Tank - Revision history

73.69.193.6: Undo revision 1008350 by 192.42.116.179 (talk)

2026-03-26T01:06:51Z

Undo revision 1008350 by 192.42.116.179 (talk)

Show changes

192.42.116.179: Blanked the page

2026-02-10T23:25:52Z

Blanked the page

Show changes

imported>Administrator: 363 revisions imported

2023-06-23T13:44:07Z

363 revisions imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:44, 23 June 2023
(No difference)

imported>Administrator: 1 revision imported

2023-06-19T13:59:35Z

1 revision imported

← Older revision	Revision as of 13:59, 19 June 2023
(No difference)

1d4chan>MiaoKobayashisDragonMaid: Links

2023-02-16T20:32:01Z

Links

← Older revision		Revision as of 20:32, 16 February 2023
Line 232:		Line 232:

	[[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>.]]		[[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 '''"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.		*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]]		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]]

47.5.179.247 at 23:51, 4 February 2023

2023-02-04T23:51:54Z

1d4chan>Saarlacfunkel: /* Classes of Not Actually Tanks */

2023-01-27T09:55:21Z

Classes of Not Actually Tanks

← Older revision		Revision as of 09:55, 27 January 2023
Line 232:		Line 232:

	[[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>.]]		[[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 '''"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 IFV available to just about anybody with access to weapons and trucks, useful for projecting power and supporting infantry on the quick and cheap.		*The '''"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]]		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]]

2601:1C0:4500:A540:0:0:0:8ACF: /* Classes of Proper Tanks */

2023-01-25T00:10:26Z

Classes of Proper Tanks

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:10, 25 January 2023
Line 170:		Line 170:

	*'''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/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. 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]]		**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, ~~but that became~~ a losing battle as guns would simply get better and render all that work moot. ~~The Cruisers~~ got faster and were ~~eventually~~ 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.		**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]]		Examples: [[Cromwell Recce\|Cromwell]]

Line 177:		Line 177:
	**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.		**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]].		**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. 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]].		**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]]		Examples: [[Tiger 1]], [[Churchill]], [[IS-2]]

