Russian invasion of Ukraine

[ICTChris]

Russia has cut off gas supplies to Poland and Bulgaria due to them refusing to pay in rubles.

[Left Back]

10 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Germany doesn't call the Gepard a 'tank', consider it a 'tank, nor does it look like a 'tank', but if you are insistent you know better, on you go.

If I remember correctly the Leopard and the Gepard used the same chassis.  One is a main battle tank (the Leopard) and one isn't.

[Boo Khaki]

Just now, Left Back said:

If I remember correctly the Leopard and the Gepard used the same chassis.  One is a main battle tank (the Leopard) and one isn't.

Correct. Gepard uses the Leopard 1 hull.

Just to clear something up -

When 'tanks' were first conceived, there was obviously no pre-existing noun for them, being that they were a completely novel invention. The British adopted the term 'tank' after a misdirection operation labelled them as such. Germany used 'panzer', from the Czech word 'pancer', meaning 'armor'. Since then, the term 'panzer' has been used interchangeably to describe both actual 'tanks' and any vehicle that is 'armour', but more commonly those based upon pre-existing 'tank' hulls, or those which are modified and repurposed 'tanks'.

The term appears in 'Sturmpanzer', 'Panzerhaubitze', 'Panzerjager', and of course 'Flakpanzer', yet none of the items these terms refer to are actually classified as tanks. It's nothing more than a quirk of the German language as it pertains to armoured vehicles. Actual tanks have a very specific doctrinal role, and that being the case, they are designed with a specific purpose in mind. Anything that is neither intended to fulfil this role, nor designed for it, is not a 'tank'. It's really that simple.

It is sheer pedantry, but it does get annoying watching supposedly well informed media sources repeatedly refer to 'tanks' when the vehicles they are reporting on are no such thing. They do similar with Trident, waffling on about Trident, SSBN's, and the UK's nuclear deterrent, while showing archive footage of hunter-killer subs of a totally different class. It infuriates anoraks, because you'd like to think that a well-funded organisation with almost limitless research capacity would at least make the effort to ensure what they are showing and discussing is somewhat accurate, but no.

It's become an amusing game of 'tank/no tank' at News time when the girlfriend is around. She's getting better at it, but understandably still gets it wrong about 90% of the time, purely because the media themselves totally misrepresent what they are showing footage of. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2020/11/25/this-is-not-a-tank-a-laypersons-guide-to-armored-fighting-vehicles/?sh=68f62c071831

[LongTimeLurker]

Maybe the Bryansk thing was Turkish TB2 drones after all:

 

[Left Back]

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

Correct. Gepard uses the Leopard 1 hull.

Just to clear something up -

When 'tanks' were first conceived, there was obviously no pre-existing noun for them, being that they were a completely novel invention. The British adopted the term 'tank' after a misdirection operation labelled them as such. Germany used 'panzer', from the Czech word 'pancer', meaning 'armor'. Since then, the term 'panzer' has been used interchangeably to describe both actual 'tanks' and any vehicle that is 'armour', but more commonly those based upon pre-existing 'tank' hulls, or those which are modified and repurposed 'tanks'.

The term appears in 'Sturmpanzer', 'Panzerhaubitze', 'Panzerjager', and of course 'Flakpanzer', yet none of the items these terms refer to are actually classified as tanks. It's nothing more than a quirk of the German language as it pertains to armoured vehicles. Actual tanks have a very specific doctrinal role, and that being the case, they are designed with a specific purpose in mind. Anything that is neither intended to fulfil this role, nor designed for it, is not a 'tank'. It's really that simple.

It is sheer pedantry, but it does get annoying watching supposedly well informed media sources repeatedly refer to 'tanks' when the vehicles they are reporting on are no such thing. They do similar with Trident, waffling on about Trident, SSBN's, and the UK's nuclear deterrent, while showing archive footage of hunter-killer subs of a totally different class. It infuriates anoraks, because you'd like to think that a well-funded organisation with almost limitless research capacity would at least make the effort to ensure what they are showing and discussing is somewhat accurate, but no.

It's become an amusing game of 'tank/no tank' at News time when the girlfriend is around. She's getting better at it, but understandably still gets it wrong about 90% of the time, purely because the media themselves totally misrepresent what they are showing footage of. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2020/11/25/this-is-not-a-tank-a-laypersons-guide-to-armored-fighting-vehicles/?sh=68f62c071831

Pet hate of mine whenever the media describe a self-propelled gun as a tank.

[Sergeant Wilson]

12 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Germany doesn't call the Gepard a 'tank', consider it a 'tank, nor does it look like a 'tank', but if you are insistent you know better, on you go.

It does look a bit like a tank.

[Boo Khaki]

Just now, Sergeant Wilson said:

It does look a bit like a tank.

