This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history
Graphs are unavailable due to technical issues. Updates on reimplementing the Graph extension, which will be known as the Chart extension, can be found on Phabricator and on MediaWiki.org.
New tanks inclusion.
Ok... since the last major edits, there have been some updates- The new Japanese tank and Tank Ex. Im not aware of any others. Do we or do we not include them? Please discuss here. Thanks. T/@Sniperz11editssign05:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that we would include future tanks only after their completion. test projects are not included for older tanks, and we should follow the same procedure with newer tanks. until these tanks are accepted into service, or at least proposed to sale, they are no more than incomplete projects. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Al-Khalid back to the Original name Type 90.
Micheal, I had earlier warned you from naming the tank as Al-Khalid. I had repeatedly told you that it's the name of the tank MBT 2000 (Variant of Type 90) in Pakistani service. A new version of the MBT 2000 has appeared.[1] That's the Chinese has introduced a new version. So it's time to revert back and correct all the mistakes.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Pakistani Al-Khalid also includes Ukrainian components and a very modern FCS. It's not the same tank as a baseline T-90, even if based on it. JonCatalán (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Type 10
Who is removing the Type 10? The prototype is currently undergoing trials, and should remain on the list. Otherwise, having the K2 up in the list would make absolutely no sense. enomosiki (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion debate
OK, I'm resurrecting the inclusion debate here, in light of recent changes. Which tanks should we add or remove?? If you think any tank should be added, please list them below. If any need to be deleted, again, please discuss... Sniperz11@CS18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Inclusion Criteria
The previous debates about inclusion criteria for this template were inconclusive... please discuss so that we can create and vet a semi-official rule list for inclusion. Thanks. Sniperz11@CS18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah, definitely. But some of the chaff can be easily weeded out without a guideline.
Rebuilds of old tanks? We have the T-54E (excuse me, “Ramses II”), which was built before 1965! It clearly doesn't belong, since the update was designed in the 1980s, and is not differentiated from dozens of other T-54/55 updates, except for the addition of a gun from the 1950s.Sabra is a more sophisticated update, but it is Turkey's second-line tank.
We have so far disqualified prototypes, for good reason. The Black Eagle tank was demonstrated over a decade ago, and remains vapourware. We also removed the T-95, which hardly qualifies as wishful thinking. We shouldn't include anything else which is "expected to be armed" with a certain gun, or whose "production is expected to start" in a certain year. Either remove Type 10, or add another half-dozen vapourware projects. M-95 Degman is not in service, K2 Black Panther is doubtful, and the M-2001 looks like vapourware, but it's hard to tell because there's so much weaselling in that article.
Items on the commercial market but not in service? Old upgraded tanks which are only in manufacturer's catalogues? Remove M60-2000, which is not in service, or add a few dozen more offerings.
I'm cleaning up the template, based on what I see as consensus and common sense. Please discuss here instead of reverting. —MichaelZ. 2008-05-28 17:20 z
Omission criteria
This might be helpful. Let's build lists of tanks which don't qualify here. We can keep building each list so we can clearly see what belongs in the category, and debate the merits of including each category in the navigation template separately. —MichaelZ. 2008-05-28 18:23 z
Antiques
These are older tanks which have been upgraded (not newly-built), and are not used as front-line tanks by industrialized countries.
Al Zarrar (Pakistani upgrade of T-54/55 or Type 59)
BM Bulat (Malyshev T-64 upgrade, in service with Ukraine)
TR-85M1 is Romania's front-line tank, with apparently 300 in service. It is a fundamental rebuild, with structural changes to the turret and hull. Sabra is a very extensive modernization to give Turkey's M60 a longer life as a second-line tank, and there is no indication that it is in service yet. We don't include prototypes in the template, or old tanks used in the second line.
According to article Sabra (tank) and its external links, Sabra is also a fundamental rebuild (of M60, superior to T-55) with some structural changes. The main guns, fire control systems, power packs, tracks, add-on armour, ERA, engine/transmission, and some of the subsystems were modernized by using new systems. It is also a front-line tank of the Turkish Army. Nothing about life extension. We may not include Sabra if we also exclude TR-85. Flayer (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
[end copied]
The article doesn't seem to say that, or at least I can't find the the words fundamental, rebuild, or structural in Sabra (tank).
Regardless of that, I maintain that if we include second-line tanks which are rebuilt models from the 1950s, then the whole list of #Antiques above would be open for consideration. I think the criteria should only allow tanks of older vintage if they are serving in the first line.
I know there are diverse opinions here so let's get some more discussion on the topic. Should Sabra be included? —MichaelZ. 2008-05-31 22:50 z
If you include the Sabra, then why not include the Magach? If not include the Leopard 2E (see below), why include them? The Sabra is a M60 Patton modernization kit, based heavily on Israel's Magach 7C, so it's no less of a variant than the Leopard 2E is (well, more heavily modified). Neither are Magachs or Sabras brand-new construction - they are all modifications of existing hulls and turrets. I don't think it should be included. I still don't understand the parameters of this template - they seem completely contradictory. The Challenger 2, Leopard 2, M1 Abrams and Merkava were all developed prior to the end of the Cold War (twenty years prior, at that) - so, why can't the Ch'ŏnma-ho be included? It shouldn't be thought of as a T-62, but based on the T-62 - they were mostly manufactured in North Korea. Other than that, why include the T-84? More specifically, why include it over the T-80? The T-84 is hardly modified beyond the T-80UD (except for modifications for export, which are not yet in service in any army). Just some thoughts. JonCatalán (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with most of that.
But the T-84, a front-line tank based on the high-tech T-80 of 1976 (actually, on the T-80UD of 1987), belongs here just as much as the T-90, a front-line tank which is a version of the basic-technology T-72 of 1971. —MichaelZ. 2008-07-14 03:03 z
Please provide a reference, and add it to the article. It currently implies that the Sabra only exists in testing of prototypes, and is expected to finish a production run in 2009:
The prototype was completed and passed the qualification tests in May 2006. Several other prototypes are being tested in Israel and Turkey as part of USD 688 million contract dated 29 March 2002. The M60A1 modernization program is currently in the mass modernization phase. The project will end by April 2009. The remaining M60 tanks are likely to undergo the same upgrade process with more involvement of Turkish companies, upon completion of the upgrade of first 170 tanks.
Then is it fair to assume that the Leo 2 is the primary MBT and the M60T secondary? If so, then should we include second-line tanks in this template?