1d4chan>SaltyMan: /* Support */

2023-01-12T16:10:11Z

Support

← Older revision		Revision as of 16:10, 12 January 2023
Line 110:		Line 110:
	**'''Internal Communication''' An intercom is extremely important inside a tank because, well, tanks are '''[[Noise Marines\|LOUD]]''', and it's the only way for the crew to talk to each other without going hoarse yelling at each other. And it's not a joke: before the advent of intercom the commander often had to kick the driver on the left or right shoulder to indicate the direction he wanted him to turn because even yelling wasn't working with the ruckus of the moving tank. Modern intercoms often have double and sometimes even triple-redundant systems, because it is that important for the commander to tell his driver where to go and his gunner where to shoot.		**'''Internal Communication''' An intercom is extremely important inside a tank because, well, tanks are '''[[Noise Marines\|LOUD]]''', and it's the only way for the crew to talk to each other without going hoarse yelling at each other. And it's not a joke: before the advent of intercom the commander often had to kick the driver on the left or right shoulder to indicate the direction he wanted him to turn because even yelling wasn't working with the ruckus of the moving tank. Modern intercoms often have double and sometimes even triple-redundant systems, because it is that important for the commander to tell his driver where to go and his gunner where to shoot.
	**'''External Communication''' Another not be overstated improvement is keeping in touch with other tanks as well as whoever is in charge. Having a system to coordinate multiple units determines whether or not a tank is a rolling pillbox or a decisive, mobile weapon of war. Inter-war tanks often relied on flag signals with only the company leader having a radio for coordination, but in the early thirties [[Nazi\|some guy named Guderian]] ordered "Each vehicle must have its own radio; no exceptions!" and the rest is history. Indeed, in both the battle for France and the early Operation Barbarossa the German tanks were outnumbered, undergunned and underarmored compared to their opponents but thanks to their radios, they were able to outmaneuver the enemy and take them apart. (Conversely, during the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe failed to similarly radio-coordinate their fighter planes whereas the RAF did, giving the British a very significant advantage.) Cue everyone doing the same (even if Soviet tank crews actually communicated mostly in kicks and flags until well into 1943 because early Soviet radios were shit tier and tended to break in the first minute of every goddamn engagement), and still doing it today. The major improvement modern communication systems have brought is the ability to transmit not only voices but also data, which makes keeping everyone informed of the whereabouts of one's allies and enemies much faster and easier. Since WWII, many tanks also come with a built-in wire phone in an armored box on the back called the “tank-infantry or grunt phone” for infantry to talk directly to the tank commander for fire support and coordination of combined arms tactics. This may seem redundant with the use of wireless walkie-talkies but is a godsend in the case that airwave frequencies are jammed and the platoon commander needs to direct the tank to provide armored cover and supporting fire for infantry in a chaotic firefight without rolling over their allies.		**'''External Communication''' Another not be overstated improvement is keeping in touch with other tanks as well as whoever is in charge. Having a system to coordinate multiple units determines whether or not a tank is a rolling pillbox or a decisive, mobile weapon of war. Inter-war tanks often relied on flag signals with only the company leader having a radio for coordination, but in the early thirties [[Nazi\|some guy named Guderian]] ordered "Each vehicle must have its own radio; no exceptions!" and the rest is history. Indeed, in both the battle for France and the early Operation Barbarossa the German tanks were outnumbered, undergunned and underarmored compared to their opponents but thanks to their radios, they were able to outmaneuver the enemy and take them apart. (Conversely, during the Battle of Britain, the Luftwaffe failed to similarly radio-coordinate their fighter planes whereas the RAF did, giving the British a very significant advantage.) Cue everyone doing the same (even if Soviet tank crews actually communicated mostly in kicks and flags until well into 1943 because early Soviet radios were shit tier and tended to break in the first minute of every goddamn engagement), and still doing it today. The major improvement modern communication systems have brought is the ability to transmit not only voices but also data, which makes keeping everyone informed of the whereabouts of one's allies and enemies much faster and easier. Since WWII, many tanks also come with a built-in wire phone in an armored box on the back called the “tank-infantry or grunt phone” for infantry to talk directly to the tank commander for fire support and coordination of combined arms tactics. This may seem redundant with the use of wireless walkie-talkies but is a godsend in the case that airwave frequencies are jammed and the platoon commander needs to direct the tank to provide armored cover and supporting fire for infantry in a chaotic firefight without rolling over their allies.
	***'''IFF''' Piggybacking on the improved communications and electronics of modern vehicles, the "Identification, Friend or Foe" system is basically a nifty little system that transmits a 'I'm a friend, don't shoot me.' signal to any other unit in the vicinity when queried and (if all goes well, for it is not always 100% reliable, especially amongst multi-nation task forces) will prevent friendly fire incidents. A simpler version of this would be IR identity stickers posted on the hull for aircraft to see from afar or RFID tags that can be read with the right scanning equipment. ''OR,'' if you're Russian, just covering your vehicles turret to track in [[Administratum\|hastily spraypainted]] "Z"s to tell the other conscripts not to shoot at this particular T64, and tell the Ukrainians to line their Javelins up.		***'''IFF''' Piggybacking on the improved communications and electronics of modern vehicles, the "Identification, Friend or Foe" system is basically a nifty little system that transmits a 'I'm a friend, don't shoot me.' signal to any other unit in the vicinity when queried and (if all goes well, for it is not always 100% reliable, especially amongst multi-nation task forces) will prevent friendly fire incidents. A simpler version of this would be IR identity stickers posted on the hull for aircraft to see from afar or RFID tags that can be read with the right scanning equipment. ''OR,'' if you're [[Ork\|Russian]], just covering your vehicles turret to track in [[Administratum\|hastily spraypainted]] "Z"s to tell the other conscripts not to shoot at this particular T64, and tell the Ukrainians to line their Javelins up.