Ok, I'll give you that, but only on the premise that we're talking about the observer being an ordinary human being, and not an autistic pedant.

[MONKMAN]

6 minutes ago, Sergeant Wilson said:

It does look a bit like a tank.

A bit???  Looks very much like a tank.

[Salt n Vinegar]

3 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

Ok, I'll give you that, but only on the premise that we're talking about the observer being an ordinary human being, and not an autistic pedant.

Thank Christ it doesn't look like a duck. 

[falkirkthebigclub]

12 hours ago, Todd_is_God said:

If the German's wish to call it a tank, and it looks like a tank, then it's a tank.

 

Oh cool, an anti-aircraft tank.

[Boo Khaki]

7 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Thank Christ it doesn't look like a duck. 

Quack!

[Zen Archer (Raconteur)]

9 minutes ago, Salt n Vinegar said:

Thank Christ it doesn't look like a duck. 

A duck tank.

[strichener]

 

1 hour ago, Boo Khaki said:

Correct. Gepard uses the Leopard 1 hull.

Just to clear something up -

When 'tanks' were first conceived, there was obviously no pre-existing noun for them, being that they were a completely novel invention. The British adopted the term 'tank' after a misdirection operation labelled them as such. Germany used 'panzer', from the Czech word 'pancer', meaning 'armor'. Since then, the term 'panzer' has been used interchangeably to describe both actual 'tanks' and any vehicle that is 'armour', but more commonly those based upon pre-existing 'tank' hulls, or those which are modified and repurposed 'tanks'.

The term appears in 'Sturmpanzer', 'Panzerhaubitze', 'Panzerjager', and of course 'Flakpanzer', yet none of the items these terms refer to are actually classified as tanks. It's nothing more than a quirk of the German language as it pertains to armoured vehicles. Actual tanks have a very specific doctrinal role, and that being the case, they are designed with a specific purpose in mind. Anything that is neither intended to fulfil this role, nor designed for it, is not a 'tank'. It's really that simple.

It is sheer pedantry, but it does get annoying watching supposedly well informed media sources repeatedly refer to 'tanks' when the vehicles they are reporting on are no such thing. They do similar with Trident, waffling on about Trident, SSBN's, and the UK's nuclear deterrent, while showing archive footage of hunter-killer subs of a totally different class. It infuriates anoraks, because you'd like to think that a well-funded organisation with almost limitless research capacity would at least make the effort to ensure what they are showing and discussing is somewhat accurate, but no.

It's become an amusing game of 'tank/no tank' at News time when the girlfriend is around. She's getting better at it, but understandably still gets it wrong about 90% of the time, purely because the media themselves totally misrepresent what they are showing footage of. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2020/11/25/this-is-not-a-tank-a-laypersons-guide-to-armored-fighting-vehicles/?sh=68f62c071831

From your linked article:

From a design standpoint, generally agreed-upon characteristics for a tank include :

 

It has tracks, not wheels

• It has armor protection effective against all but the most powerful battlefield weapons (ie. all but those specifically made to destroy tanks)
• It has a turret mounting a main gun

It appears that defining a tank is not really as easy as defining what isn't a tank.  Especially since with modern materis etc.  Some equipment that would be described as non-tank have better armour than some older tanks.

[renton]

9 minutes ago, strichener said:

 

From your linked article:

From a design standpoint, generally agreed-upon characteristics for a tank include :

 

It has tracks, not wheels

• It has armor protection effective against all but the most powerful battlefield weapons (ie. all but those specifically made to destroy tanks)
• It has a turret mounting a main gun

It appears that defining a tank is not really as easy as defining what isn't a tank.  Especially since with modern materis etc.  Some equipment that would be described as non-tank have better armour than some older tanks.

Note also the main gun should be a direct fire mode (I.e. not artillery), and you can use generations of tech to help define contemporary tanks, as well as doctrine - how it is typically deployed in a combined arms group.

Stuff like the Gepard or self propelled artillery would be incapable of fighting other tanks, which is an essential part of tank doctrine. 

And really the armor protection point is a lot more clear cut than you might otherwise think. Self propelled artillery will only be resistant to artillery fragments or machine gun fire. Anything bigger than that and it would be toast. 

[Boo Khaki]

7 minutes ago, strichener said:

 

It appears that defining a tank is not really as easy as defining what isn't a tank.  Especially since with modern materis etc.  Some equipment that would be described as non-tank have better armour than some older tanks.

This is pretty much true, but then you also have the matter of the intended purpose of the vehicle and how it is used in practicality, which is why just having tracks, a turret, a hoofing great main weapon, and some armour protection doesn't make a vehicle a 'tank' by default. The question of 'better' armour isn't really clear cut either, as that isn't an absolutely hard and fast rule when it comes to defining what is a tank and what isn't.