But that may be neither here nor there, because I can't find any evidence that the Sabra is in service at all. The Turkish Army article only mentions these tanks in passing and refers to the Sabra article, which says that a couple of prototypes are in testing, and the 170 tanks are to be completed in 2009. The only official references I can find agree:
“The acceptance tests of prototype tank has been successfully performed. The activities of pilot and serial modernization are still ongoing. It is anticipated that the deliveries will be finished by April 2009.”[2]
“The Prototype System Qualification Tests were successfully completed in May 2006. The Pilot and Serial Modernization activities are going on according to the program schedule. The deliveries will have been completed by April 2009.”[3]
Am I missing a reference that says the Sabra is in active service? —MichaelZ. 2008-08-01 18:29 z
It's difficult to denote a tank as Turkey's main tank, since they really don't have one. It's assumed that the Leopard 2A4s are deployed to the West, against Greece, while the Turkish Army retains a large number of other types of tanks, including M60s and Leopard 1s. Not all M60s will receive upgrade kits as far as we know from current information, only 170 (as aforementioned on this page). Besides, the Turks are in the process of designing their own tank with the South Koreans. JonCatalán (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Adding TAM
I have added TAM to the list because it's a medium tank in service with the Argentine Army and was developed around the same time as the American M1 Abrams, German Leopard 2 and Israeli Merkava. It's in a different weight class and it may not be as advanced, but it fills the prerequisites in regards to its date of service, how far it's expected to remain in service and when it started to be developed. It's no less of a post cold-war tank than any of the tanks previously mentioned. JonCatalán (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
According to the article, TAM weights only 30.5 tonnes. The lightest of the modern Post-Cold War tanks weight 15 tonnes more, also having smaller inner space for 3 crewmen, unlike TAM. It means that TAM has much3 thicker armor than all modern Post-Cold War tanks, unless TAM features an unheard-of composite alloys like in 5th generation fighter aircraft. Is it true? :-/ It is a Medium tank, just like the obsolete T-34 and M4 Sherman, with slightly higher caliber. With the production of relatively expensive tanks converging more and more on the sweet spot of the versatile medium tank, the way was paved for the development of mechanized warfare and the modern main battle tank concept. All the other tanks in this template are Main Battle Tanks with much better armor. Flayer (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, all the other modern tanks (or versions) in this template has armed primarily with a 120-125 mm main gun. TAM has a 105 mm gun. (M1A1 and M1A2 are modern, M1 is not. Merkava Mark III and IV are modern, mark I and II are not. Leopard 2A4 and higher are modern, 2A3 and lower are not). That's why I remove TAM. Flayer (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, but you apparently missed the point. The TAM weighs 30.5 tonnes due to national requirements, not because it wasn't meant to be the country's main battle tank. I don't think weight should play a part in the classification, if the role of the tank is the same. This template doesn't cover heavy tanks, it covers post-cold war tanks, which the TAM obviously falls into. You are criticizing the TAM on grounds that are based on national requirements, not because Argentine asked for an 'obsolete tank' (which it is not - especially given South American's terrain). Can you not remove the tank until we actually argue about it here? JonCatalán (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
We specifically changed the name of this template from “modern tanks” to avoid questions of what is modern. Most main tanks are MBTs, but there's no need to disqualify Argentina's tank just because they didn't feel the need to build for the European Cold-War requirements of intensive warfare (maybe this is more a post-Cold War tank than the others?).
Since it is indigenously built in the 1990s, and continues to serve as a front-line vehicle, I believe it belongs here.
(To pre·empt the ongoing battles over particular tanks, I am starting to consider just including everything in service here, perhaps with one or two subdivisions of the template.) —MichaelZ. 2008-08-11 00:55 z
What about a Cold War Main Battle Tank template, as well? That way we can link tanks like the Leopard 1, AMX-30, et cetera, and we don't have to worry about them (the Leopard 1 is still in service, and so are tanks such as the T-62 (the Russians have deployed them to Georgia), T-64, et cetera). Furthermore, is there anyway these templates could link to the tank portal, or would there be no reason (other than mine - which is to bring activity to the portal) to?
Regardless, what I think is important to take into consideration in respect to the TAM, as was touched on by Michael, is that because the TAM wasn't built to the requirements of a tank which was meant to fight in Europe it doesn't disqualify it from being a main battle tank (which it is, in the Argentine Army - and is used as one). The terrain in Argentina is unique, especially when taking into consideration the soft soil of the Pampas to the south, the rain forest to the north (area of Brazil) and the mountains on the Chilean border (where this vehicle was first deployed - a reason why it did not see combat during the Falkland War) - it's very similar to Spanish requirements for the Lince, although terrain in Argentina is even more unique. In any case, my point is that it remains a modern main battle tank, and has been upgraded after the end of the Cold War (well, an upgrade exists called the R301 - it's not clear if it has actually be done throughout the fleet). JonCatalán (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, the whole scheme needs a little work. I suggest we:
The TAM serves a completely different purpose than the Stingray light tank. It serves the purpose of a main battle tank in the Argentine Army. It's just lighter than most other main battle tanks due to national requirements. While the Stingray is not really meant to engage other tanks, the TAM is (which is underscored by the recent modernization package which is mentioned by Janes (not in the article because I don't have the source) which includes a new better hunter/killer FCS). The TAM is also meant for infantry support (the TAM/VCTP doctrine is very similar to the United States' Abrams/Bradley doctrine). The TAM is meant to fulfill the role of a main battle tank, not that of a light tank. You are taking this completely the wrong way. JonCatalán (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In regards to the template, it should go by the tank's role not by its weight. There are light tanks being developed in almost the same weight class (late 20 tonnes), such as the CV-120 and the LT-105 based on the Pizarro, but their roles are not the same as that of the TAM's. The TAM is unique because of the terrain it fights on, not because of its role differs from that of other main battle tanks on the list. That's the point you're missing. JonCatalán (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, in your opinion what is a medium tank? How does a medium tank differentiate itself from a main battle tank? In all honesty, the change from medium tank to main battle tank is just a change in name, just like the change from medium tank to heavy tank (medium tanks of the 1960s weighed as much as heavy tanks of the Second World War). What is important is the role and not the weight class. JonCatalán (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Good work Michael... Coming to TAM and the related and ever-present issue of what this template should be, I think it'd be a good idea to sit together and define... something that we've tried to do for some time now, with the discussion always going cold or getting diverted into specifics.
The renaming was the best thing that happened, as it removed the contentious discussion on what 'modern' meant. However, we're still left with loose ends such as the role vs designation, extremely modernized variant tanks...
As for TAM, my personal opinion is that we should look more at the role that the tank is put into, with certain limits - after all, an IFV can't be a good MBT, can it? Sniperz11@CS05:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hehe... you didnt get my point Jon. How far can we go in including tanks till it gets too diluted? We may say now that TAM is fine, next, someone will say that a 105 mm gun isnt that bad, after which we may again call in another candidate and say that even though it can carry troops, it can fight like an MBT... in which case, you can add the BMP-3 in here... get my drift??
Exactly!! It is easy to say, that certain vehicle was build due to national requirements to fulfill the role of a modern main battle tank. Someone may say, for example, that EE-9 Cascavel fulfills the role of a tank for Burkina Faso, considering the national requirements (and possibilities) of Burkina Faso. Flayer (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, you are again missing the point. The EE-9 doesn't fulfill that role for Burkina Faso, and was not designed to do so. You are taking things out of context and arguing to an extreme. JonCatalán (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Stingray is not post-Cold War. But this template's fate is under discussion at the project page, so let's stop fiddling and take the discussion there. —MichaelZ. 2008-08-11 07:04 z
It isn't used in the same role as a M1 Abrams or Merkava either. There's a long list of them. For example, Spain uses the B1 Centauro as an anti-tank vehicle. Yes, the TAM can also be used to knock-out other tanks, but this isn't its sole purpose. The TAM is a multipurpose tank, like the other tanks already listed in the template. It serves the same roles as those tanks in the Argentine Army, not just one (it's not limited). Yes, the TAM has shown weaknesses and its no longer ideal and may not be as technologically advanced as other tanks that fulfill the same role (lack of composite armor mixed with low armor protection (largely due to the weight requirement, but the Leopard 1 has less protection, as does the AMX-30, and they are both main battle tanks - although, of the Cold War), but it's still a modern tank. It's just built to the unique requirements of Argentina, not to the requirements of a European war. JonCatalán (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not a tank, apparently not used in a tank role, and not post-Cold War. —MichaelZ. 2008-08-11 07:07 z
Suggested name change (again) to Modern Main Battle Tanks
There already has been a discussion about changing the section's name to Modern Tanks, but this is also too ambiguous to the point where everything but the kitchen sink can be thrown in. Therefore, I propose the title of Modern Main Battle Tanks, to narrow the subject down to;
Modern, as in vehicles that have been manufactured after 1990, (e.g. - Leclerc, Challenger 2, T-90, etc.) and others dating back as far as 1970's but with significant amount of upgrades incorporating state-of-the-art components and softwares applied to enable them to properly compete with each other. (e.g. - M1A2 SEP, Challenger, Leopard 2A5/6, Merkava 4, K1A1 and so on.)
