Editing Tank (section)

==Tank Classifications==
In spite of what many [[/k/|autists]] would tell you, ''there are no objective classifications for tanks''. Militaries throughout history, especially those that design their own equipment, have experimented with (and adapted from other militaries) different designs, configurations and loadouts for their tanks. These are based almost entirely on their needs and combat philosophy at the time.

In general, the best definition for a "tank" would be: "fully-tracked, cannon in a turret, fights other vehicles." This would ironically exclude the earliest tanks and tankettes, while also including [[M10|Turreted]] [[M36 Slugger|Tank]] [[M18 Hellcat|Destroyers]] which many more autists will tell you are "NOT TANKS". This gets even more complicated when you learn that most tank chassis end up being adapted to serve other functions, like [[Jagdtiger|tank destroyers]], impromptu APCs (Kangaroo APCs), engineering and bridge-laying vehicles, [[Pereh|or guided missile systems built on older tank chassis but designed to look like another tank (but still isn't a tank)]].  Consider as well that the doctrines of different countries could classify the same tank differently (American WWII doctrine would call the Churchill a "heavy tank", but the original WWII British designers called it an "infantry tank"), and it's possible that a country's modern doctrine would classify a tank differently than it's historical doctrine!  The key takeaway here is '''[[RAI|to just go by whatever the designers/military intended]] for simplicity''', keep in mind that most militaries had flexible definitions, and [[Fail|don't sperg out because some reporter called an APC a tank]].

The modern catch all term for all purpose built and improvised combat vehicles, not necessarily tanks, is '''Armored Fighting Vehicle''' ('''AFV'''). Below you'll find some historical classifications and /tg/ related examples of both proper tanks and their AFV cousins.

===Classes of Proper Tanks===
*'''Male/Female''' A very, very early designation that only really applied to the British Mk-series of tanks from World War 1. These tanks have very little in common with their descendants, being little more than rolling bunkers. They didn't even have turrets, instead having sponson guns. The main difference between them is obvious, male tanks have cannons, and female tanks have only machine guns. In modern time however Gendering Tanks is completely obsolete since most tanks by definitions have cannons and it is generally pointless to use an expensive tank to not carry a large caliber cannon. A comparison might be drawn to something like the BMPT Terminator which has autocannons, grenade launchers and ATGMs but no cannon on a tank as being the equivalent a female, though this is a thin stretch.

*'''Tankettes''' Less of a tank and more of an armored clown car with guns; these were in vogue for a while in the 1930s. They're essentially a one or two-person tank, armed with machine guns, flame throwers, or anti-tank rifles and not designed to move much faster than the infantry around them (except for the italians, whose [[Wikipedia:L3/35|cute lil' buggers]] could reach a respectable speed). They're generally made to act as mobile infantry support or anti-tank weapons. Needless to say, this idea didn't stick because when even a high-caliber machine gun (which WW2 was rife with) could penetrate the armor of the tank, making it useless in straight-up combat. Only the Japanese extensively used them during WW2, which made some sense as most of their combat theater is in jungles that would bog-down full-sized tanks (Plus their doctrine emphasized more on air and naval superiority, with them island-hopping during their conquests). Tankettes however, were still fielded in limited quantities after WW2 due to their light weight that allowed them to be safely air-dropped, mainly for non-front line use like tank destroyers, AA guns, and recon vehicles. The only tankette still in use is the German Sedan-sized Wiesel, an airdropped scout vehicle. In effect, the smallest of the tankettes with a crew of one were an attempt to make an individual soldier into a one man tank to allow them to support their comrades. [[Power Armour|Sounds]] [[Centurion Squad|familiar]], [[Terminator|doesn't]] [[Battlesuit|it]]?
Examples: [[Grot Tanks]] 

