Ooh, great question! The debate rages! I too am peeved by the seeming inability of journalists, most of whom I'm sure are quite diligent in their day-to-day jobs, to correctly or even somewhat...
Ooh, great question! The debate rages! I too am peeved by the seeming inability of journalists, most of whom I'm sure are quite diligent in their day-to-day jobs, to correctly or even somewhat accurately identify armoured fighting vehicles, one of the few things I still give an excited crap about.
I am reminded of a point that Ian of the YouTube channel ForgottenWeapons once made: firearms are often difficult to correctly categorize (or legislate) because they weren't made to be - they were made to fulfil a specific set of requirements. Tanks are the same. I think David Fletcher of the Tank Museum defined a tank as a fully tracked vehicle with a fully rotating turret, a main cannon and a coaxial machine gun...but that definition would exclude the first tanks that were ever made, while including some tank destroyers. Just like with guns, they're made to carry out specific tasks in specific environments, and so the overall landscape is a wonderfully confused mess.
I used to be more of a purist until I realised the utter futility of it, so now I mostly go with the flow. Wheeled tank destroyers like the Centauro and the AMX-10 RC ? Sure, they could be used as tanks in a pinch. But an APC or IFV is often not meant for the same purpose or to fight the same targets as a tank could, so if the cannon looks a bit small and the armour only stands up against bullets then I probably wouldn't call it one. I go with my feels more than the strict letter.
Just don't call the Panther an MBT, that shit's cringe. I'm sorry, the Soviets were right, it was a heavy tank destroyer, just move on.
Methinks that journalists care about being correct, but if you're actually reading mainstream publications about an area of expertise of yours, you're bound to find out that that won't translate...
I too am peeved by the seeming inability of journalists, most of whom I'm sure are quite diligent in their day-to-day jobs, to correctly or even somewhat accurately identify armoured fighting vehicles, one of the few things I still give an excited crap about.
Methinks that journalists care about being correct, but if you're actually reading mainstream publications about an area of expertise of yours, you're bound to find out that that won't translate into actually being correct. Stuff is hard, even basic terminology. I'm somewhat torn between accepting this difficulty and letting go of pedantry, and being mildly outraged because these things cause real miscommunications with real consequences.
Things get muddled further by experts speaking outside their field of expertise. I recall a neurobiologist claiming that strong AI is impossible because essentially individual electronic devices only ever produce one output signal, while neurons produce a whole bunch of different outputs, and many of those are important for proper brain function. If you have any background in AI or theoretical CS, you'll only shake your head at that notion.
Regardless, I don't know what the solution is. Certainly a great deal of care is required anytime people without expertise or without the right expertise try to tell you something. But that's not really helpful, is it? "Watch out anytime anyone tells you anything, they might be wrong"? Is there a way for us, particularly those of us with a large audience, to be less wrong?
The point that the author was making is that form follows function, essentially. A wheeled "tank" can't be a tank, not because it has wheels, but because the light weight that would be required...
Wheeled tank destroyers like the Centauro and the AMX-10 RC ? Sure, they could be used as tanks in a pinch.
The point that the author was making is that form follows function, essentially. A wheeled "tank" can't be a tank, not because it has wheels, but because the light weight that would be required for it to have wheels would necessitate either light weaponry, or light armor, which would no longer make it capable of doing its job as a tank, which is to take and deal a ton of punishment in order to push through enemy lines. Tanks of course usually have turrets, but a turret isn't strictly required to do its job, gunlaying can be done via traversing the vehicle or a gun mantlet. Presently, we don't have a technology for a vehicle with heavy weaponry and armor to be able to move cross country without tracks though, so if you don't have tracks, you're not a tank.
I think this goes into the default of there's always exceptions to the rule in the case of it including some tank destroyers. The seeming exclusion early tank examples would be expected as early...
but that definition would exclude the first tanks that were ever made, while including some tank destroyers.