Main, as in forming the backbone of an armed force's heavy armored units. Those that are in reserves or in supporting roles should also be allowed only if they have a major presence, but they will also have to follow the Modern and Battle Tank rule.
Battle Tank, as in specifically-designed tracked vehicles that provide heavy offensive and defensive capabilities with emphasis on heavy armor and firepower utilizing a large-caliber main gun and other assortments of secondary armaments. This should disallow other vehicles that may provide tank-like capabilities (e.g. - Stryker MGS, CV90105, etc.) to be listed on the section.
Additionally, tanks that are categorized by light, medium and heavy should be discouraged from being added, although the option is still open if all three criterias involving the Modern, Main and Battle Tank are met. However, with the decline of using the light, medium and heavy to classify most tanks that have been produced after 1980's, this should not cause much problems.
Modern has a very different meaning in a historical context (contemporary would be better), and we've already abandoned the term because no one could agree what constitutes a modern tank (or indeed what is significant, state-of-the-art, or how anyone could possibly evaluate what can properly compete with what).
Main is not necessarily heavy—MBTs range from as little as 38 tonnes (T-64A) to 62 t (M1, Challenger) in weight, and there is already debate about whether Argentina's main tank for battle is a main battle tank.
Battle tank—I think the more important question is whether they serve with armoured units in the tank role, instead of filling the infantry support, reconnaissance, or some other role. This basic information is missing from some articles, and unfortunately it may be impossible to determine for some vehicles which haven't seen service.
I couldn't support the current proposal. I do think we have had less squabbling over inclusions since the change, and I don't think shuffling it back will solve anything. —MichaelZ. 2008-08-27 20:48 z
I've already started a thread at WT:AFV#Navigation templates to look at the whole park of such navigation templates. This should be discussed in the broader context and with more participants than here. —MichaelZ. 2008-08-27 20:27 z
You do have a point with the word contemporary. The significant and state-of-the-art upgrade part applies to vehicles that have been made back during the Cold War period, but are still in active service and providing major support as of present time. And, yes, unfortunately, we cannot properly evaluate which tank can properly compete with another, but we can benchmark the necessary data, such as firepower, armor, mobility, service length, and so on between each vehicles.
I meant heavy as in having more weight than other front line armored vehicles in service with a nation's armed forces. Most MBTs that have rolled out of the production lines since the 1970's are within the range of 45 to 60 tonnes, with their weight more often than not increasing slightly as time passes and upgrades are applied.
We should consider the purpose of the vehicle that it was originally designed for, and how they are used during exercises and on the battlefield.
There's a discussion about AFV navigation templates at WT:AFV#Navigation templates. Topics include style, and the organization of post-WWII templates. Please discuss there. —MichaelZ. 2008-08-28 00:09 z
Since you've asked for me to explain myself on the talk page, I'll give you the reasons why Ramses II tank is not being listed on this template. The Ramses II is an upgraded T-54 tank for the Egyptian Army—one that is being replaced by the M1 Abrams. There is no other tank upgrade on this template. Neither the Leopard 2E, or the Sabra or the Magach—furthermore, there are no cold war tanks that have remained in service with "third world armies", such as the Leopard 1 (which is still in service with many armies around the world), and the same issue exists wit the T-72 and the T-54/55. Before you edited the tank in, perhaps you should have partaken in the discussion on this talk page which have already gone over these issues. JonCatalán(Talk)17:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Furthermore, you mention the Type 96, which according to the article was developed as the Type 85-III in 1995. This seems to have a similar relationship as the T-90 has to the T-72, while the Ramses II is a direct upgrade of the T-54/55. JonCatalán(Talk)17:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In this case, the M1A1, and the M1A2 Abrams should not exist becuase they are upgrades /based of/on a coldwar tank, the M1 Abrams.
About service with a third world army -a term i identify for the first time- the Abrams is used by the same army !
The army of egypt is # 11 on the world for god's sack
The Magach serius have started during the cold war era as i remember, while the Ramses II entered production as of 2004
The Ramses II is not being replaced by the Abrams , the T-55 is. It's true that it's production have been partialy abandoned in favor of the much more capable Abrams M1A1, but that does not mean that the Abrams is going to replace them any time soon.
The problem here is that u see it as just an upgrade, while i see it as a convertion. new road wheels, new tracks, new engine, new armament, new armour layout, new electronics, and even the hull have been modified.
Before you remove the tank, perhaps you should have noticed the edit summary i wrote, when i have edited it, and which no one seams to be against, but for you.
Direct me to certain instructions to add a tank here, because i cannot find any, eccepting for that the tamblet is for post cold war tanks, and therefor any post cold war tank should be placed in it no matter for which armed forces it was made, who made it, or who uses it.
Furthermore, the T-72, the Leopard 1 , and the T-55 are all cold war tanks, while the Ramses II's serial production started 13 years after the cold war ended. The Type-96 is based on the T-55 at least indirectly, but it's very clear that a T-55 can be upgraded to a Type-96. The T-90 is an upgrade of the T-72, a cold war tank -actually it's original name was T-72BM-. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The M1A1 and M1A2 (the M1A1 modification actually took place prior to the end of the Cold War, by the way) are not listed. The M1 Abrams is listed because it's a main battle tank currently in service. The series as a whole is listed. It's listed both in the Cold War tanks template and the Post-Cold War tank template. A "conversion" from a basic design to a superior design is an upgrade, no matter what has been changed. Or, when the M1 Abrams gets (or may get) the new gas turbine (or diesel engine) and new gun it's a conversion, not an upgrade (the same goes from Leopard 2A4 to Leopard 2E)? Actually, I think Ramses II has been reverted before I even became active on this template. We can wait for other users to state their opinion. And, you seem to be missing the point. The Ramses II is an upgrade (or conversion, whatever way you want to put it) of a cold-war tank. No upgrades - none at all - are listed on this template. And, I don't think a T-55 can be upgraded to a Type 96, otherwise Pakistan would be modifying their Type 59s to Al-Khalids. JonCatalán(Talk)22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It's not all cut and dried, and these questions are currently under discussion at WT:AFV.
I have probably removed the Rameses II from this template more than once, but after reading about it in a bit more detail, all I'm sure about is that I need to read still more. It does seem to be a very ambitious redesign of a tank, not just a refit for upgraded armament and engine.
[I suspect that pharaoh meant to write that a T-55 can't be upgraded to Type 96. Yeah, the T-90 is the latest T-72, but the marketing campaign seems to be successful, and everyone treats it as new. The T-84 is also the latest T-80UD, which is arguably a different model from the gas-turbine T-80. In my opinion the latest M1 is the same design as the original tank, with upgraded equipment.]