*'''Light Tank''' Light Tanks are usually small, fast, and carry smaller caliber guns. Because of size constraints, they also have smaller crew sizes. Because of their small size, they're also significantly lighter, making them much easier to transport/air-drop. Historically, the transition from tankette to light tank is blurred, since most militaries developed some sort of light tank during the interwar years, then scaled up tank production from there, going from two-man tankettes armed with machine guns to three-to-four-man light tanks armed with smaller-caliber (less than 75mm) cannons. 
**Light tanks aren't universally fast and weak, though. Some of the early British [[Valentine|infantry tanks]] were classified as "light" in comparison with their contemporaries, but were equipped with armor that was much thicker than their competition. The [[M551 Sheridan|Sheridan light tank]] from the 60s was also armed with a 152mm cannon, a caliber much, much larger than anything mounted on WW2 Heavies ([[KV|with one notable exception]]), and continues to be an exception even with today's MBTs.
**Unlike their Medium and Heavy counterparts, light tanks have survived in some form or another to the 2000s, even to the present-day in some armies. Since modern tanks are less reliant on armor thickness, and gun caliber matters a little less when you can load a guided anti-tank missile into your gun (though shaped charge effectiveness still depends on ATGM diameter) or just bolt it externally, [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wiesel_AWC  Wiesel-style], Light Tanks have seen a resurgence as fire support for marines and air-dropped units, as well as taking priority in high altitude or jungle areas where keeping an MBT operable is very expensive. 
Examples: [[Siegfried]], [[M551 Sheridan]]

*'''Infantry/Cavalry tank'''- A paired concept developed by the British and the French (but mostly the British, due to the occupation of France and all), Infantry and Cavalry tanks were the first attempt at diversifying tanks, classifying them by role rather than weight division. The Brits kept this system throughout WW2, and because they were classified by role, infantry and cavalry tanks don't fit neatly within the weightclass categories. In fact, there is an infantry tank for [[Valentine|each]] [[Matilda II|weight]] [[Churchill|category]], including [[TOG 2|superheavy]].
**Infantry tanks would be used to support infantry, so they did not need to be fast, but they did need to be able to shrug off incoming fire and cross difficult terrain, so most were long and ungainly so they could be used as mobile cover and to cross trenches. In some cases, it [[M6 Heavy Tank|was more important to be used as cover by infantry than having exceptional armor]]. Tank on tank fighting wasn't really a concern at this point, since most tacticians, even the Germans, believed that towed support guns would be sufficient, so early-war infantry tanks didn't have the large caliber long cannons needed to punch through their own armor.  Examples: [[Churchill]], [[Matilda II]]
**Cavalry/Cruisers tanks were designed with mobility in mind so that they could exploit holes in the enemy's defenses and cause general [[FATAL|havoc in the enemy's rear]]. Just like the infantry tanks, they weren't really meant to fight other tanks either and instead attack targets of opportunity like supply trucks, so their guns weren't all that powerful, either. Some attempts were made at making Cruisers just as tough as infantry tanks, and at first this was a losing battle as guns would simply get better and render all that work moot. However eventually the cruisers got faster and were armed with better performing guns. These developments eventually led them to design "Universal" tanks post WW2, which were fast, decently armoured, and had guns that could punch through anything the enemy had. 
Examples: [[Cromwell Recce|Cromwell]]

