Landships II

Vilkata · Brigadier

What Is A Tank?

Centurion · Legend

Yes it is confusing especially since lots of 'tanks' were not specifically designed to fight other tanks - consider mg armed light tanks or WW2 infantry tanks - for example the mg armed Matilda 1.

I usually apply the following rules of thumb (despite once being told by a colleague that ruls of thumb are only useful for measuring thumbs).

1. If its tracks and engine are designed to move it to and from a stationary position from whence it can fire its gun at the enemy then its an SPG (of which tank killers like the Ferdinand, the Hertzer, the British Archer and Alecto are a special sub category being self propelled AT guns). Yes I know many tanks halted to give the gunner a stable platform but this was a temporary pause and not at a pre planned position.

2. If its got an open top it may be some form of AFV but its not a tank (eg the US Hellcat)

3. If its prime role is to ferry troops and/or material in and out of battle its not a tank

The Ferdinand fails to be a tank under 1 and 2 of the above. The Loyd carriers (and I would argue the Martels) fail under 2 and 3.

To muddy the waters tanks can sometimes be used as SPGs and/or to ferry troops but this is not their primary function. There will always be some grey fuzzy areas I know but in general these rules work. Note whether of not it has a rotating turret ceases to be a defining issue.

Alternativel one could always use the original US official definition from the 20s

An armoured car is an armoured combat motor vehicle of the wheeled type, intended primarily for use on roads
A tank is a self propelled vehicle of the track laying type, combining fire power, mobility, protection and shock action

Although I think its too vague, if you combine it with my rules as a qualifier it works more or less.

Tonys · Field Marshal

Very interesting topic, and one that will cause long debates.

I think that the Germans were the most advanced in what one could call "Assault Guns" , such as the Stug. It looks like a tank (without a turret), drives like a tank, and quacks, I mean, sounds like a tank. However, I think most people would not classify it as a tank although it could have been used in that role.

If one looks at the design of tanks, three criteria are present - firepower, protection, and mobility.

The "S" tank is similar in rationale as the Merkeva i.e. a vehicle designed primarily for a defensive role against large numbers of attacking tanks. The only difference is that the Merkeva has a turret, so this cannot be an additional criterion.

By the way, the Trumpeter model of the "S" tank is a beauty and a joy to build after building Emhar and Interus kits.

The South African Rooikat sports a 105mm gun, similar to the old Centurion tanks used by the SADF but, because it has wheels, it is not considered as a tank. Try standing alongside one, and you would be pushed to call it an armoured car (even as one on steroids).

Similarly, one version of the Ratel has a 90mm gun on top (in a turret). It's predecessor was the old Panhard 90mm which WAS an armoured car, but I wouldn't describe the Ratel as either a tank or an armoured car, even although it was used in an anti-tank role.

This then raises the other criterion not yet fully discussed- armour or protection. A tank should, in theory, have the armour and mobility to survive an attack by another tank.

The Ratel didn't have the armour, but it did have the mobility - if it wasn't driven v-e-r-y fast to behind the Angolan/Cuban tanks it became a target easily crippled by tank fire, so therefore it failed on the protection criterion. The 90mm gun, however, is superior to most MBTs up to thirty years ago.

The Scorpion fills all the criteria to be called a tank - turret and tracks - but wasn't designed to kill other tanks - so therefore is it a tank (light or otherwise)?

As long as its got tracks and a bloody big gun it's obviously a tank. Perhaps we cuff it and refer to the rest as AFVs/ACAVs/MICVs?

This is nearly as bad as defining the colour of WWI tanks!!

Tony

Centurion · Legend

And to make things worse words change their meanings and usage alters over time. In 1918 almost anything with some armour and tracks was called a tank so that, for example, there are contemporary references to gun carriers as supply tanks. Yet within ten years or so the Mk IX and the converted Mk I and Mk IVs are being refered to publications of the time as Supply Carriers. Journalists however carry a vocabulary all of their own - a recent obit in a serious British paper showed a deceased veteran in a WW2 photo which it had captioned as him "sitting in his tank" - he was in fact in a Bren Carrier.

We should always be careful in interpreting statements from the past according to modern usage. Let me give a non tanky example. In the Napoleonic Wars British naval officers would sometimes refer to having amused the enemy. This did not mean that they had set up a concert party on the poop deck as 'amused' was then used to mean fooled, deceived or tricked. This is almost certainly the sense in which Queen Victoria used it ("We are not amused") when replying to a politician who was trying to 'spin' a military setback into a brilliant strategic move (the more things change the more they are the same). She was not indicating that she was difficult to entertain (another word whose meaning has changed over time) as she actually had quite a good sense of dry humour but in a more modern venacular "you aint fooling me"