Tough Quiz

Here's a question I thought I'd put in the quiz section, but it's ONE question only, no follow-ups.

Define tank.
The more I think about it the more there's an exception to every definition I've seen.
So I throw it open for you guys to define and shoot down.

 

This is really annoying. We used to have a several-page thread on just this topic but I can't find it. Predictably we couldn't find a conclusive definition then, either.

 

Tank, um , I know the word tank was a nickname thought up by british soldiers in WW1 , due to the Mk.1's ugly appearance.

A tank can be a storage container , or as we know it a tracked vehicle mounting a Gun..

 

Ahah, CSP fell for the trap. Tracked vehicle mounting a gun:

Scorpion
M109
2S1
M3 half track variants with 75mm
etc etc.
Are they tanks?

I meant tank in the military sense, not storage. I have a personal definition, but I'm not letting on until much muuuuuch later :kill:

 

a metal box that moves

 

'Tank' was not a name invented by troops who first saw them.

It was a code-name used in the hope of explaining away the large ammounts of sheet metal used to make one.

 

No we're going off-track. Not what does the name mean. I want to know what IS a tank? How is it defined.
Examples,
a Scorpion CVR(T) is not a tank - strictly speaking of course.
a 2S1 is not a tank, it's a self-propelled gun (although Ian Hogg argued convincingly it was intended as an assault gun)
etc. etc.

 

What is the difference between "tank" and "tracked weapon system"?

 

A tracked weapon system encompasses such things as Stormer Starstreak, Roland, mortar carriers etc. You wouldn't call any of them a tank would you?
Tanks fall into the overall category of tracked weapon systems, but are just one sub-set.

 

Broadly speaking, a tank is a tracked vehicle (tracks only), fully armoured (no open topped stuff), with a rotating turret (no Assault guns etc).

However, this still leaves us with the modern self-propelled artillery included!

 

All the british tanks in WWI weren't tanks then?
Trap number 2
Keep going guys.

 

Well yes, this is the problem.

possibly you could have something like 'guns covering a arc of at least X', but then you will remove the StCharmond, the AV7, etc etc.

tank development has had enough interesting side-routes to make clssification a nightmare.

How about:

an armoured, tracked vehicle designed to engage enemy AFVs and infantry in offensive actions?

Although this also includes assault guns, and potentially the modern crop of APCs also! :evil:

 

Getting closer, but again:

Female tanks in WWI? R-35, H-35/ 39 for example, had low/ neglible AT capability. And the Mark 1 tanks weren't intended to engage tanks - there weren't any for them to shoot at when they were introduced.
and

S-Tank, although it could be argued that the actions intended were offensive in a defensive war. I'd consider somebody bunging 105 mm rounds at me offensive :lol:

 

sorry, that was meant to be an 'and/or', deliberately because of mg-armed tanks.

S-Tank, although it could be argued that the actions intended were offensive in a defensive war. I'd consider somebody bunging 105 mm rounds at me offensive :lol:[/quote]
The S-tank, despite the name, seems (IMO) to be a tank-destroyer rather than a tank - an armoured vehicle designed to sit in a hull-down position and pick off attacking tanks.

 

Okay, and/or goes with my defintion, although not worded exactly as that. (I had a suspicion you meant and/ or, but wanted to clarify )

Haven't got my Hilmes book with me (as I'm at my sister's house cat sitting) but I found this, which says more or less what Hilmes does (but in a different way). BTW Hilmes was (is still?) part of BWB and responsible for German tank development, so I assume he knows what a tank is

My emphasis, and don't forget that we Brits (at least, possibly other nations) were looking at similar solutions (e.g. Contentious)
from http://forums.military.com/groupee/foru ... 0082630001

 

But then the German StuGs of WW2 are also tanks....
And these are technically assault guns.

How does Hilmes define a tank?

If it is a vague thing like 'AFV suitable for offensive operations' then I will throw a hissy fit.

 

Ha ha. He doesn't define tank specifically, (just says that S-Tank must be considered to be one), which is why I had to work out for myself why StuGs etc aren't.
Clue: as we've already found out, it's not directly related to configuration, or armament. And no, it's not that vague....

 

And, amusingly, the link you posted concludes* with the idea that the S-tank is just a glorified mobile AT gun!

*concludes as in 'ends', not as in 'consensus is reached' - debate is still apparently ongoing.

 

Yeah, the bit that made me laugh was:

and two sentences later, from the same guy -

I wonder how he defines "tank"?

 

What it cannot be related to:

Armour - StuGs, SPGs etc have this
Tracks - ditto
Rotating turret - ditto (plus some tanks did not have this)
Number of crew - FT-17 only had 2
Weaponry - apart from 'must have some'


Is it simply a definition based around the job specification?