*'''Heavy tank''' - "Heavies" is a catch-all term for big, fuck-off tanks with loads of armor. They're what most people think about when you think "tanks", and most of the first tanks built fit this mold even before they needed to distinguish them. What all Heavy Tanks have in common is their role: take a lot of shots and shoot as much as you take. They saw their peak in World War 2, with some post World War 2 developments, but changing technology saw the entire designation become obsolete in favor for Universal/MBT designs.
**Russia was the first to supersize their tanks. Their first attempts at "breakthrough" tanks were multi-turreted monstrosities (T-28, T-35) that had lots of guns but no armor, and were so complicated and redundant as to be useless. Their next attempt with the [[KV]] was much more successful, being practically impenetrable by German weapons when it was first encountered. But being a rushed design that prioritized armor over function meant that it would quickly become obsolete in favor of [[T-34|tanks that were easier to manufacture]]. Soviet heavy tank production culminated with the [[IS-2|IS]] series, tanks that were equipped with largebore (85mm, very quickly replaced by 122mm, standard now, but massive at the time) guns and used steeply-sloped armor over raw thickness. These tanks were actually the impetus for British and Americans to abandon heavy tanks for Universal designs, since they weren't planning on facing the Soviet tanks head-on, but instead destroy them at range. The Soviets were designing heavies until the death of Stalin, when the lack of pressure from him and the popularization of ATGMs made heavy tanks moot.
**Germany's experiments into heavy tanks also began with some multi-turreted breakthrough designs, but they quickly changed their minds when they encountered British and French infantry tanks. The Germans realized that what they needed was a tank that was at the same time heavily-armed, heavily-armored ''and'' with the mobility to keep up with the rest. The result was the [[Tiger 1]] and it ''was'' successful in that it did exactly what they wanted (big gun, heavy armor, good enough mobility) while also scaring the shit out of its opponents. But it was also over-engineered and was so complicated that it became unreliable, was simply too heavy for many roads and bridges and costed a lot of hard to get resources to make. Heavy tanks, while cool and absolute beasts on the battlefield when used correctly, were faced very real technological, physical, and environmental limits; and the Tiger was ([[Skub|depending on who you ask]]) either close to hitting or already past that limit. On top of it, while the Germans got what they wanted they didn't really know how to use it. In the mind of the people responsible for revolutionizing warfare with the Panzer divisions, Tigers were basically a special operations unit. Sure, they destroyed enemy tanks like nobody's business hanging back and firing at long range, but couldn't act as an actual breakthrough tanks. Doubling down when encouraged by the perceived success of the Tiger 1, the Nazi's proceeded to make [[Tiger II|them]] [[Jagdtiger|BIGGER]], to the point that they began making [[Baneblade|Superheavies that would never make sense in the real world]].
**The British and American heavies, on the other hand, were more reigned in, if for no other reason then both of them would have to put there tanks on boats to get them to mainland Europe. As mentioned, their [[M6 Heavy Tank|Infantry Tanks]] [[Churchill|''were'' their heavies]], and because they weren't trying to cram speed, armor, and gun into a single perfect tank, they were a bit more reliable than the German vehicles at the cost of giving up either speed or armor. Compared to the Soviets and Nazis they didn't go overboard with gun caliber, and instead settled for high-velocity 75-77mm caliber cannons that were 'good enough' against the vast majority of opponents. Should they run into anything requiring a larger gun; well, time to call in the tank destroyers/artillery/airforce. The Americans made ''one'' "Heavy Tank," the [[M26 Pershing]], which was designated a "Heavy" because it ''would'' have filled that role if it ever saw real service in WW2 (it was also important from morale perspective) but by the end of that war it was demoted to "Medium" status because of how it compared against the [[IS-2]]. 
Examples: [[Tiger 1]], [[Churchill]], [[IS-2]]