Anyway, let's discuss it at the project page (WT:AFV), where we might get more opinions. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-06 02:53 z
It's hard to judge the T-90 because there is really no reliable source on it. However, from unreliable sources I've heard quite a few things about it which distance it from the T-72 (larger cassettes in the autoloader for longer two-piece kinetic energy penetrators and much greater armor protection). The Israeli Tiran series is also a radical improvement over captured T-54s and T-55s, and so should it be included as well? What about the Magach series? I think it would be a far better idea to make a template for individual tanks and their modifications, instead of linking them all from here - leave these to the main model of the tank. JonCatalán(Talk)03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
First i want to thank Michael Z. for the link he nominated in his last contribution, a page i was not aware of it's existence. Before i join the discussion there, i want to reply on only two points here; the Tiran was made during the cold war not after it, there for it cannot be placed here even if we considered it a radical upgrade. In my opinion, it is not even close the amount of upgrade done for the T-54 to be a Tiran to that that brings it to the Ramses standard. The Tiran was concerned with replacing the armament, and the Ti-67 added the replacement of the engine as well - just like egyptian modifications of the same tank : [[4]] -. The Magach add radical upgrades that truly shift up the tank's performance, yet it was not done after the cold war, and does not include "major structural rebuilding", that's a term Michael Z. used, and i agree with him. One last pharaoh (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I checked the Magach article, and it was not mentioned when did the Magach-7 enter service. would you like to state where did you get that information from ? One last pharaoh (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The point that if the Ramses II can be included, so should the Magach and so should the Sabra. My reference is: *Gelbart, Marsh (2008). Modern Israeli Tanks and Infantry Carriers 1985-2004. Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey. p. 48. ISBN1 84176 579 1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)JonCatalán(Talk)16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In that case, you really should not consider it to be proved.
Or maybe you can consider it was proved in my last contribution before you claim that the Magach-7 is the most radical upgrade in the series.....to be wrong ofcourse. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
BTW, you do not have to provide an edit summery to talk pages, specially when this summery is only for stating that you have responded to a certain editor. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The Sabra series is a complete reconstruction of the M60, to the point where it has radically more armor, a 120mm tank-gun, up-to-date generation electronics and sighting equipment, and much more. Newer versions of the Sabra, for example, have two layers of explosive reactive armor (as reported to Armada International). The Magach 7 has received several improvements in service which have increased cross-country performance and acceleration considerably, as compared to the M60 and older model Magachs. For example, the Magach 7A includes changes to the power pack and running gear, as well as new generation armor, while the Magach 7C saw even greater improvements to the armor. They are still being continuously upgraded with the most modern equipment. But, if you don't buy the Magach, there is no denying that the Sabra is a radical transformation of the Turkish M60 and if the Ramses II is included so should the Sabra. The Sabra was originally excluded because it was decided that tank variants, no matter how large their transformation, would not be included in the template. And, by the way, I can add an edit summary to whatever I want - I always have added edit summaries to my edits. ;) JonCatalán(Talk)17:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I know you can, i said that you do not have to !
Any way, I think that the amount of difference between the Ramses II, and the T-54 is not less "radical" than that between the Sabra, and the M60. However, the difference is major structural rebuilding. the Sabra, and Magach add on the existing main body of the M48/60, but the Ramses is fare more "radical" in this aspect, lengthening the hull, and adding a new road wheel -Noting that the new road wheel is corresponding to the new hull length, not only for changing the suspension system-.
I think that we are getting closer to find a solution to this template problem in the (WT:AFV), which i think would be simply that all tanks that entered service in the time period after the end of the cold war. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You are arguing a red herring. I never said that the Ramses II was a less radical improvement. I said that if the Ramses II was to be included in the template, so should the Sabra. JonCatalán(Talk)18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, i never said that you said so, and never contributed on the basis that you said so.
I have made a quick comparison between the changes done to the M60 in order to be a Sabra, or a Magach, and the ones done to the T-54 in order to become a Ramses; A comparison that explained what is the major difference which i consider a reason of why cannot the Sabra, and Magch be in the template, while the Ramses can. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No offence, but the discussion surrounding inclusion in this template is sounding like a broken record for the last year. It's nobody's fault that not everyone will agree what is a different tank, since various models will have every possible degree of similarity on a continuum, from identical to completely unrelated. These ongoing discussions are not productive.
Maybe this can be resolved by eliminating these judgement calls completely, and taking some absolute stance, like one of these:
Article-based navigation: every tank article gets a link (why hide some from the readers?).
Reductionist navigation: every extended tank family gets a link, and all descendants are handled by adding a family-specific navbox, like T-54/55. This tactic may help unify the navigation for the huge lists of WWII AFVs.
Externally-referenced lists: every named tank gets a link (completely bypasses discussion, but leads to redundant article links). I don't favour this, because it would have navboxes duplicating lists of tanks.
Of course, the right place to discuss this is at WP:AFV, because it affects all of the AFV navboxes. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-09 17:22 z
If we include the Ramses II tank, so we also should include TR-85, Ch'ŏnma-ho and Sabra (soon) - there is no way distinguish "radical" improvement of an obsolete tank from "not-that-radical-but-quite-radical" improvement. The template will lose its point completely. It should probably be rebuilt to present tanks by generations, or any such way to differ between modern last word first line MBTs like Leopard 2, Merkava Mark IV, M1 Abrams, Leclerc, T-90, Type 99 e.t.c and low budget reconstructions of some obsolete (mostly soviet) tanks like Ch'ŏnma-ho, TR-85, Ramses II and so on. Flayer (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the sentiment, but I doubt that there is an objective way to define or distinguish these categories either. Although it would be nice to subdivide the template to make it more manageable for the reader, let's keep in mind that it is a navbox, not an encyclopedic “list of front-line tanks” and “list of rebuilt tanks,” or some such.
All it should be is a list of links to articles about tanks which were introduced after the Cold War ended, right? Perhaps we could subdivide it by tanks weighing under and over 50 tonnes, or by gun calibre? —MichaelZ. 2008-10-12 16:05 z
Yes, something like that. Though I think we actually could subdivide the template to a list of reconstructed tanks and a list of tanks made of new parts, not from remains of older tanks. Flayer (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does the PT-91 have to be compared to the amount of changes to the Ramses ? It is nothing more than a modernized T-72M1, no matter how extensive this modernization is. My contribution below already explains that. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Non of the other tanks mentioned has "major structural rebuilding" like the Ramses II. It transformed the tank from a medium tank to a main battle tank ! that's like transforming old tanks to SP artillery, or APC's because the main battle tank concept started in the eastern block with the T-62. Read the Ramses II article to find more about what i mean. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It is impossible to define or to distinguish "major structural rebuilding", "extensive modernization" and any other term to describe reconstructed tank. Flayer (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with you, Michael. the only concept is the era. other than that the Ramses should stay also, because it is new -entered service in 2004-, and modern -check the electronic systems used-. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seems to me that Al-Khalid tank based on Type 90-IIM in terms of sketches and schemes, not in terms of taking Type 90-IIM hull/chassis and making an Al-Khalid tank of it. Do you think otherwise? I wouldn't argue about this. Do you agree with the compromising idea of separating retooled/rebuilt/reconstructed tanks aside in this template? Flayer (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
In the suggested version, why do not the following: Al-Khalid, K1 88, M-95 Degman, T-84, T-90, Type 96, Type 99, and the Abrams all fall into the "Retooled" part ? One last pharaoh (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Because, that would imply that they are vehicles based on older chassis, when they're not. The development of the Al-Khalid is not like the development of the M1A2 Abrams, in other words. Or, it's not similar to that of the T-84 either (based on the T-80). In other words, the M1 Abrams is not based on an older chassis of another tank. It has just been improved over the years. The Type 99 should probably remain where it is too, as should the T-90. In that section, I believe that Flayer wished to imply that those tanks were heavy upgrades or large scale reconstructions of older chassis'. Otherwise, you'd also have to include the Challenger 2 tank, Merkava, Leopard 2 and Arjun MBT (which has technically been designed since the 1970s). Should the Arjun even be included? There are doubts of whether or not it is even in active service within the Indian Army (the 124 which were supposed to be fabricated have not been produced, let alone entered service). JonCatalán(Talk)17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's my point. I do not think we would agree on one concept when we take in mind the amount of modernization. The only concept we should care about is -as the template's name suggests- the time. these templates would do it's job when it lists tanks made after the end of the cold war, just as simple as that. maybe we can classify them into some thing that every one agrees on which would probably be: (tanks in actual service, and those that did not enter service yet.), or (Tanks based on older vehicles, and those which are completely new designs.). One last pharaoh (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Retooled typically applies to manufacturing equipment. Let's say “Rebuilt”. Yes, the intention is to indicate tanks which are significantly rebuilt from old tanks of a different model, so I don't think that the Ch'ŏnma-ho and PT-91 strictly fall into this.