	*'''Detection:''' Tanks have notoriously bad situational awareness, so people came up with solutions to improve it. The most basic instrument is of course, Eyeball Mk. I, initially relying on either vision slots, optical instruments such as periscopes, or the commander poking his head outside of the tank. In WWII, the Germans installed an armored cupola with vision slits atop the turret in order to improve the commander's sight while 'buttoned up'; near the end, they also came up with primitive infrared illuminators as well. Nowadays, you have an array of cameras, night-vision, and infrared/thermal imagers to give you a clearer picture of things. Some tanks also have an automated laser warning system to detect when enemy vehicles have painted them with a rangefinder or are locked on by a homing weapon. Once it detects the laser, it will warn the crew and taken defensive actions such as using smoke grenade launchers, active protection systems, or laser jammers. Lastly, many militaries rely on combined arms use of reconnaissance units (in the form of light vehicles, mounted infantry, aircraft, or drones) to screen the area ahead of tanks to minimize the risks of ambushes.		*'''Detection:''' Tanks have notoriously bad situational awareness, so people came up with solutions to improve it. The most basic instrument is of course, Eyeball Mk. I, initially relying on either vision slots, optical instruments such as periscopes, or the commander poking his head outside of the tank. In WWII, the Germans installed an armored cupola with vision slits atop the turret in order to improve the commander's sight while 'buttoned up'; near the end, they also came up with primitive infrared illuminators as well. Nowadays, you have an array of cameras, night-vision, and infrared/thermal imagers to give you a clearer picture of things. Some tanks also have an automated laser warning system to detect when enemy vehicles have painted them with a rangefinder or are locked on by a homing weapon. Once it detects the laser, it will warn the crew and taken defensive actions such as using smoke grenade launchers, active protection systems, or laser jammers. Lastly, many militaries rely on combined arms use of reconnaissance units (in the form of light vehicles, mounted infantry, aircraft, or drones) to screen the area ahead of tanks to minimize the risks of ambushes.
Line 123:		Line 123:
	*'''Autoloader:''' A mechanism for automatically loading shells into the main gun, obviating the need for a loader. This is less of an obvious decision than it would seem. For decades, human loaders were actually regarded as better than mechanical loaders because they were generally faster and better: most early autoloaders had to depress the gun to a minimum elevation before loading and had difficulty switching between different types of shells. An autoloader that is put out of action by mechanical failure or damage will either make the cannon more difficult to load by hand or at worst, render it entirely inoperable, requiring extensive repairs in order to be restored to fighting condition. Plus, as mentioned in the previous section, having a human loader lends versatility and redundancy to a tank crew, as the loader could function as an additional pair of eyes and hands whenever needed. Initially, the main advantage to automating the loading process was that you could afford to have one less crew member, thus reducing overall weight. Newer developments however, can easily match or surpass human loaders in terms of loading speed, with the additional benefit of never tiring.		*'''Autoloader:''' A mechanism for automatically loading shells into the main gun, obviating the need for a loader. This is less of an obvious decision than it would seem. For decades, human loaders were actually regarded as better than mechanical loaders because they were generally faster and better: most early autoloaders had to depress the gun to a minimum elevation before loading and had difficulty switching between different types of shells. An autoloader that is put out of action by mechanical failure or damage will either make the cannon more difficult to load by hand or at worst, render it entirely inoperable, requiring extensive repairs in order to be restored to fighting condition. Plus, as mentioned in the previous section, having a human loader lends versatility and redundancy to a tank crew, as the loader could function as an additional pair of eyes and hands whenever needed. Initially, the main advantage to automating the loading process was that you could afford to have one less crew member, thus reducing overall weight. Newer developments however, can easily match or surpass human loaders in terms of loading speed, with the additional benefit of never tiring.

	Due to their desire to man more tanks for the same unit size (cutting crew from 4 down to 3), the Soviets went in heavily for carousel-style autoloaders, storing ammunition beneath the main turret. One unfortunate (but hilarious) drawback of these autoloaders is that in the event of a strike to the turret (especially by a top-down anti-tank guided missile), this will often lead to all of the rounds cooking off, blowing the turret off the tank and killing the crew. Newer style autoloaders, such as that used on the Leclerc, mitigate this concern with the use of blowout panels.		Due to their desire to man more tanks for the same unit size (cutting crew from 4 down to 3), the Soviets went in heavily for carousel-style autoloaders, storing ammunition beneath the main turret. One unfortunate (but hilarious) drawback of these autoloaders is that in the event of a strike to the turret (especially by a top-down anti-tank guided missile), this will often lead to all of the rounds cooking off, blowing the turret off the tank and killing the crew (examples can be now found all over Ukraine). Newer style autoloaders, such as that used on the Leclerc, mitigate this concern with the use of blowout panels.