*'''Medium''' The most enduring class, Medium tanks are the most flexible, being much more capable than light tanks in a fight, but not as tough and cumbersome than heavies. Medium tanks were originally built with specific purposes in mind, rather than being generalists: During the Interwar period, the British divided their tanks between "[[Crusader (Tank)|Cruisers]]," which sacrificed armor for speed, and "[[Matilda II|Infantry tanks]]", which were meant to either support infantry advances, or hold the line as an anvil while the Cruisers maneuvered around to the [[FATAL|exposed rear]]. The first infantry tanks weren't as crazy huge as the heavies that succeeded them, nor were the Cruisers as light and defenseless as the light tanks that preceded them. 
**For their part, after the Germans [[Alpha Legion|rearmed in secret]], their arsenal was nothing but medium tanks. Just like the Brits, their tanks were specialized towards certain roles. Their [[Panzer III]]s were smaller and more mobile than the Panzer IV and built to fight other AFVs. Its guns, ranging from 30mm to 57mm, were adequate at the time for the job of killing trucks and punching tanks in the butt. The bigger [[Panzer IV]] did the same job as the Matilda as an infantry support vehicle, but was nowhere near as heavily armored (or slow for that matter.) 
**When they finally met on the battlefield, it was more or less stalemate. While the British infantry tanks were impenetrable from all but the closest ranges, the Germans could outmaneuver them and had superior fire-support. Of course, being early in the war, both armies went back to the drawing board, with Germany deciding to build heavy-tanks and up-gun the Panzer IV as a stop-gap, and the British doubling-down on their Cruiser-Infantry tank paradigm, creating the Cromwell and Churchill respectively. 
**While many [[/k/|wehraboos]] jack themselves off to pictures of Tigers in the mud, it was the humble medium tanks like the [[M4 Sherman]] and the [[T-34]] that really won the war by the sheer dint of them being completely [[Reasonable Marines|reasonable.]] It cannot be overstated how important it was to the war effort that the Allies put their resources into tanks that ''weren't'' struggling to even bear their weight, because rather than creating contrived solutions just to make their big caliber fantasy a reality, they settled for designs that were reliable, easy to produce and with 'good enough' performance. Sure, you may not have wanted to be inside the poor Sherman/T-34 facing off against a Tiger, but your comrades thank you for your sacrifice as they dog-pile on the tank that killed you ''and eventually win the war''. 
**The difference in firepower between the T-34/M4 Sherman and the German heavies did not last, however. Being flexible and having tonnage to spare, engineers were able to mount better performing guns on their chassis. Though it took some time, when the T-34-85 and the Sherman 76's/Firefly finally rolled out they were more than adequate at challenging German heavies. Sure, the German still had the advantage in kill range, but dog-piling them was now even easier and less costly thanks to the better guns. Foreshadowing the new lap of the arms-race between anti-tank weapons and armor thickness, the Western Allies would continue to develop Medium and Universal Tank concept until the advent of the Modern MBT.
Example: [[M4 Sherman]], [[T-34]], [[Panzer IV]]

