Tough Quiz

Okay, how about "design intent", which I suppose is the same as "job specification". Here's what I've got, but it lacks concision:

A tracked armoured vehicle designed to survive and fight against all targets on a typical battlefield of the day.

tracked - eliminates all the wheeled stuff (although there were some heavy armoured cars called wheeled tanks and I've seen that Gen. Shinseki is trying to get US industry looking at 25-35 tonne wheeled AFVs to replace MBTs )
armoured - fits a lot, but it does say survive - MICVs are not survivaeble against all targets (this is, of course a relative measure, but M1 vs T-80 is fairer than Bradly vs T-80)
fight - same thing (relative again - Bradley is capable of shooting a T-80, but it isn't intended to as its main role)
battlefield of the day - gets away from recce vehicles like Scorpion etc

It's the closest i could come up with to include WWI tanks but eliminate StuGs etc. StuGs were intended for infantry support, jagdpanzers were intended to fight tanks alone. Comments? Apart from bwahaha that's b*llocks

 

bwahaha, that's...

Sorry, couldn't resist.


What about light tanks, designed for recce (Vickers Light series), or the cruiser tanks designed to exploit breakthrough, not to slug it out with the enemy, or...

To be a real pain;

How can a Matilda I be expected to survive & fight against all targets on a typical battlefield of the day?

Can an mg kill a Panzer II?

 

Light tanks, Vickers etc were their day's equivalent of Scorpion IMO, recce not tank. But I'm open to persuasion, I'll check Fletcher on the design role of MkVI etc.
Cruisers were intended to exploit gaps and go for HQs and rear supply - that was their battlefield - British intention in those days was to circumvent "real" battles by using mobility, so "battlefield of the day" when they were designed wasn't what they ended up actually being used on
Matilda I was intended (again intention, follow me on the road to Hell....) to fight infantry only - as an infantry support "tank", no anti-tank capability asked for - I contend that it wasn't a true tank but a mini-StuG.
But again, I'm open to persuasion on all of this - I'm just trying find a definition that really fits - but I may end up borrowing your large stapler to bang myself on the head with....

 

But they were light tanks... you have heavy, light & medium. You cannot exclude light tanks just because they are a bit wimpy.

so they were not tanks?

So then all mg-armed tanks, including the Mk1, slightly more than half of all FT-17s, etc) are not tanks?

To alter your statement, do you mean:

A tracked armoured vehicle designed to survive and fight against all targets on the typical battlefield it was intended to fight on.

because that re-opens the StuG door...

 

Bugger, I'm getting deeper in here aren't I. Pass the stapler :lol:
Vickers Mk.VI (to give an example) after googling were designed as recce vehicles - therefore not for the battlefield. FT.17 was designed (in WWI) to fight the tragets on a WWI batlefield - infantry and gun crews.
Hmmm, yes I worded it very badly didn't I? Cruisers fit your rewording - intended battlefield (although battlefield of the day as envisaged at the time of design - but that reduces the concision - rats).

But StuGs weren't intended to engage armour, were they? I thought they were built for infantry support, hence the short 75.
But you're right, it does let in late StuGs since they were intended, AFAIK, later on to engage tanks (correct me if I'm wrong - I know what a StuG looks like, I don't know what the intended role was later on). Unless... was StuG given a long gun so it could engage tanks as secondary role? Which means that the wording has to be something along the lines of "single-role of surviving and fighting against...) which would cut out MICVs automatically since they're multi-role.

I'm now about to follow this sequence: wall, head, bang. Repeat until in severe pain then back to the drawing board. I hate you , but thanks for the input

 

sorry, I'm using it.

But then the Merverka has a limited ability to move troops (& casualties) thus making it multi-role...

Well, somebody has to do it... I just happened to be in the right place at the right time.

Careful with that wall, dents are quite tricky to repair.

 

Make that "primary role of engaging and surviving ..." MICV primary role is transport.
I have feeling if I get a definition it'll be about four pages long with 15 pages of conditional clauses.
So next time somebody says "Scorpion tank" and I tell them a Scorpion ISN'T a tank, and they say "well why not, what is a tank then?" I can look them in the eye and, in a totally authoritative manner say "I haven't got a clue"
Oli, England, looking for a fresh wall

 

but then you still must address the StuG issue...

pah - lightweight!

Well, technically, it is a light tank... :lol:

Come on over, I have a few spare...

 

Maybe we should define WWII tank; modern tank etc.?

Matbe we should sub define Battle tank?

Otherwise I fear that we will never get a clear, concise & accurate answer.

 

I have a feeling StuGs had anti-tank as a secondary role, so that should let that out.
David, define them for each period? Please, that might be something we could actually ACHIEVE. I think this pointless exercise in futility is just what we need
Besides Ricky and I are into the insult-swapping phase now, then it's teddies out of the cot and dummies at five paces.
And it would look really good if I could get HyperTank published with a working definition, kudos to me and all that, with a foot note on how Ricky interfered so much it added to the workload....

 

Why don't we try this from a different angle. What you guys are doing is formulating a rule, then finding a certain vehicle that voids the rule because it includes or excludes it. However, we know what we're considering "tanks" and what we're considering to be vehicles of a different kind. Why don't we move from there? If you just ask yourself, "what is a tank", and start by listing types, I think David has a good point that the definition of tank is very much related to certain periods. If we want to make a definition span all these ages we have to include intent, which Oli already did, and probably also the technological possibilities of the age. Keeping that in mind, what do all things we call tanks have in common?

They are dedicated primarily to direct combat (freaks like the Merkava aside). They are armed to deal with any enemy they are likely to encounter, and equipped to cross any terrain they are expected to cross. They are armoured to protect their crews against fire from all sides.

That's all I can think of right now, and this description still includes most tank destroyers.

 

Yay, we've Roel involved in the pointless argument now. It all started when I saw a definition that included "turret", which, as has been pionted out, excludes WWI tanks.
Unless we declare arbitrarily that tank destroyers and StuGs don't exist, that they're a figment of somebody's imagination.... :lol:
Tank destroyers are single-pupose anti-tank weapons, not direct combat against all likely threats. But Matilda I, hmmm. I wriggled on that, as you probably gathered. But the intent wasn't to fight other tanks.
Maybe the only possible definition of tank is "whtever has been called a tank, and is generally accepted to be so".
I wonder if google can come up with anything?

 

Not all tanks have the clear intent of fighting all other targets on a given battlefield - the best examples of this are, indeed, breakthrough tanks like WW1's female tanks and the Matilda I.

 

What was the original 'purpose' of the tank?

IIRC it was something like:

to transport a machinegun across broken ground, trenches & barbed wire while being impervious to enemy mg fire

which is too simplistic these days.