	*'''Remote Weapon Systems''' The pintle-mounted gun is great for clearing out and suppressing infantry because it can rotate 360 degrees and is at the top of the tank, so it has a bird's-eye view of the area. Unfortunately, popping your head out to shoot at people makes you a prime target for snipers. A solution for this is having the pintle gun be virtually controlled from the inside by a remote weapon system, so the gunner can still shoot at targets without threat of catching a bullet in the face the moment they peek out of the hatch. Granted the gun itself can still be shot, but it's a lot easier to replace a machine gun than a trained crewman. The aforementioned blurb regarding replacing the MG with grenade launchers also apply here.		*'''Remote Weapon Systems''' The pintle-mounted gun is great for clearing out and suppressing infantry because it can rotate 360 degrees and is at the top of the tank, so it has a bird's-eye view of the area. Unfortunately, popping your head out to shoot at people makes you a prime target for snipers. A solution for this is having the pintle gun be virtually controlled from the inside by a remote weapon system, so the gunner can still shoot at targets without threat of catching a bullet in the face the moment they peek out of the hatch. Granted the gun itself can still be shot, but it's a lot easier to replace a machine gun than a trained crewman. The aforementioned blurb regarding replacing the MG with grenade launchers also apply here.

1d4chan>Val Killmore: /* Classes of Not Actually Tanks */

2023-01-12T15:44:20Z

Classes of Not Actually Tanks

← Older revision		Revision as of 15:44, 12 January 2023
Line 224:		Line 224:

	*'''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.		*'''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]],		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.		*'''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.

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:10, 25 January 2023
Line 170:		Line 170:

	*'''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/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. 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]]		**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, ~~but that became~~ a losing battle as guns would simply get better and render all that work moot. ~~The Cruisers~~ got faster and were ~~eventually~~ 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.		**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]]		Examples: [[Cromwell Recce\|Cromwell]]

Line 177:		Line 177:
	**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.		**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]].		**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. 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]].		**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]]		Examples: [[Tiger 1]], [[Churchill]], [[IS-2]]

← Older revision		Revision as of 23:51, 4 February 2023
Line 12:		Line 12:
	[[image:Char_FT-17.jpg\|thumb\|300px\|right\|A French Renault FT-17 Tank, the first tank to have the rough layout that would be the norm for tanks (Crew in the front, top mounted 360 degree turret for main gun, engine in back)]]		[[image:Char_FT-17.jpg\|thumb\|300px\|right\|A French Renault FT-17 Tank, the first tank to have the rough layout that would be the norm for tanks (Crew in the front, top mounted 360 degree turret for main gun, engine in back)]]

	A '''tank''' is a tracked, armored combat vehicle. The term is often limited to vehicles intended for direct combat, (e.g. as opposed to self-propelled artillery, which ~~stay~~ to the rear) or armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, which are on the front line but are primarily tasked with carrying soldiers as opposed to fighting directly, and may not necessarily be tracked. Their invention revolutionized warfare in the 20th century, and any wargame set in or after that time period, or in alternate universes with similar or more advanced technology levels, will have plenty of attention devoted to them -- or to whatever made them obsolete or of secondary importance to militaries (e.g. [[BattleTech]]).		A '''tank''' is a tracked, armored combat vehicle. The term is often limited to vehicles intended for direct combat, (e.g. as opposed to self-propelled artillery, which stays to the rear) or armored personnel carriers and infantry fighting vehicles, which are on the front line but are primarily tasked with carrying soldiers as opposed to fighting directly and may not necessarily be tracked. Their invention revolutionized warfare in the 20th century, and any wargame set in or after that time period, or in alternate universes with similar or more advanced technology levels, will have plenty of attention devoted to them -- or to whatever made them obsolete or of secondary importance to militaries (e.g. [[BattleTech]]).