*'''Universal/Main Battle Tank''' -  The advent of the MBT is ironic, because it became the standard when militaries realized that you can't mount enough armor to stop dedicated anti-tank weaponry on all sides, and front armor should be an absolute priority. As an example, M1s shrugged off direct hits from T-72s from the front during invasion of Iraq, but had to be upgraded with TUSKs so they won't be burned down by an RPG older than its' entire crew combined from the side. This realization came about at different times for different nations, and everyone had different ways of dealing with it. The Soviets, for example, continued to experiment with dedicated heavy tanks until the 50s (creating [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IS-7 monsters that weighted as much as Tiger II] in the process) so the Western Allies built guns to destroy it, and built the tank around the best way to use said guns. They are often separated by "generations".
**The first British "Universal" MBTs continued to be split between a "medium" MBT for close combat (The Centurion) and a "heavy" MBT (Conqueror) for ranged combat, before eventually settling for the modern [[Chieftain]] with its iconic 105mm Royal Ordnance gun, the gun that was exported to the rest of the West. Interestingly, Brits are <s>special</s> unique due to rocking rifled barrels on their modern MBTs.
**American design basically boiled down to capitalizing on what they had and continually improving it, only switching to the next generation when the last one was really no longer viable: starting with the M46 Patton and its multiple upgrades (the M47 and M48, upgraded versions of the M48 are still in reserve in many NATO countries), then the M60 and its multiple upgrades and eventually [[M1 Abrams|everyone's favorite dispenser of FREEDOM!]] and its multiple upgrades. [[fail|Just never mention the MBT-70 project...]]    
**The Soviets [[T55AM|made]] [[T-62|many]], [[T-72|many]] different MBTs in response to advancing Western technology, but they were all pretty much just modernizations of the previous design. Steeply angled armor, low profiles due to people sitting on top of the ammo, autoloaders on later models, easy to operate even for conscripts and being dirt-cheap to produce. Thanks to how Cold War worked, they were lethal opponents to the previous generation of MBTs they were made as a direct counter to; and a manageable but not neglectable threat to the next one... as long as the crew was competent, that is.
**Germans, when they got the chance to restart their own armament industry in the late fifties, realized that should WWIII arrive they would be first in line for another [[rape|bout of being rolled over]]. So they designed their machines to give them the best chance of holding the line long enough for the rest of NATO to arrive. Both the [[Leopard 1]] and the more modern [[Leopard 2]] emphasize high firepower and high mobility at the cost of armor, and Rheinmetall-Borsig's Rh 120 gun has become a staple of MBT main armament all over the globe.
**The French, in a display of irony are today pretty similar to the Germans: just like their ancient enemy they came later into the picture with vehicles that prioritized mobility warfare over attrition matches. And while many jokes were (and are still) made about their overall performance, you do ''not'' want to be on the recieving end of their AMX series or Leclerc's punishment. As of today, there are talk of a joint-venture between France and Germany for a successor to both the Leopard 2 and Leclerc.     
**Another feature you may notice in Universal to MBT tanks is that the turret gets larger and more elaborate as time goes on. Turrets would become the most well defended part of the vehicle, partly because if it got penetrated the ammo would likely blow, but also because ideally the only part you want exposed is the turret. NATO tanks were perfect for this "hull-down" deployment and could hit a Soviet tank before they could even consider rangefinding, while Soviet Tanks were very low to the ground and relied on slope and gun-fired ATGMs for extra range.
**For defense, most Western tanks use some sort of Composite Armor. Composite Armor is much thicker than metal, but lighter and much more resistant against anti-tank weapons. Kinetic shells can shatter before they make it through, and explosives find it harder to melt their way through layers of different, non-metal materials. Composite Armor is the reason why all Western Tanks have that flat smooth look, because steep angles actually make Composite armor less effective. So yes, the [[Leman Russ (tank)|Leman Russ]] makes some sense at least.
**Soviet countermeasures relied on both composite armor (the [[T-64]] was the first  tank equipped with it) and Explosive Reactive Armor. Think of an ice cream sandwich, but the filling is explosives. When hit, the explosive detonates and (hopefully) disrupts the projectile. Since then, tandem charges were created, specialized two-stage missiles that trigger the ERA prematurely with a smaller charge, before delivering the bigger, main charge, which is countered by new-generation ERA, to the point of some engineers suggesting to mount ''three'' charges in one ATGM. Needless to say, it's a little excessive in a world where concepts like Javelin and NLAW exist.
Examples: [[Chieftain]], [[M1 Abrams]], [[Leman Russ (tank)]]

*'''Super Heavy Tank''' Superheavies were conceived in World War I, essentially using the term "landship" literally. Armed with giant cannons (sometimes multiple ones, and usually reserved for artillery or battleships) and armor plating so heavy you'd mistake it for a fortress; they were meant to be the ultimate line breakers. While some prototypes were fleshed out, none (except for the French [[Wikipedia:Char 2C|Char 2C]], although it arrived too late to be used in WW1 and was obsolete in WW2) were put into service because they were simply too impractical. They were often too heavy to be supported by most roads (and off-road would have been worse), and were a logistical nightmare since their engines guzzled gas like no tomorrow. There was also the combined problem of being so slow and so large that they were easy targets for artillery spotters and bombers and it was near impossible to hide in the field due to it's large profile, so it was easy to disable the tank even before it got into effective range (No matter how much armor you put on a tank, artillery designed to level structures will eventually turn it into an expensive hunk of scrap metal). Overall, commanders found out that it was much better to send out multiple medium/heavy tanks to do the job, than sending a single super heavy. Still, because the idea of a multi-turret warship on treads is universally hella cool, that didn't stop writers from including such weapons in the arsenal of their armies, just to show how powerful they are. Super-Heavy prototypes had cannons that could range between 120mm-280mm, with the Nazis having many of the more absolutely ludicrous designs *cough*''Ratte''*cough*''Maus''*cough*. At the end of the day, this whole concept ended up being a useless waste of money in real life, at least until technology improves sufficiently.
Examples: [[Baneblade]], Maus

===Classes of Not Actually Tanks=== 

Despite having treads and a gun, the following vehicles are not considered tanks. The difference is that tanks are designed for frontline combat, while other vehicles with treads are designed to carry and support infantry (APC/IFV), bombard enemy positions with heavy artillery (SPGs), or act as general support weapon systems. Many of these vehicles are light enough to be deployed by aircraft, giving them an edge over tanks in response time to emerging threats. If it isn't a purpose built chassis, they are frequently based on the previous or current tank being used to simplify logistics.

