I think good idea to convert this article in category. There are too many images already. --EugeneZelenko 15:12, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
- Possiblly: the trouble with doing such conversions is that you can't redirect from a page to a category! Plugwash 18:33, 31 Mar 2005 (UTC)
I think M2/M3 Bradley shouldn't be here. They are IFVs, not tanks. Bukvoed 19:10, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- An IFV is a tank (fully tracked, armored and with powerful armament)--Denniss 22:05, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
- Well, perhaps it's not that important... after all, it's a collection of images here, not an encyclopedia... But:
- 1) Every source I know lists IFV and tank as different subcategories of AFV.
- 2) I think the definition of tank you use - anything fully tracked, armored and with powerful armament - is way too inclusive. Most self-propelled guns fit it, many anti-aircraft vehicles such as M163 or ZSU-23-4 fit it, some other tracked AFVs fits it. Are all these tanks ? Er...
- 3) About the "see also" section: of 4 links there, one is a category the article belongs to (so this link already appear in the article) and the remaining 3 are a "sibling" subcategories of the article. It's somewhat redundant to put them in "see also". But if you think they should be there, I will not press the point. Bukvoed 08:36, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
- An IFV IS a tank. It's not a main battle tank (I assume that's your "classification" of a tank) or a tank designed to combat other tanks but more a specialized form of a tank. If you change or add categories on other images please check that these cats are really existing/working or needed at all! --Denniss 10:05, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
Problem is in definition. I supose that in every country this definition is very simillar - something like that: "tank is armoured, tracked vehicle with main gun in turret (there are exeptions) designated as offensive wepon that using direct fire breaks through enemies land forces." But in fact main cause that we classified some vehicle as tank or not is a tradition. For me ISU-152, StuG or M10 are not tanks, because at the begining there were not clasified as a tanks but as an "armoured gun" (Soviet term), assault gun and tank-destroyer. Radomil talk 15:09, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- There is no problem with the definition. What Radomil has written is a description of a tank, but also can describe other things, and you're quite right that these thing are not tanks at all. Deniss, an IFV is not a tank. My "classification" of a tank is things that are called tanks. You will not find any authority on AFVs that states that an IFV is a tank, or that a self-propelled gun is a tank. IFVs can serve in the armoured reconnaissance role once filled by light tanks; they share some characteristics, but they're not the same. And please look at what I've done before you revert; there's nothing even vaguely resembling a tank in the Panzerjager-Abteilung 39 photo.
- If the tankettes belong here, then Universal Carriers do too. If ISUs, Hetzers and Sturmtigers stay, then every self-propelled antitank gun, assault gun, and artillery piece should join them. With the Bradley go the Marder, all the BMPs, BMDs, and several M113 variants. Let's throw in the wheeled 'tanks', like the eight-wheeled Mobile Gun System, the WWII German Puma, and some tracked TOW launchers.
- Sharing a chassis or drive components with a tank does not make a vehicle a tank, either. Closely related AFVs, like tank recovery vehicles, bridge-layers, or driving trainers may show up here, but an antiaircraft missile launcher, SCUD erector, radar antenna, or trench-digger on a tank chassis isn't a tank, and neither is an assault artillery piece on a tank suspension. If we care so little about the category definitions, then let's just merge the AFV and tank categories.
- I left behind all the things that may be marginally considered tanks. For example, the KV-2's role is as an assault gun, but its official name is KV-2 heavy assault tank, and because it's a close derivative it's usually classified with the KV-1s. Similarly, the T-28 Super Heavy Budget Increaser. The Tsar Tank, well...
- Having other things on a page named "tanks" makes it look like we don't know the subject or don't respect it. Tanks belong here, other AFVs belong under AFVs, or under their own, more specific categories, so I will re-revert. Mzajac 20:18, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
- I concur. IFVs, APCs, self-propelled guns and unidentifiable-tracked-monsters aren't tanks in my book too. Actually, before I saw this page, I never encountered anybody who called IFV a subcategory of tank. I'm not so sure about tankettes, however.
- As for various-vehicles-on-tank-chassis, I think they don't belong here either as they arent' tanks too. However, they can appear in the article/category of their "parent" tank. Say, if I'll see a photo of a bulldozer on Sherman chassis, I'll put it into the gallery in "M4 Sherman" article. But not here.
- As far as I can see, the vehicle in front on the "Panzerjager-Abteilung 39" photo is a SdKfz 250 or SdKfz 251 halftrack, can't say for sure which of them. To call it a tank is a stretch.
- I still hope some agreement can be reached here. Dennis, please, before you revert the article again, try to research a subject. After all, tank is a thing that people call tank :). And 75% of people in this thread don't call Bradley or ISU-whatever tank :).
- An off-topic (?). It's clear this article cannot include every tank picture in the wikimedia commons. So I'd like to see not only an agreemnt on "what is tank", but also on "what us the rule of thumb of including/not-including a photo of udisputable tank in this gallery". Perhaps no more than one photo of a specific tank model shoud appear here (unless, for example, some tank is the only "representative" of two or more countries) ? The rest of photos can be found via model article.
- Nice to meet you all. Bukvoed 15:54, 25 September 2005 (UTC)