quite specifically.

Yes, if you look at that link of the model of the T-72 I posted. It clearly shows that.

"This is similar to all WW2 German tanks being referred to as 'Tigers'".

I was once told by a chap who was there called David Render, that this included the men who fought against them.

I'm sorry but if we're going to take the out of journo's we need to get the left hand side right. I believe the vehicles are from top, T72, BMP2, MTLB, 2S3, BTR T, ZSU 57-2, AT-T, T55 IMR.

Sounds about right … Trained for over a decade to kill most of them.

Legion 4 I'll see your trained to kill and raise you a trained to train to identify; and remember every lesson needs a joke in it somewhere ;-)

Bingo !!!! You got that right. It was recommended we add a joke or two during training. 😁 I can't mention the jokes and slides the Army Docs told/showed us during training with them at the Inf Ofc Advanced Course ! 🤫😈

"Too funny, now do fully automatic weapons"

Since you asked…

@ Billclo; you need to be careful, there are a generation of British army squaddies to regard "That Rifle" as a sacred object, mislabelling it is akin to drawing cartoons in holy book. I think this should also read US journalists, in other parts of the world everything is probably an AK47.

Legion 4 "Inf Ofc Advanced Course", then you are telling porky pies, you didn't train to kill anything you trained to get other people to kill things for you [Sir! ;-)]

Yes, you could say that !

Well as I Rifle Plt Ldr and Mech Co. Cdr I was up front with my troops most of the time ! I went thru all the training they did. You have to lead by example !

Of course, any good leader, whether Officer or NCO does spend time training their troops !

But I'm sure you know that ! If you were in any leadership position you know the deal ! 😎 Hell at times I had my good E-3s and Spec.4s running some of my Fire Tms …

Yes, billco I'm sure many journalists have that chart on their office wall. 🤩

"E-3s and Spec.4s". are they like corporals and sergeants in old fashioned armies.

Yes, and no … E-3s and Spec.4s were not NCOs they were lower enlisted ranks. The Army at that time had very few CPLs But, many Spec.4s who some would eventually become E-5 SGTs.

What do you mean "old fashioned armies" ??!?!?! I was on Active Duty, '79-'90 … it was not that long ago ? Wait … never mind …

To all pundits, check out the "Babylon Bee snf their article regarding the 10 really scary facts about "GUNS", hilarious!!!

OK now do a chart on this one…

This is my rifle,
This is my gun
This one's for fighting
This one's for fun!

Yahoo.

I'm sure someone out there has made a chart like that … but it would be Rated X if accurately done …

I spent a decade dealing with journalists and Congressional staff. Their most notable intellectual quality is self-esteem.

Self esteem? Are you sure it isn't narcissism?

That's their bosses- the people they hope to one day be.

Democracy has become government by sociopath.

nine pound +1 & +1

von Schwartz +1