The Type 90-II and IIM, and MBT-2000 are prototype or marketing designators, and not in-service tank models, so Al-Khalid is essentially a new tank manufactured for the first time in 2001. It is more a new tank than, e.g., Leopard 2, T-90 or T-84, based on Leo 1, T-72 and T-80UD, respectively.
Another, strictly objective, way to subdivide these is by weight class (listed here with rounded-off weight, for convenience):
Class 30: TAM (31)
Class 40: Al-Khalid (48), Ch'ŏnma-ho (40), M-95 Degman (45), PT-91 Twardy (46), Ramses II (48), T-84 (48), T-90 (47), TR-85 (47), Type 96 (46), Zulfiqar (40)
Class 50: Ariete (54), Arjun (59), K1 88-tank (51/55), Leclerc (55), M1 Abrams (early 56/57), Sabra (59), Type 90 (50), Type 99 (54)
125mm: Al-Khalid, M-95 Degman, PT-91, T-84, T-90, Type 96, Type 99, Zulfiqar
[Update: tweaked the lists, italicized entries listed here for info only. 2: corrected M1 weight.]
Remember, we're just trying to find a sensible way to group these articles for the reader's convenience. This implies nothing about quality, effectiveness, or up-to-dateness. In fact, strictly objectively, Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Merkava, and TAM belong in the Cold War tanks template—and the two navboxes should both appear in these tanks' articles.
Just quibbling about the details. All of these articles deserve to have links in the navboxes, so I'm in favour of this change. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-13 19:40 z
Weight class or gun caliber seem like sensible solutions. It seems that one of the major problems is different points of view (of which we are all guilty of, for obvious and good reasons). I would agree with a reorganization of the template based on those parameters. JonCatalán(Talk)19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know if either of these is the best way, but it may be the only way that a committee can create a stable categorization scheme. If there were a way to add tabs to the template without making it look like a Christmas tree, it may be nice to provide both weight-class and gun-calibre views. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-13 19:58 z
And i agree too. I prefer the classification by gun caliber, that is more realistic, because the absolute weight of the tank does not represent the real amount of protection in modern tanks. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The amount of protection has nothing to do with this. It's just a way of subdividing tanks, and it happens to conveniently group tanks of similar heritage. We can't claim to say much of anything about the amount of protection on any of these tanks, since that is secret information. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-13 20:18 z
I have a notice here, the older models of the tank should not be included, since it is included in the cold war template, where it belongs. I think we have just found a solution for the long debate since now the Abrams M1A1, and M1A2 would be represented in the 120mm tab, clearly stating that these specific 2 models are the ones intended; so as the Merkava where the MK3, and MK-4 would be represented in their right class.
I suggest that older models of these tanks would be mentioned there by their name ex. the Merkava 1/2 would be seen as "Merkava1/2", or "Merkava MK-1, Merkava MK-2" while directing to the tank's article.
I wouldn't recommend that approach, since 1) it would create multiple, redundant links for individual articles, which just makes things less clear, and 2) it invites every tank in service since 1940 or so to have its latest version added to the Post-Cold War tanks.
Please try to understand that this is a navigation box for related articles, not a standalone “List of tanks”. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-13 20:18 z
Agree. I think that while subdividing by weight we should sort by 50 tonnes (below 50 / above 50), while subdividing by calibre we should sort by 120 mm (120 and higher / below 120) - it would be enough. Though I think that keeping "new" tanks above and "rebuilt" tanks below is simple and fine. Flayer (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I was pleasantly surprised at how the 10-tonne weight-class steps almost perfectly arrange all of the represented tanks into the following: 1 the TAM “medium” tank, 2 all of the Soviet-legacy tanks, 3 a group of Western-style tanks, and 4 the selection of everybody's heavy-weight favourite “best in the world” tanks. This is somewhat education in itself. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-13 20:26 z
Yes, but there is a little problem with the Class 60 / Class 70 - the exact maximum weight is still largely classified. It wouldn't be correct to say that M1A2 SEP is heavier than Mеrkava mark IV. Flayer (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think I used metric tonnes for all of the above, as given by the WP articles. I would just include the M1 in the class-60 listing, and ignore the (possible) single outlier of the SEP version. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-13 20:52 z
Then the Wikipedia article is wrong! According to Michael Green's M1 Abrams at War, the M1A2 weighs 61.7 metric tons. This reminds me of why I wanted to re-write the M1's article... JonCatalán(Talk)21:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oops, I just transcribed the wrong figures. Fixed. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-13 21:07 z
I am afraid i have to leave you now. I have a report to make...two actually, but one of them i do not have to search for it's informations. Any way, i agree with the general idea, so what ever you decide based on that, i am in. Just make sure you do not remove the Ramses. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course it would have to flip views within the template on the page using Javascript (the portal tabs actually jump to different pages). If it's doable, then someone must have already included it somewhere in Wikipedia. I'd like it to remain graphically very minimal. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-13 20:13 z
I'd rather avoid redundant links to articles. This causes confusion in navboxes, especially when a whole category contains only redundant links. Let's just list the tanks once, under the specs of their current or latest serving version.
Also, let's avoid mathematical symbols in headings. I'd prefer the following.
But still, it's redundant to include Cold War tanks here. Why not just list everything once and include both templates in the relevant articles? We're not really so insecure that we can't stand to see our favourite long-lived tank designs listed with their contemporaries, are we? —MichaelZ. 2008-10-13 22:54 z
I've mostly been going by when they entered service, which often amounts to the same year, but feels right in cases where tanks are vapourware, or unfinished for a long period. Since the Cold War ended over 1989–91, I would allow some leeway and promote tanks released during that period to the later post period, since they wouldn't be significantly deployed during the Cold War.