Leopard 1 had effectively no armour whatsoever, but was still very much considered an MBT due to the fact it was expected to go toe-to-toe with much more heavily armoured Soviet contemporaries. Concept was that Soviet guns and ammo were more than sufficient to overcome any armour available at the time, so armouring it was just needless weight. Better to concentrate on mobility, reliability, superior optics, superior crews, and the superior armament, rather than just lumbering it with extra weight that wouldn't defeat an incoming round in any case.

You have the Swedish 'S' series. No turret, no armour to speak of, but again very much a 'tank' due to the intended purpose of the design and how the vehicle would have been used in a combat situation. Everything about it says 'not a tank', but it absolutely is, just an unconventional and pretty much unique one.

[coprolite]

2 hours ago, Boo Khaki said:

Correct. Gepard uses the Leopard 1 hull.

Just to clear something up -

When 'tanks' were first conceived, there was obviously no pre-existing noun for them, being that they were a completely novel invention. The British adopted the term 'tank' after a misdirection operation labelled them as such. Germany used 'panzer', from the Czech word 'pancer', meaning 'armor'. Since then, the term 'panzer' has been used interchangeably to describe both actual 'tanks' and any vehicle that is 'armour', but more commonly those based upon pre-existing 'tank' hulls, or those which are modified and repurposed 'tanks'.

The term appears in 'Sturmpanzer', 'Panzerhaubitze', 'Panzerjager', and of course 'Flakpanzer', yet none of the items these terms refer to are actually classified as tanks. It's nothing more than a quirk of the German language as it pertains to armoured vehicles. Actual tanks have a very specific doctrinal role, and that being the case, they are designed with a specific purpose in mind. Anything that is neither intended to fulfil this role, nor designed for it, is not a 'tank'. It's really that simple.

It is sheer pedantry, but it does get annoying watching supposedly well informed media sources repeatedly refer to 'tanks' when the vehicles they are reporting on are no such thing. They do similar with Trident, waffling on about Trident, SSBN's, and the UK's nuclear deterrent, while showing archive footage of hunter-killer subs of a totally different class. It infuriates anoraks, because you'd like to think that a well-funded organisation with almost limitless research capacity would at least make the effort to ensure what they are showing and discussing is somewhat accurate, but no.

It's become an amusing game of 'tank/no tank' at News time when the girlfriend is around. She's getting better at it, but understandably still gets it wrong about 90% of the time, purely because the media themselves totally misrepresent what they are showing footage of. 

https://www.forbes.com/sites/sebastienroblin/2020/11/25/this-is-not-a-tank-a-laypersons-guide-to-armored-fighting-vehicles/?sh=68f62c071831

Looks like a tank to me

[KirkySuperSub]

Just so I know, we're still calling those bubble-shaped things with the super-fast, spinny blade things on the top, "helicopters" are we?

Or have we changed that yet?

[williemillersmoustache]

2 minutes ago, KirkySuperSub said:

Just so I know, we're still calling those bubble-shaped things with the super-fast, spinny blade things on the top, "helicopters" are we?

Or have we changed that yet?

No.

[renton]

6 minutes ago, Boo Khaki said:

This is pretty much true, but then you also have the matter of the intended purpose of the vehicle and how it is used in practicality, which is why just having tracks, a turret, a hoofing great main weapon, and some armour protection doesn't make a vehicle a 'tank' by default. The question of 'better' armour isn't really clear cut either, as that isn't an absolutely hard and fast rule when it comes to defining what is a tank and what isn't.

Leopard 1 had effectively no armour whatsoever, but was still very much considered an MBT due to the fact it was expected to go toe-to-toe with much more heavily armoured Soviet contemporaries. Concept was that Soviet guns and ammo were more than sufficient to overcome any armour available at the time, so armouring it was just needless weight. Better to concentrate on mobility, reliability, superior optics, superior crews, and the superior armament, rather than just lumbering it with extra weight that wouldn't defeat an incoming round in any case.

You have the Swedish 'S' series. No turret, no armour to speak of, but again very much a 'tank' due to the intended purpose of the design and how the vehicle would have been used in a combat situation. Everything about it says 'not a tank', but it absolutely is, just an unconventional and pretty much unique one.

Aye, the Leopard 1 was basically the Germans giving up on armour for mobility in the face of the 2nd gen HEAT anti tank guided missiles, ironically.

The UK went the other direction with the Chieftain: much bigger gun, able to out range most of everything else, thick turret armour and intended to use the terrain to hide.

Then composite armour came along and made those HEAT ATGMs look a lot less scary until they figured out how to attack tank roofs reliably...

[Loonytoons]

No.

Where's its turret?