*'''Armored Personnel Carrier''' APCs are light vehicles designed to carry infantry and not much else. They're usually given a heavy machine gun to support the infantry they're carrying into battle and to defend itself, but they're highly unlikely to have more firepower than that. They're designed to protect against small arms fire, not tank shells. Unlike IFVs, APCs are not expected to fight on the front due to their lackluster protection and armaments. However, they're sometimes also amphibious, something that the vast majority of tanks are not, allowing for both seafront assaults and quick getaways down waterways. Don't expect anything bigger than a HMG (that being under 20mm, usually also under or equal to 15mm) and a grenade launcher. Very rarely a low caliber (20 to under 25mm) autocannon may be present. May have a couple ATGMs (Anti Tank Guided Missile) to suppress the enemy but it isn't designed to stay in a firefight, an APC is first and foremost a transport.
Examples: [[Rhino]],  [[M113 Armored Personnel Carrier|M113]], Namer (notably, it is based on the Merkava, an MBT, and has unusually tough armor)

*'''Self-propelled gun (SPG)''' Vehicles armed with artillery weapons designed to bomb the enemy back into the stone age, ranging from howitzers, mortars, or missile systems. Typically built similarly to tanks, but sacrifice armor for their heavy guns since in normal circumstances they should be too far away to get shot at directly. Not to mention that some artillery pieces have a minimum range where they can drop their payload; thus, the SPG needs to put some distance between them and their target so that they can be in effective range. The advantage to having such artillery on an actual vehicle rather than being stationary, is that counter-battery fire can threaten static guns, while mobile guns can safely get out of the danger zone once they've delivered their payload. Self-propelled guns typically carry a 150+mm Howitzer, much larger than what any proper tank would carry. While mobile rocket platforms such as the [[BM-21 Hail]] or MLRS are more popular than Self-propelled guns and are capable of absolutely soaking an area in rocket spam, the SPG has the advantage of being able to sustain fire for longer periods of time. Besides that, most SPGs can also depress the barrel enough to engage something directly which can be useful in some situations (avoiding collateral damage, for instance). Do note that standard operating procedure for SPGs is to <s>leg it like a little bitch</s> tactically redeploy if the enemy close on their position: even if they carry a big gun, they are not front-line capable vehicles. Direct engagement is avoided even if a huge shell will ruin a punk's day just fine. May have a machine gun or two just in case (and theoretical anti-air in older models, mostly enough to scare them off with a burst of tracers), or an autocannon if the armed force is particularly passive aggressive and has money to blow on useless overkill.
Examples: [[Basilisk Artillery Gun]], [[M109 Howitzer]]

*'''Self-propelled anti-aircraft gun (SPAAG)''' Tank-like vehicles armed with weaponry designed to shoot aircraft out of the sky to provide mobile anti-air cover. There are only three real ways to shoot a very fast moving aircraft out of the sky. [[Dakka|First you can use as many rapid fire guns as you can to fill the air with as many bullets as you can and hope for one hit]]. Second, you can fire one big shell up into the air and at a certain height have it explode spraying shrapnel around it self to score the one hit you need, this are known as Anti Air Artillery, and are known in the English world by the name the Germans used during World War 2, flak. Both have been superseded by AA missiles which can track a target and put that shrapnel warhead closer to the target than just guess work and a slide rule can. Others use both guns and SAMs. As a sidenote, flak tanks (and half-tracks) equipped with heavy machine guns and small autocannons have a nasty reputation as being infantry trouncers as multiple barrels spewing lead at high speed will turn soft ground targets into mulch very quickly. Indeed, both the M19 MGMC and the M42 Duster were primarily used in this role despite having been envisioned as point-defense SPAAGs. That role had something of a heyday between WW2 and Vietnam, with the quad mount 50 cal M45's being nicknamed Kraut Mover and the twin 40mm's of the M42 being used to lumberjack VC hiding in treelines. Modern variants mostly have guided missiles and the BRRRRT variants are usually not mounted on tanks.      
Examples: [[Hydra Flak Tank]], [[ZSU 23-4 Shilka]]
 
