Talk:Main battle tank

Move?

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 23:06, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

---

User:Marcus Aurelius Antoninus/Main Battle Tank → Main Battle Tank —

• Userspace draft --> article Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 23:45, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
• Or merge with Tank classification#Main battle tank or Tank? Anthony Appleyard (talk) 10:03, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
• We have an articles on female tanks and super-heavy tanks which were only used in small quantities for a brief period of time. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 21:22, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Image?

Perhaps a more widely used tank could be used as the image? The Leo2 would do nicely. 96.55.192.119 (talk) 06:32, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Image will probably keep getting changed to the favourite of a particular editor. As long as it is a clear image of a notable MBT, I don't see a problem. The Type 10 is at least notable for being new. Leopard 2 is widely known, but so is Abrams, Challenger, Merkava, T-80, T-72, Leclerc, T-55, Chieftain, Centurion, ... etc. (Hohum ^@) 17:22, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Tank speed

It specifies the speed of Main Battle Tanks in the article "about 65 km/h (72 for the Abrams M1)" and also that their weight"(60-70 tons)" typically limits their mobility. However, this seems to be written from a very US centric position as numerous other countries field lighter vehicles that travel at slower or faster speeds. Specifying the M1 Abrams speed does not seem neccessary and in fact I think it would be better to give a range of speeds eg. 55km/h to 80km/h (note this is a guess) as well as a range of tonnage. This would give the reader more relevant information.--Senor Freebie (talk) 01:03, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Replacing the duplicate Abrams

Well, in the caption of the Duplicate Abrams, it states that the Abrams TUSK has been outfitted for Asymmetrical warfare. Unfortunately, if you look right above that picture, there's a picture of a Leo 2 that's also been outfitted for Asymmetrical warfare. So, there's 2 pictures for one section and then there's the 2 pictures of the same tank. IMO, I think the Counter-measures section should have a picture of the T-90 next to it, as the T-90 features many innovative counter-measure solutions, that the Abrams doesn't have, and so would be a better and broader representation of such category.

Victory in Germany (talk) 20:58, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

How to Make War rates the M1 Abrams' protection and firepower as better than the T-90. Marcus Qwertyus 21:50, 13 March 2011 (UTC)

That may be so, but in terms of which tank represents the farthest outlets of armor designs, the T-90 takes the cake. Really, the Abrams doesn't have armor too different from other MBTs, composite ceramic armor with hard backing plate (DU), spall liner, some speculate NERA, etc. The T-90 has composite ceramic armor, spall liner (was an anti-neuron layer), NERA, ERA, Passive protection system, occasionally seen with an Active protection system, camouflage, etc. Victory in Germany (talk) 06:14, 19 March 2011 (UTC)

If Russia ever puts out anything that is not a descendant of Cold War technology I will not hesitate to put it up. Marcus Qwertyus 17:52, 23 March 2011 (UTC)

How is that relevant to the discussion? Do explain how the Abrams exactly features more protective technologies than say, the T-90.

Victory in Germany (talk) 07:50, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

More isn't necessarily better. If a tank uses 60 types of countermeasures and none of them work then why would we display it? Marcus Qwertyus 19:20, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Truly so. But the thing is, the T-90 uses a multitude of defense measures that have since been also used around the world. For example, the Shtora missile counter measure system, has since been used by Chinese tanks and has been copied by the U.S. MCD which is on the Abrams tank. The Leopard also uses a similar device. Another example, ARENA-APS, which has since gave birth to other APS system, such as the Israeli Trophy, which made a successful in-battle defense of a Merkava IV not too long ago. Another example, the Soviet Combination K was the first composite type armor to be used in tanks, composite armors has since been used for every modern tank design so far. Another example, Kontakt-5 ERA, a unique ERA that also protects against Kinetic energy weapons, originally derived from the Kontakt-1 ERA, which was the first ERA to be produced (however, Israeli ERA was the first to be fielded). List goes on. The T-90 overall provides more examples of protection systems than the Abram does, which means that T-90 represents the epitome of tank defenses, and thus, would be a prime candidate to represents MBTs in general on this page. Victory in Germany (talk) 05:51, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

Let me add a vote for the T-90, for its variety, as well as for being non-U.S., for a change. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:58, 25 March 2011 (UTC)

So if there's only going to be 3 debaters, then I think the T-90 comes out at 2 votes v.s. 1 to the Abrams. Anyone else want to add anything? Victory in Germany (talk) 11:47, 2 April 2011 (UTC)

lol I know I'm late on this but I would choose the T-90, for variety, decent all-around armor protection, the active protection systems some have, and the better mobility due to overall lower weight. So now, after 5 months, the vote rests at T-90 (3), Abrams (1).--170.185.165.19 (talk) 16:13, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

File:Leclerc-0090.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Leclerc-0090.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 10:07, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

insignia question

The merkava and the challenger tanks pictured both have inverted vs on them (e.g. >). Is it just a chevron? There are a wide range of tymbols used in heraldry, and it seems odd to fix on just this one. Then again, this does not seem to appear on all tanks, or at least, not always (the German tank pictured has a cross; the photos of Sherman tanks have white stars). Do we have any article that covers the history and use of this insignia or designation? Slrubenstein | Talk 18:43, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

AFAIK it is/was only British and Israeli tanks that had the chevron, and the earliest vehicles I can remember it adorning were the IDF's Centurions back in the 1960s. IIRC, it was merely an improvised tactical recognition sign that could be easily recognized by friendly forces, but I may be wrong. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.4.57.101 (talk) 21:37, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I wish I knew a proper source on this. So far you are the most informative person I have met on the topic. Slrubenstein | Talk 13:27, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

the chevron has appeared a few times as an IFF marking among multinational allied forces. i heard that they were in use in world war 2 during the d-day landings. i know they were used in gulf war 1 to reduce the chance of friendly fire deaths. gulf war example.Cramyourspam (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

here's another from the gulf war. Cramyourspam (talk) 17:19, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

wha?

this line "The adoption of ceramic armor as well as greater armor coverage necessitated by non-frontal attacks from combat helicopters also resulted in an effective counter to nuclear explosion radiation" might mean something, but the syntax is so muddled that i can't figure it out. can someone who understands what the author was getting at please rephrase it so it makes sense? Cramyourspam (talk) 17:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Technology is reducing the weight and size of the modern MBT...

The article states that 'Technology is reducing the weight and size of the modern MBT'. That simply isn't true, but since it is sourced to a book, I won't just delete it.

Leopard 2 went from about 55 tons to about 62 tons Le Clerc went from about 52 tons to about 57 tons T-72 went from about 42 tons to about 47 tons M1 Abrams went from sbout 62 tons to about 69 tons

Also, the size has been increased as most 3rd gen MBT have added modular armour, and some longer or larger guns. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.138.233.72 (talk) 04:30, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

-Leo 2 is 35 years old and weighs the most. Leclerc is 25 years old and weighs less than Leo 2. Type 10 is 2 years old and weighs ~17 tons than original Leo 2 with modular armour. K2 is 0 years old and weighs 7 tons less than Leo 2 with modular armour.