	The idea of an armored fighting vehicle dates back at least to [[wikipedia:Leonardo's fighting vehicle\|Leonardo da Vinci]] and was explored by [[H. G. Wells]] and a few theorists, but the modern tank was proposed shortly before World War I, and was then spurred to production by the war itself. When the war on the Western Front got bogged down in trenches, the British Royal Navy, who had already had some success with mobile ~~armoured~~ car groups, had the idea to use tracked, armored vehicles with guns to break the stalemate. The name "tank" became attached to the vehicle as a codename to disguise the purpose of the large metal bodies being built. After the first tanks rolled onto the battlefield, other countries called them "battle wagons", "armors", "assault vehicles", and other more descriptive names, but the Anglosphere was stuck with calling them "tanks". (Interestingly, the original British Tank, which looked like a tractor with a metal box on top of it was called "Little Willy".)		The idea of an armored fighting vehicle dates back at least to [[wikipedia:Leonardo's fighting vehicle\|Leonardo da Vinci]] and was explored by [[H. G. Wells]] and a few theorists, but the modern tank was proposed shortly before World War I, and was then spurred to production by the war itself. When the war on the Western Front got bogged down in trenches, the British Royal Navy, who had already had some success with mobile armored car groups, had the idea to use tracked, armored vehicles with guns to break the stalemate. The name "tank" became attached to the vehicle as a codename to disguise the purpose of the large metal bodies being built. After the first tanks rolled onto the battlefield, other countries called them "battle wagons", "armors", "assault vehicles", and other more descriptive names, but the Anglosphere was stuck with calling them "tanks". (Interestingly, the original British Tank, which looked like a tractor with a metal box on top of it was called "Little Willy".)

	==Common Features of the Tank==		==Common Features of the Tank==
Line 20:		Line 20:
	Tanks were built with pretty much any set of features you could imagine, but over time, the militaries of the world settled on several common key features:		Tanks were built with pretty much any set of features you could imagine, but over time, the militaries of the world settled on several common key features:

	# One single main gun, carefully chosen so it is ~~both~~ powerful enough to knock out other tanks with armor-piercing shots and still able to use high-explosive shells to deal with 'soft' targets.		# One single main gun, carefully chosen so it is powerful enough to knock out other tanks with armor-piercing shots and still able to use high-explosive shells to deal with 'soft' targets.
	# A turret to house the main gun, to allow the tank to shoot at targets without having to pivot the entire vehicle.		# A turret to house the main gun, to allow the tank to shoot at targets without having to pivot the entire vehicle.
	# Good protection against most battlefield weapons, with a heavily-~~armoured~~ front face to defeat anti-tank weapons.		# Good protection against most battlefield weapons, with a heavily-armored front face to defeat anti-tank weapons.
	# An engine with a lot of torque and horsepower to give it both decent acceleration and top speed. The ability to run on multiple types of fuel is a big plus.		# An engine with a lot of torque and horsepower to give it both decent acceleration and top speed. The ability to run on multiple types of fuel is a big plus.
	# Tracks with independent long-travel suspension for each roadwheel, to improve mobility.		# Tracks with independent long-travel suspension for each roadwheel, to improve mobility.
Line 28:		Line 28:
	# As of the early 2020s, some kind of thermal imager. While not all militaries have them, these things are "must-haves" for a functional tank: A thermal imager allows you to fight at night, spot enemies, and have greater situational awareness, to the point of making an otherwise bad tank actually useful, and the absence of one turning an otherwise good tank into a dead tank walking.		# As of the early 2020s, some kind of thermal imager. While not all militaries have them, these things are "must-haves" for a functional tank: A thermal imager allows you to fight at night, spot enemies, and have greater situational awareness, to the point of making an otherwise bad tank actually useful, and the absence of one turning an otherwise good tank into a dead tank walking.

	Basically, tanks boil down to three main features: firepower, defense, and mobility. Trying to specialize in one or two attributes tended to come at the expense of second or third attributes. The heavier your guns and/or ~~armour~~, the slower the tank will be, for instance, while a vehicle made for mobility has to sacrifice either protection or the size of its guns. Nowadays, tanks designers try to maximize all three attributes by being cleverer about achieving their goals, with their main limitations being weight and profile. Additionally, a fourth factor to consider in design are support systems: while not necessarily integral to the design of a tank, they are nonetheless essential in allowing it to work as one, as evidenced by the radio.		Basically, tanks boil down to three main features: firepower, defense, and mobility. Trying to specialize in one or two attributes tended to come at the expense of second or third attributes. The heavier your guns and/or armor, the slower the tank will be, for instance, while a vehicle made for mobility has to sacrifice either protection or the size of its guns. Nowadays, tanks designers try to maximize all three attributes by being cleverer about achieving their goals, with their main limitations being weight and profile. Additionally, a fourth factor to consider in design are support systems: while not necessarily integral to the design of a tank, they are nonetheless essential in allowing it to work as one, as evidenced by the radio.