*'''Infantry Fighting Vehicle''' Known as IFVs, these almost-tanks are capable of transporting infantry forces, while being armored and armed enough to be of support to the field, unlike light tanks. However, unlike true tanks, IFVs can't be expected to stand up to enemy armor. Modern IFV's can have anti tank missiles, but with their tin can armor, going toe to toe with a main battle tank is suicide and so it supports regular tanks or takes on enemy armor in emergencies. While APCs and IFV can share similar roles and armaments today, the main way to distinguish them is with their main gun: anything that has a main gun smaller than 25mm is classed as an APC, and anything higher is an IFV. IFVs are designed to stay and fight (though not toe to toe with enemy tanks) and act as direct fire support.   Effectively, when comparing a squad with an IFV vs a squad with an APC, the later is an infantry squad with a transport, the former is a (light) tank that can dismount some of its crew.
Examples: [[Chimera Transport|Chimera]], [[Razorback]], most [[Land Raider]] patterns (albeit with the difference that they can hold their own against regular tanks just fine), [[BMP]], [[Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle|M2 Bradley]]

*'''Armored Reconnaissance Vehicle''' In some ways they can be confused for IFVs in that these vehicles are similarly equipped and focus on mobility, and may even have limited troop capacities. But where they mainly differ is in doctrinal use: Armored Recon is mainly used to provide independent support to a recon team rather than support front-line troops. As such, troop carrying capacity isn't as necessary if it has any at all. See below the Infantry vs Cavalry Tank distinction as it can apply here as well, since modern cavalry units use such vehicles. Some IFV's share a base chassis with ARVs , those ARVs are usually called Cavalry Fighting Vehicles (CFV).
Examples: [[Salamander Reconnaissance Tank]], [[LAV-25]], [[M113 MRV]], [[Bradley_Fighting_Vehicle|M3 Bradley]] 

*'''Tank Destroyer''' Tank destroyers are specialist armor designed for one thing in mind: knocking out armor and not much else. Some are turreted, and some aren't. Most modern ones use guided missiles, all historical and some modern use cannons. What makes them not tanks is a matter of technicality. Tanks are designed for general military purpose (so useful for a range of tasks) while tank destroyers are for only one thing, destroying armor (especially on vehicles). After World War 2 we figured out that since tanks fought other tanks so often anyway tank destroyers don't really make sense so we upgraded the guns on regular tanks. While the role of “Light Anti-Armor Vehicle” was taken by ATGM carriers, which are mostly modified APCS and IFVs, have the ability to kill tanks while being very mobile and easy to transport. A handful of cannon-armed Tank Destroyers still exist, some tracked, others wheeled, but they're a rare breed. They tend to be considered for use with airborne troops in need of anti-armor capability (since a proper tank tends to be too heavy to airdrop) and for certain strategic mobility concerns, usually built by replaced IFV turrets with a cannon equipped one, practically making a wheeled light tank. 
Examples: [[Leman Russ Battle Tank#Destroyer Tank Hunter|Destroyer Tank Hunter]], [[Leman Russ Battle Tank#Leman Russ Vanquisher|Leman Russ Vanquisher]], [[M901 ITV]]

*'''Assault guns''' Similar to tank destroyers, assault guns differ in one important way: instead of an anti-tank gun, they're armed with a anti-building weapon, frequently a howitzer. These tended to be fairly big and fairly heavy compared to SPGs, because they're made to get in close to heavy fortifications. After World War 2 assault guns became light air-dropped weapons to support airborne troops if they encountered hard targets. They are comparatively very rare in modern orders of battle. Most that remain are in the Third World (usually WW2 Soviet vintage, they made a LOT of things), but some nations use IFV's equipped with cannon turrets, effectively making wheeled or tracked tank destroyer assault gun hybrids.
Examples: [[Vindicator]], Churchill AVRE