I think this goes into the default of there's always exceptions to the rule in the case of it including some tank destroyers. The seeming exclusion early tank examples would be expected as early examples (of anything) rarely meet what is later considered "the definition" of something, but just as there are exceptions that would exclude tank destroyers from being categorized as "tanks" despite meeting the general definitions of one, the early tanks would be included on the basis of being the origin of the tank itself.
Proof to support the above would be the first car, which if made today no one would call it such: https://i.imgur.com/a5aTCHl.png
Ooh, great question! The debate rages! I too am peeved by the seeming inability of journalists, most of whom I'm sure are quite diligent in their day-to-day jobs, to correctly or even somewhat accurately identify armoured fighting vehicles, one of the few things I still give an excited crap about.
I am reminded of a point that Ian of the YouTube channel ForgottenWeapons once made: firearms are often difficult to correctly categorize (or legislate) because they weren't made to be - they were made to fulfil a specific set of requirements. Tanks are the same. I think David Fletcher of the Tank Museum defined a tank as a fully tracked vehicle with a fully rotating turret, a main cannon and a coaxial machine gun...but that definition would exclude the first tanks that were ever made, while including some tank destroyers. Just like with guns, they're made to carry out specific tasks in specific environments, and so the overall landscape is a wonderfully confused mess.
I used to be more of a purist until I realised the utter futility of it, so now I mostly go with the flow. Wheeled tank destroyers like the Centauro and the AMX-10 RC ? Sure, they could be used as tanks in a pinch. But an APC or IFV is often not meant for the same purpose or to fight the same targets as a tank could, so if the cannon looks a bit small and the armour only stands up against bullets then I probably wouldn't call it one. I go with my feels more than the strict letter.
Just don't call the Panther an MBT, that shit's cringe. I'm sorry, the Soviets were right, it was a heavy tank destroyer, just move on.
Methinks that journalists care about being correct, but if you're actually reading mainstream publications about an area of expertise of yours, you're bound to find out that that won't translate into actually being correct. Stuff is hard, even basic terminology. I'm somewhat torn between accepting this difficulty and letting go of pedantry, and being mildly outraged because these things cause real miscommunications with real consequences.
Things get muddled further by experts speaking outside their field of expertise. I recall a neurobiologist claiming that strong AI is impossible because essentially individual electronic devices only ever produce one output signal, while neurons produce a whole bunch of different outputs, and many of those are important for proper brain function. If you have any background in AI or theoretical CS, you'll only shake your head at that notion.
Regardless, I don't know what the solution is. Certainly a great deal of care is required anytime people without expertise or without the right expertise try to tell you something. But that's not really helpful, is it? "Watch out anytime anyone tells you anything, they might be wrong"? Is there a way for us, particularly those of us with a large audience, to be less wrong?
The point that the author was making is that form follows function, essentially. A wheeled "tank" can't be a tank, not because it has wheels, but because the light weight that would be required for it to have wheels would necessitate either light weaponry, or light armor, which would no longer make it capable of doing its job as a tank, which is to take and deal a ton of punishment in order to push through enemy lines. Tanks of course usually have turrets, but a turret isn't strictly required to do its job, gunlaying can be done via traversing the vehicle or a gun mantlet. Presently, we don't have a technology for a vehicle with heavy weaponry and armor to be able to move cross country without tracks though, so if you don't have tracks, you're not a tank.
I think this goes into the default of there's always exceptions to the rule in the case of it including some tank destroyers. The seeming exclusion early tank examples would be expected as early examples (of anything) rarely meet what is later considered "the definition" of something, but just as there are exceptions that would exclude tank destroyers from being categorized as "tanks" despite meeting the general definitions of one, the early tanks would be included on the basis of being the origin of the tank itself.
Proof to support the above would be the first car, which if made today no one would call it such: https://i.imgur.com/a5aTCHl.png
And here's an article about why Soviet tanks had a log attached.