Of course this makes it problematic for the Arjun, which isn't strictly in service yet, although it seems to be in mass production. What would be included if we added a category listing articles about tanks not yet in service? —MichaelZ. 2008-10-13 23:13 z
The last sample looks pretty good to me. How about this simpler heading style, which is used in some campaignboxes? I've also reworded the headings slightly. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-14 15:44 z
As far as I know, although the Indian Ministry of Defense has claimed that the Arjun will enter mass production (for a total amount of 124 units), production has not yet begun. DRDO's website claims that only twelve prototypes have been manufactured thus far. In regards to the Black Eagle, I doubt if this tank will ever be in service. JonCatalán(Talk)23:49, 13 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The most recent authority I read was a short article by Christopher F Foss in Jane's Defence Weekly, 30 July, which said “... only about half of these [124] Arjun MBTs have been built and problems with key aspects of the design during tials mean it has yet to formally enter service with the Indian Army.” —MichaelZ. 2008-10-14 00:55 z
Why remove the Black Eagle from the list? We can't see into the future, so we can't positively say that any of these tanks will or will not enter service (future service of the Arjun is anybody's guess, and the T-95 is pure vapourware at this time). The point is that these are sourced articles—why shouldn't they be linked from other, related articles? (Although as a modified T-80, the Black Eagle could be linked from a T-80 navbox.) —MichaelZ. 2008-10-14 15:35 z
Obviously we can't see into the future, but the Black Eagle lost in competition against T-95. If we include the Black Eagle, we also have to include M60-2000 that lost to Sabra. By the way, Russian officials confidently say that T-95 will enter service in 2009 (one T-95, I guess). Anyway, I won't argue if we include all Post-Cold War tanks (with articles) that not in service yet and probably never will. Flayer (talk) 19:56, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It seemed that the Black Eagle was not produced for a certain customer anyways, in the first place. It was a risk that Omsk took to avoid bankruptcy. JonCatalán(Talk)22:05, 14 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So how many unspoken-for tank articles would we be adding if we chose to include them? —MichaelZ. 2008-10-15 00:10 z
Models mentioned -note the Abrams, and the Merkava-, tanks in service categorized into a simple 2-tabs classification.
What was the point behind excluding tanks under 120mm any way? One last pharaoh (talk) 12:07, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer the previous version. The point behind excluding tanks under 120mm is the same point behind excluding tanks under 50 tonnes, the same point behind excluding rebuilt tanks. Since not everybody agree with including/excluding rebuilt tanks we wish to find a form that all of us agree on, without mentioning the terms 'rebuilt tanks'. Anyway, I agree with Merkava Mk 3 / Mk 4 & Abrams M1A1 / M1A2 idea. Flayer (talk) 13:55, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, i know, but i mean what is the point behind using two aspects of classification ?
Either we use the weight, or the gun caliber. I have stated that i perefare the classification by gun caliber, but that does not mean we use both classifications, and if we have to, we should use complete classification as the version you first suggested.
Let's just use one classification. I say let's classify by weight as simply under, and over 50 tons.
[e. conflict] The unit in this navbox is still the individual article link, so I think listing each tank mark just complicates it unnecessarily. It begs adding Leopard 2A5/A6, TR-85M/M1/M2, and who knows what else.
But if it must be done, the full name should still be included and the correct use of slashes is unspaced, so it would be Merkava Mark III/IV and M1 Abrams M1A1/A2. Spaced slashes look like item separators, making these look like multiple links.
No, you got me all wrong. only the Abrams, and the Merkava should be listed that way, because only the two of them -the articles- include both cold war, and post cold war models; SO that does not beg adding any other model of any other tank.
I fully agree with the second paragraph of your last contribution.
For me, i think we do not have to sub divide the template, we just list the tanks after the cold war; but if we have to, i would say either subdividing by weight, or gun caliber, and not by both of them. I have provided examples to explain my opinion. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I reverted the model split, because I'm not agreed—there are a couple of disadvantages to this which I'd like you to understand, and I only suggested a way to format it if everyone else insists on it. The Leopard 2 (1979) and TR-85 (1986) also have Cold War and post-CW models. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-15 18:57 z
Both aspects of classification are very important. Weight classification seems more important, because Ch'ŏnma-ho, Ramses II, TAM, and TR-85 - all fall in 'below 50' category while 120/125 mm difference is just a mater of NATO/post-USSR modern standard. If the majority agrees on using only one aspect of classification instead of two, I say we should subdivide by weight, though I prefer subdivision by both aspects. Flayer (talk) 15:19, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm happy with the current version using weight class, plus pulling out the tanks with previous-generation guns. There is no point in subdividing 120 vs 125mm guns, but the 50-tonne cut-off neatly separates tanks by basic design: post-Soviet tanks with carousel autoloader vs “Western”-style tanks with armoured ammo storage. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-15 15:44 z
Subdividing by guns may be a bit complicated, and will increase the size of the template (template size should not be assumed to be unlimited). In the end, it might be trivial, however. I'll abstain. JonCatalán(Talk)19:34, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
So we have agreed (2:1:1) on using both aspects of classification.
Unresolved issues:
including 'not in service' category? I say yes.
separating M1A1/A2 Abrams, Merkava Mark III/IV, Leopard 2A5/6 ...? I'm not sure.
writing '100–115 mm gun' or 'Under 120 mm gun'? I prefer the second.
I don't see any point in separating 120 and 125mm guns. I only see a point in separating 120-125mm and 130-152mm, if tanks with those guns were in service (which they are not). JonCatalán(Talk)20:56, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Of course, I have no intention separating 120 and 125mm guns. Using two aspects of classification is the current version (below 120mm / below 50 tonnes / over 50 tonnes) instead of subdividing just by weight or by calibre. Flayer (talk) 21:28, 15 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Gun Generation
How about Older-generation guns for the first heading? This is an accurate description which makes the practical ramification clear to an unfamiliar reader, while making sense of the numeric bore diameter requires both knowledge and inference. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-15 23:29 z
"Please try to understand that this is a navigation box for related articles, not a standalone “List of tanks”. " these are your own words, Michael. "Older-generation guns" actually supposes that the reader know the generations of tank guns, while "under 120mm" means that the reader hase to know only the caliber of the tank. One point we are trying to avoid is using the template to evaluate the preformance of tanks, and i think we all agree on that. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:54, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Not very accurate. Some 105mm guns are newer generation that some larger bore guns. Sometimes smaller bore guns are more practical for the terrain (for example, not gun caliber but relevant ... a 120mm L/44 may be a superior gun than the 120mm L/55 in Singapore's case). JonCatalán(Talk)02:23, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Under 50 tonnes / Over 50 tonnes also requires some knowledge, but an unfamiliar reader can easily understand this ramification. That's why I suggest Under 120 mm gun. Flayer (talk) 08:21, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
But don't all of these 100/105/115-mm guns belong to an earlier generation than the 120/125-mm guns of tanks in the template? —MichaelZ. 2008-10-16 21:50 z
The preformance of these guns is much better than in cold war era. the TR-85 uses newly designed rounds acourding to it's wikipedia article, "The M68A1's performance in terms of accuracy and armor-piercing penetration is on par with the M256A1 up to 3000 meters out, but beyond that range the 105mm projectile lacks the kinetic energy to defeat modern armor packages." that is copied from the Abrams article descriping the same gun used on the Ramses II -serving with an army, where the M1A1 comes in first line role; so i say it achives the goal of the tank using it.-
No much informations about the Ch'ŏnma-ho, but i found this in it's article: "Certainly, the South Korean White Papers have reported a North Korean Ch'ŏnma-ho variant with a larger gun, which has been confirmed at 125 mm."; And catalan have already talked about the TAM.
After all, this template is not for evaluation of the preformance of tanks after the cold war, it's a navigation box for articles about tanks of the post cold war era. That's what the name suggestes, and that's what we agreed about. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:14, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why do you keep bringing performance into it? What does ammunition have to do with these tanks? If the Ch'ŏnma-ho has a 125-mm gun then it doesn't belong in this section of the template, no matter which of these titles we choose. I'm not suggesting changing the classification, just describing the common element of these tanks, which is when their guns were introduced. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-17 16:48 z
Yes, but perhaps not meaningful to unfamiliar readers.