*'''Flame tank''' a tank (going from tankette to heavy, all types were used in WWII) with a [[meme|werfer zat werf flammen]] instead of a big gun as main weapon. Only used in the 1920s-1950s as they were quickly rendered obsolete (it was more cost-effective and just as efficient to have standard tanks have a flamethrower as a coaxial gun), though incendiary weapons of various sorts are still used today, mainly in artillery roles. Typically unpopular with both forces using and opposing them for many reasons: the implications of this weapon were very harsh as the typical man-portable flamethrower has a range of 60 meters max (video games lied to ME?!) and their heavy mechanized versions could reach most of a quarter mile with their concentrated hydraulic spray of diesel fuel. Flame tanks were supposed to start with a "Wet fire", basically spraying the fuel without igniting it into bunkers or fortifications to get enemy units to realize just how hard they were fucked, really weren't protected from the coming blaze at all and in turn they would surrender before being cooked to death. Which a vast majority actually did when '''''hosed with gasoline'''''. The problem was that, due to either open fighting, soldiers that just wouldn't surrender or sadistic crews/commanders, the weapons were often fired outright the first time around to horrific physical and psychological impact on both sides - burning, screaming soldiers, the fumes making crews sick, thick diesel smoke inhalation or oxygen depletion asphyxiating those in poorly ventilated areas (especially caves in the Pacific Front) and the smell of burnt human flesh permanently seared in their minds meant that instant life derailing post-traumatic stress disorder was a very common side effect of witnessing a flame tank in action. Another was that flame tank crews that were captured were usually subjected to torture and summary revenge executions. In the end, flame tanks are remembered as a job nobody wanted to do, an enemy nobody wanted to face, a weapon that accomplished little that soldiers using the man-portable variety (which already had a bad rep' but was begrudgingly tolerated by soldiers as tactically necessary to avoid chemical warfare, nobody in their right mind wanted to clear caves out directly) could not do and pushed the propaganda and soldier's beliefs forward that the enemy truly were barbarians and made of evil, all pushed ahead because a Commissa -- I mean General far removed from the field said they were necessary. Real life Grimdark indeed.
Examples: L3/35 "Lanciafiamme", M3 "Satan", M4 "Crocodile", Flammpanzer III, Churchill Crocodile, Kliment Voroshilov model 8, OT-34,

And finally, something of a special case:

[[File:Hilux.jpeg|200px|thumb|right|What a "technical" looks like over history, as demonstrated in this meme photoshop<ref>We'll ignore that there's only one actual Hilux in this "ad", for the sheer joy of imagining Toyota advertising in glossy magazines to warlords</ref>.]]
*The '''"[[Pickup Trucks|Technical]]"''', also known as "non-standard tactical vehicle" or "light improvised fighting vehicle". Essentially, just a pickup truck with a machine gun (or some other semi-portable weapon, like an anti-air or anti-tank weapon) mounted in the back. Originally named "Technical" because some of the first notable versions were hired by charities operating in very dangerous territories in Africa, and since said charities were forbidden from calling them "mercenaries", they euphemistically referred to the money used to hire them as "technical assistance grants". The Technical's most shining moment was probably the "[[wikipedia:Toyota War|Great Toyota War]]" of 1984, where Technicals, armed with precision anti-tank missiles from France, beat a Libyan force with actual tanks. [[Pun| Technically]], [[counts as]] an Infantry Fighting Vehicle, but fills a distinct, unique role in modern warfare: the cheapest, frequently fastest to make<ref>And in mountainous terrain, sometimes the fastest full stop; one of the reasons U.S. Special Forces used technicals in Afganistan was because a 4-wheel drive truck can frequently get into places no other vehicle can.</ref> IFV available to just about anybody with access to weapons and trucks, useful for projecting power and supporting infantry on the quick and cheap.
Examples: Too many to list, although a Toyota Hilux with an M2 Browning or DShK is probably the most popular Real Life combination, [[Goliath Truck]]