	===Offense===		===Offense===

	As mentioned in the summary above, one of the if not ''the'' defining attribute of the modern tank is its main gun. A modern (i.e. third gen and up) main battle tank must be able to engage any threat it encounters on the battlefield (and occasionally flying above it), hence the gun itself is a carefully weighed compromise between raw firepower, versatility and overall mass. Nowadays most tanks sport a gun with a ~~calibre~~ between 100mm and 125mm. ~~Said~~ gun must be capable of firing a wide range of different projectile types: at the bare minimum, it should have ammunition specialized for dealing with hard targets such as opposing tanks, or soft targets such as infantry.		As mentioned in the summary above, one of the if not ''the'' defining attribute of the modern tank is its main gun. A modern (i.e. third gen and up) main battle tank must be able to engage any threat it encounters on the battlefield (and occasionally flying above it), hence the gun itself is a carefully weighed compromise between raw firepower, versatility, and overall mass. Nowadays most tanks sport a gun with a caliber between 100mm and 125mm. The said gun must be capable of firing a wide range of different projectile types: at the bare minimum, it should have ammunition specialized for dealing with hard targets such as opposing tanks, or soft targets such as infantry.

	Historically though, this was not always the case. The very first tanks, like the ~~british~~ Mk.IV and the german A7V didn't really have a primary armament but were bristling with guns and ~~machineguns~~. Initially, side-mounted sponsons were adopted for carrying armament because they could aim downwards into trenches. Obviously, as soon as trenches fell out of favour, so too did sponsons. Additionally, as an enemy tank will never be in said trench, [[Land Raider\|mounting an anti-tank weapon in the sponson is utterly retarded.]]		Historically though, this was not always the case. The very first tanks, like the British Mk.IV and the german A7V didn't really have a primary armament but were bristling with guns and machine guns. Initially, side-mounted sponsons were adopted for carrying armament because they could aim downwards into trenches. Obviously, as soon as trenches fell out of favour, so too did sponsons. Additionally, as an enemy tank will never be in said trench, [[Land Raider\|mounting an anti-tank weapon in the sponson is utterly retarded.]]

	The first ~~one~~ to figure out the 'definitive' solution as described above were the French with their Renault FT-17 (pictured above), the very first to adopt a turret for the main armament of the tank. While the FT-17 was plagued by a host of teething problems ~~it's~~ overall design was so efficient and cost-effective that ''absolutely everyone'' jumped upon the bandwagon at the end of WWI, and (almost all) the rest is history. Indeed, at one point all nations toyed with the idea of multi-turreted tanks or ''land battleship'' concept, [[Baneblade\|whereby a tank would have multiple turrets each with their own weapon]]. The idea was that the tank could attack in all directions at once, but in practice this led to horribly oversized monstrosities that were less efficient than simply building more tanks with the same armament, and a smallest bomb from a rickety airplane dropped in terminal velocity would obliterate it and ruin weeks of factory man hours and materials. The madness then died down and coalesced into two main lines of ~~though~~ right before WW2: The Americans, British and French limited the ~~amount~~ of guns to two on their heavier tanks, one bigger casemate-mounted howitzer to deal with infantry/pillboxes and one smaller turreted AT gun (see also Char B1, the early Churchills and the M3 Lee). The Germans on their side decided 'fuck it!' and just went for specialized tanks sporting either a small-bore long-barreled AT gun or a broad-bore short-barelled howitzer, and then just had both type collaborate on the battlefield (see early Pz.III and Pz.IV). And this went swimmingly for them, at least until the Russians finally entered the dance in 1941 and deployed the revolutionary T-34, whose 76mm gun demonstrated it was possible to have a tank gun both capable of tackling armour ''and'' blowing stuff up with explosive shells, setting the precedent that stands up to this day.		The first ones to figure out the 'definitive' solution as described above were the French with their Renault FT-17 (pictured above), the very first to adopt a turret for the main armament of the tank. While the FT-17 was plagued by a host of teething problems, its overall design was so efficient and cost-effective that ''absolutely everyone'' jumped upon the bandwagon at the end of WWI, and (almost all) the rest is history. Indeed, at one point all nations toyed with the idea of multi-turreted tanks or ''land battleship'' concept, [[Baneblade\|whereby a tank would have multiple turrets each with their own weapon]]. The idea was that the tank could attack in all directions at once, but in practice, this led to horribly oversized monstrosities that were less efficient than simply building more tanks with the same armament, and the smallest bomb from a rickety airplane dropped in terminal velocity would obliterate it and ruin weeks of factory man, hours and materials. The madness then died down and coalesced into two main lines of thought right before WW2: The Americans, British, and French limited the number of guns to two on their heavier tanks, one bigger casemate-mounted howitzer to deal with infantry/pillboxes and one smaller turreted AT gun (see also Char B1, the early Churchills and the M3 Lee). The Germans on their side decided 'fuck it!' and just went for specialized tanks sporting either a small-bore long-barreled AT gun or a broad-bore short-barelled howitzer, and then just had both type collaborate on the battlefield (see early Pz.III and Pz.IV). And this went swimmingly for them, at least until the Russians finally entered the dance in 1941 and deployed the revolutionary T-34, whose 76mm gun demonstrated it was possible to have a tank gun both capable of tackling armour ''and'' blowing stuff up with explosive shells, setting the precedent that stands up to this day.