“Older-generation gun” is strictly objective too, judging by the dates these guns first entered service, and by what is being used in all wholly new main battle tanks to enter service since the Cold War ended in 1989–91. (Please note that I have not written anything about performance). —MichaelZ. 2008-10-17 16:48 z
Changed your mind?[6]—MichaelZ. 2008-10-22 15:02 z
Action sheet for PCW tanks template
Many words, few actions. Here is the action sheet of thing we come up with, and we would list weather the majority agrees or not.
No cold war tanks names in PCW tanks template
Looks like the majority agreed on listing the concerned models of tanks instead of the name of the collective article.
So.. that's the first action, but i wanted to say that considering that the period between 1985, and 1991 was the end of the cold war, the MK3 Merkava would also be listed. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Why not the leo ? The leopard 2 article contains models of the cold war, and other after it. The point is that it's one tank with it's variants, so no problem with using the article directly.
I never noticed. Please stop adding two adjacent links, both pointing to the same article, to this navigation template. This violates the usual principals for navigation lists because it confuses readers. And maybe it's best if we don't start getting into the habit again of unilaterally making changes to the template, which some editors object to, while it's under discussion. Don't start edit-warring again. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-17 16:53 z
I do not like the tone you used in the previous section so please try to understand that this is a constructive discussion that aims to bring a better article/template, not a place, where you ,or i fight to get your/my idea used, and not the other point of view.
Do not say "please stop..." that's some thing i did only once, so you do not have to get us into an edit war - you are the only one who reverted others edits-.
The point is that the M1 Abrams, the K1 88, and the Merkava Mk1/Mk2, and perhaps even the Mk3 are not post cold war tanks, so adding them is just adding wrong informations.
The linked article is K1 88-Tank, so in this navbox we link it by its name for clarity (or in some cases by a shortened version). The latest version of the article's subject doesn't sport an earlier-generation gun, so we don't group it with those tanks which still do. Make sense?
Adding a (sometimes redundant) navbox link to a model makes it look like there's an article about that model. K1 88, K1A1 88, M1, M1A1, M1A2, Leopard 2A1, 2A2, 2A5, etc., can be added to any number of lists of armoured fighting vehicles, if it's really important have each of them mentioned outside of the respective articles. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-17 17:49 z
You object to adding two links that link to the same article -which i do not see any thing wrong with doing it-, then let's do as you said, and add them that way you suggested, and let it be "Merkava III/IV, and Abrams M1A1/M1A2".
Flayer have agreed in the beginning but latter, he said he was not sure, Catalan did not state any opinion about that, and i agree with the way you suggested it to be.
I still disagree. A navbox is for article links, and there is no article about the Merkava marks III and IV. Creating what looks like a link to such an article will just confuse readers. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-17 17:49 z
Assume you are some one who do not know any thing about these articles, you open the Leopard 2 article for example, you see the navigation box, and finally you see names of cold war tanks listed in post cold war tanks template. would not it be better to see for example Abrams M1A1, and when u click it you get directed to the main article, or that you find it written as M1 Abrams ?
No, because those articles contain essential background information before you reach the subsections that may seem more relevant (or will, once they are improved). JonCatalán(Talk)18:18, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
What does that have to do with what we are talking about ? it does not make any difference
It's as simple as that: u find a post cold war tank's name in a post cold war tanks template, you click it to get directed to a main article that gives you any essential back ground informations, and you find the tank you where looking for.
Now, you find "M1 Abrams", but you want "M1A1 Abrams", or "M1A2 Abrams", you are new to wikipedia, you do not know that there is a main article for all of these tanks, and you cannot find the tank you want since you wont follow the M1 Abrams, since you do not know it directs to a main article that contains the three tanks. In another word, the confusion that might happen is if we put cold war tanks names n post cold war tanks template. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:35, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The navbox is a list for navigating between articles (not “tank models”—Wikipedia is made of articles, not the things which they are about). If the links do not clearly correspond to articles, then the reader can get confused or frustrated. Even if this only slows them down for a few seconds, it is bad for the reader to have to shift context as they figure out what the navigation list represents.
For example: If the reader sees a list of articles including Abrams M1A1 and Abrams M1A2, they could reasonably assume that these represent two articles. So they click one and have a look. Then, for completeness, they may want to look at the other—they see the template, but the other one is now bold and not clickable—what the heck!? So they click “back” in their web browser, click on the second link there where they knew it worked... and huh? They are at the same place. Maybe they go back and forth again before they realize that two different article links next to each other took them to the same place. They may have to think for another second or two or parse out the article's TOC to figure out that they are looking at an article “M1 Abrams” which is about both “M1A1 Abrams,” “M1A2 Abrams”, and also about yet a third variant, just plain “M1 Abrams”. This is bad navigation design.
Making the nature of a link obvious is the most basic web usability guideline. A navbox for tank articles should link to each article once, with link text that refers to the subject of the article. This is not a list of tanks. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-17 20:15 z
Dear Michael, i understand you very well. I agreed on not separating the two models already. What i was suggesting is only a very tiny improvement that i explained which would be "Merkava Mk3/Mk4" instead of "Merkava", not "Merkava Mk3, Merkava Mk4", and "Abrams M1A1/M1A2" instead of "M1 Abrams", not "M1A1 Abrams, M1A2 Abrams". I think we both understand each other very well now, so on that basis, please tell me weather you still disagree or not, and if not -i hope not- please tell me the reason. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my suggestion so that it's clear to every body
I hope Michael likes it so we could finally reach consensus, but what about Leopard 2? Models before 2A4 were constructed during the cold war, 2A4, 2A5 and 2A6 are truly post-cold war tanks (actually, 2A5 and 2A6 are more advanced while 2A4 is closer to 2A3). Should we write Leopard 2A4/5/6? Flayer (talk) 21:55, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
No, I think the link text should represent the articles, not selected models of tanks, for reasons explained in several places above. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-17 22:06 z
Well, the two reasons you provided are the following:
The navigation box should not contain two links to one article....Checked, and aproved, the navbox would include one link to one article.
The link should clearly direct to a corresponding article ex. M1A1 Abrams should link to an article called M1A1 Abrams. that is not one of the guidelines, but let me discuss it below. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:57, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I do nto think so. The good thing about the Leopard 2 is that it's article is about one tank, and it's variants like the M60 for example. The difference between it and the Merkava, or the Abrams is that their articles contain more than one tank.
To be more clear, the Merkva has four models as Mark 1/2/3/4; the Centurion is also separated into "Marks", but these are based on the very first design meaning that they are no more than upgrades. The Merkava Mk2 is a new design, newer than the Mk1 -it adds much more than just the anti-rocket chain netting-, new tank. The Mk3 uses the same chasis/hull as the Mk2 i think, but also a completely new turret, new tank. I think we all agree that the Mk4 is a new tank. Meaning that while the Leopard 2 article contains models/versions belonging to different periods, it is about only one tank with it's variants.
And here we go. The second reason Michael gave for refusing my suggestion is as much as i understand, is that the link in a navbox should clearly follow a corresponding article ex. M1A1 Abrams should link to an article called M1A1 Abrams.
Well, i have two solutions for that, you choose:
When reading about the M1 Abrams, you find out that the link Desert Shield directs to the Gulf war article, and to the exact location where operation Desert Shield is mentioned in that article. M1A1 Abrams directs to the M1 Abrams article, but not to an exact location in the article, since it does not even have a tab there, and the same goes for the M1A2. Since "we are not changing articles for NavBoxs", the link would be M1A1 Abrams, and because we should not include two links that link to the same article, we would follow the very simple way; Abrams M1A1/M1A2.