	Once at that point, the overall design was definitively set and guns just got bigger and better from thereon. Starting with the Soviet T-62, they started to go from rifled to smoothbore guns. If you are in any way familiar with the development of gunpowder weapons, this may seem like a baffling decision, but there is a good reason. Anti-tank shot went from a simple lump of steel to sub-calibre munitions like APCR and APDS, as detailed on the [[cannon]] page. These essentially try to be better at penetrating by focusing more energy on a smaller area. A later development was APFSDS, the famous "Silver Bullet" or arrow-like penetrators which turned Saddam's tanks into ooey gooey explody Swiss cheesey. Likewise, they also started using HEAT shells, which are designed to use the power of a focused explosion to bore their way through armour; at one point, they were so effective that tanks were designed specifically around their use. Both of these munitions types actually ''suffered'' from the rotational forces imparted by a rifled barrel. For APCR, APDS, and APFSDS, rifling does not stabilize subcalibre rounds nearly as well; likewise, the shaped charge jet from HEAT shells doesn't hold together as well if it's spinning itself apart. Getting rid of the rifling solved a huge number of other problems: it made it easier to fire missiles out of the guns, and also meant that you could fire higher velocity projectiles without having to reline the bore more frequently. The main exception was HESH, which was essentially a shell full of plastic explosive that flattens itself against targets; upon detonation, it creates a shockwave that is transmitted through the material, causing it to break and shatter if concrete, or to spall off into deadly shrapnel if steel. The spin imparted by rifled barrels helps the explosive pat out more evenly, hence why it is still commonly used by the Brits in their tanks.		Once at that point, the overall design was definitively set and guns just got bigger and better from thereon. Starting with the Soviet T-62, they started to go from rifled to smoothbore guns. If you are in any way familiar with the development of gunpowder weapons, this may seem like a baffling decision, but there is a good reason. Anti-tank shot went from a simple lump of steel to sub-calibre munitions like APCR and APDS, as detailed on the [[cannon]] page. These essentially try to be better at penetrating by focusing more energy on a smaller area. A later development was APFSDS, the famous "Silver Bullet" or arrow-like penetrators which turned Saddam's tanks into ooey gooey explody Swiss cheesey. Likewise, they also started using HEAT shells, which are designed to use the power of a focused explosion to bore their way through armour; at one point, they were so effective that tanks were designed specifically around their use. Both of these munitions types actually ''suffered'' from the rotational forces imparted by a rifled barrel. For APCR, APDS, and APFSDS, rifling does not stabilize subcalibre rounds nearly as well; likewise, the shaped charge jet from HEAT shells doesn't hold together as well if it's spinning itself apart. Getting rid of the rifling solved a huge number of other problems: it made it easier to fire missiles out of the guns, and also meant that you could fire higher velocity projectiles without having to reline the bore more frequently. The main exception was HESH, which was essentially a shell full of plastic explosive that flattens itself against targets; upon detonation, it creates a shockwave that is transmitted through the material, causing it to break and shatter if concrete, or to spall off into deadly shrapnel if steel. The spin imparted by rifled barrels helps the explosive pat out more evenly, hence why it is still commonly used by the Brits in their tanks.