The second solution is that we give each tank in the Abrams article a sub title, if not a new article, so that links would at least point to a specific place where they are mentioned in that salad of informations ! For the Merkva, see the magic; Merkava III directs to the exact location where the Mk3 is having it's own informations. the same goes for the MK 1, and the Mk 2, but not for the Merkava IV ! The K1A1 is the same case as the Abrams -it's called baby Abrams any way :D- .
This is a navbox listing articles. Not tank models or article sections. The context is a Wikipedia navigation interface element, not the body text of an article.
Here you go again, suggesting rewriting whole articles for the sake of the navbox. This is ass-backwards.
You also missed some other reasons. In addition to the problems mentioned recently, there is the inconsistency of listing marks for some tanks but not others. Why on earth would we list post-Cold War M1 and Merkava models when we don't include post-Cold War Leopard or T-80 models? Should this be extended to all of the tank–period templates, so that more articles can be linked in two or three nav templates on the same page?
Finally, this is all academic. The Leopard 2, M1, Merkava, and TAM are articles about tanks introduced during the Cold War, and by the logic of these templates, don't belong in this navbox at all. They are properly linked in template:Cold War tanks—both templates should appear in relevant tank articles, so the articles are already linked in the appropriate context. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-17 23:28 z
You have just made one of the strangest contributions i have ever seen.
Why on earth would we not list post-Cold War M1 and Merkava models when we don't include post-Cold War Leopard or T-80 models? I have explained that very clearly.
What is wrong with including more than one template in one article ?
The first reason you gave is just a personal view not supported by the guidelines, and not logic to me.
I did not suggest changing articles for the sake of navigation boxes. I never did, i stated that i do not suggest that more than one time. Why are you claiming that i did over and over again?
Finally, the last part of your contribution does not make sense, since if they do not belong to this template "by logic", then why do you insist on including them ?
I can't think of a better term to describe the suggestion of rewriting articles because you want the navbox to have a certain kind of link title. Of course you're welcome to rewrite them, and then it may be appropriate to have separate links on the template, but it seems like an awful lot of work to justify changing these links.
I'm sorry if you don't like the word ass-backwards; it is not offensive, but it sure expresses how I see this logic as wrong-headed, better than any other term I can think of. You can read the definition in wiktionary:ass-backwards. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-18 15:33 z
Of every thing i wrote, the only thing you have a comment about is my comment on your usage of that term ?!
I thought the term was offensive at the begining, it's kinda odd for non native english speakers to be famillier with as a non offensive term. Actually i wondered how would you write some thng like that any way.
Any way, the good thing is that you now know that the logic you thought i am talking about is not the one i really am.
I thought the term was offensive at the begining, it's kinda odd for non native english speakers to be famillier with as a non offensive term.
Sorry, Pharaoh. You talked about why you consider the Leopard 2 two be one tank but the Merkava is four different tanks—I don't know enough about the Merkava to agree or disagree with authority, but if a new turret makes a new tank, then the Leopard 2 would be several tanks, I think, as would the T-64 and T-80, T-84, T-90, TR-85 and probably a few others. I don't find your explanation clear at all, but this is asking the wrong question, anyway.
I don't necessarily agree with your logic or even to its application to this problem: we could spend all week arguing about what is a different tank, just as we have about what is a “modern tank”, without ever reaching a conclusion. We can cut these classifications as coarsely or as finely as we want. If the M1 Abrams is two or three tanks and not one, then what is the thing which we refer to as the “M1 Abrams”?
But there are some things we can agree on: 1) Israel calls its main battle tank series the Merkava, the US calls its the M1 Abrams, Germany calls its the Leopard 2, and 2) Wikipedia has one article about the Merkava, one about the M1 Abrams, and one about the Leopard 2. A navbox's function, clearly mentioned several times in both the guideline and in WP:NAV, is to help readers find articles, not to name all models or marks of tanks (in fact the linked guideline outlines the complementary characteristics of categories and lists—the latter is an appropriate way to do this).
Finally, I do not insist on including the four Cold War tank articles here: I have argued several times to remove them, but have received no hint that anyone agrees with the idea. I have taken this as a lack of consensus for my proposal, and decided not to waste everyone's time by repeating it ad nauseam. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-19 00:10 z
Alright, it did not deserve such argument any way, and since we still do not agree, and since we do not have a majority opinion, I withdraw the suggestion.
I think it's clear that there is no consensus between the four of us discussing this here. We're trying to edit this template by consensus, and a simple majority doesn't “win” the right to have their way. These changes would also have repercussions affecting the other tank–period templates which haven't been examined at all, and for this reason should be discussed more widely, at WT:AFV. —MichaelZ. 2008-10-17 23:28 z
Once upon the time, One_last_pharaoh said: "Please try to understand that this is a constructive discussion to bring a better article/template, not a place where you or i fight to get your/my idea used, and not the other point of view".
There is not "my way", and "your way". There is a right way, the way that is supported by the majority. as far as i know there is not other editor, or reader that joined the discussion than us, not a single one, and if there were any, i would have been happy when they state their opinions.
The guidelines do not oppose what i am suggesting -ie. my suggestion that needs the approval of the majority, not just my way-.
I have stated my reasons, you have stated yours, i have responded to them, and every one understands very clearly the two points of view. It is very clear also that you do not agree with my suggestion, so let the others state their votes. If the majority agreed on rejecting the suggestion, i would agree too; If not, then we should follow the opinion of the majority, and let the suggested action take place. One last pharaoh (talk) 11:49, 18 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Missing Tanks in Post-Cold War Tanks List?
Can someone explain why Leopard 2 and K1 aren't included in Post-Cold War Tanks list while M1 Abrams and Merkava are included? All of them initially entered service in the Cold War era and have variants that entered service during the post-Cold War era. For example, the first M1 Abrams tank was introduced in the early 1980s and I assume it is included in the Post-Cold War Tanks list because of the M1A2 and M1A2 SEP variants which were introduced in the 1990s. The Merkava Mk. 1 was first introduced in the early 1980s but Mk.3 and Mk. 4 were introduced in the 1990s and 2000s. The Leopard 2 was first introduced in the early 1980s and have variants introduced after the Cold War such as the Leopard 2A5 (1995) and Leopard 2A6 (early 2000s). Also, the K1 was first introduced in the mid-1980s but its improved variant, K1A1, was introduced in 2001. Can someone explain how these tanks are classified? Sch614 (talk) 16:06, 26 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The scheme used for all of the tank article navboxes is this: each link represents an article about a tank or tank series which entered service during the period in question. But a tank in service during two periods will have both navboxes of course, so there is no lack of links to contemporary tanks. If we included every tank with a variant still in service on this template, then there would probably be more Cold War tanks here than post-Cold War tanks, including the T-34.
If there were separate articles on the M1A2 Abrams and Merkava Mark 4, they should be linked from this template. But the links to the articles M1 Abrams and Merkava should be removed. Any objections to removing them now? —MichaelZ. 2009-02-13 17:21 z
The "Cold War tank"s and "Post–Cold War tanks" templates need to be modified
According to Wikipedia article Cold War, the Cold War period is from March 12, 1947 to December 26, 1991. Some main battle tank articles use the "Cold War tanks" and "Post–Cold War tanks" templates simultaneously. To avoid further confusion, the "Cold War tanks" and "Post–Cold War tanks" templates must be modified. I'm a little surprised that none of the people involved in editing this template felt strange about this. Gasiseda (talk) 12:56, 30 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
