Follow TV Tropes

Discussion History Main / SmiteMeOMightySmiter

Go To

Changed line(s) 1 from:
sounds like an S&M parody of \
to:
sounds like an S&M parody of \\\"Cwm Rhondda/ Bread of Heaven\\\"...

-->Smite me oh, thou mighty smiter!//
-->Smite me with thy smiting hand!//
-->Thou art just - and I have been naughty!//
-->Smite me till I no longer stand!//
-->Smite me sideways,//
-->Smite me backwards -//
-->Smite me till I cry \\\"no more!\\\"//
-->\\\'\\\'(Cry \\\"No More!\\\")-\\\'\\\'//
-->Smite me till I cry, \\\"no more\\\"!//
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an \'\'uncontroversial and \'\'\'generally\'\'\' plausible/acceptable\'\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an \\\'\\\'uncontroversial and \\\'\\\'\\\'generally\\\'\\\'\\\' plausible/acceptable\\\'\\\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to [[HitAndRunTactics change from one firing position to other]] - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the \\\'\\\'Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe\\\'\\\', the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and [[ArtisticLicenseShips lump]], for example, [[TypesOfNavalShips battleships and battlecruisers]] or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an \'\'uncontroversial and \'\'\'generally\'\'\' plausible/acceptable\'\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an \\\'\\\'uncontroversial and \\\'\\\'\\\'generally\\\'\\\'\\\' plausible/acceptable\\\'\\\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the \\\'\\\'Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe\\\'\\\', the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and [[ArtisticLicenseShips lump]], for example, [[TypesOfNavalShips battleships and battlecruisers]] or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an \'\'uncontroversial and \'\'\'generally\'\'\' plausible/acceptable\'\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an \\\'\\\'uncontroversial and \\\'\\\'\\\'generally\\\'\\\'\\\' plausible/acceptable\\\'\\\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the \\\'\\\'Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe\\\'\\\', the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a <u> self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations. </u>
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and [[ArtisticLicenseShips lump]], for example, [[TypesOfNavalShips battleships and battlecruisers]] or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an \'\'uncontroversial and \'\'\'generally\'\'\' plausible/acceptable\'\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an \\\'\\\'uncontroversial and \\\'\\\'\\\'generally\\\'\\\'\\\' plausible/acceptable\\\'\\\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the \\\'\\\'Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe\\\'\\\', the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a <u>self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.</u>
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and [[ArtisticLicenseShips lump]], for example, [[TypesOfNavalShips battleships and battlecruisers]] or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an \'\'uncontroversial and \'\'\'generally\'\'\' plausible/acceptable\'\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an \\\'\\\'uncontroversial and \\\'\\\'\\\'generally\\\'\\\'\\\' plausible/acceptable\\\'\\\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the \\\'\\\'Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe\\\'\\\', the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and [[ArtisticLicenseShips lump]], for example, [[TypesOfNavalShips battleships and battlecruisers]] or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an \'\'uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable\'\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an \\\'\\\'uncontroversial and \\\'\\\'\\\'generally\\\'\\\'\\\' plausible/acceptable\\\'\\\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and [[ArtisticLicenseShips lump]], for example, [[TypesOfNavalShips battleships and battlecruisers]] or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an \\\'\\\'uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable\\\'\\\' definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and [[ArtisticLicenseShips lump]], for example, [[TypesOfNavalShips battleships and battlecruisers]] or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and [[ArtisticLicenseShips lump]], for example, [[TypesOfNavalShips battleships and battlecruisers]] or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and [[ArtisticLicenseShips lump]], for example, [[TypesOfNavalShips battleships and battlecruisers]] or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and [[ArtisticLicense Ships lump]], for example, [[TypesOfNavalShips battleships and battlecruisers]] or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, [[ArtisticLicenseShips battleships and battlecruisers]] or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and let\\\'s say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the \\\'\\\'raison d\\\'Ítre\\\'\\\'
of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured fighting vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was finally cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armoured vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armored vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armoured_fighting_vehicle armoured vehicles]] that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with the enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is the American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform - and which generally translates into details of their construction) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), maneuvering against enemy vulnerable flanks and engaging them from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions; and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.: Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re neither designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.:Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not designed nor built to engage in \\\"slugging-it-out\\\" matches with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.:Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection only, intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.:Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.:Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.:Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and heavy tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.:Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general, are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.:Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and say armoured cars, calling them both just tanks; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.:Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'

\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'

-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and armoured cars; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general terms - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.


p.s.:Re: \\\'\\\'For example, this analogy (paraphrased): \\\"...similarly to how many people think all naval ships are \\\'battleships\\\'\\\".\\\'\\\'
\\\'\\\'Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a \\\"battleship\\\" to most civilians.\\\'\\\'
-- In my opinion actually a valid analogy - some people have problem to tell apart, for example, battleships and frigates, just as it\\\'s difficult for others to discriminate between tanks and armoured cars; while others - while they\\\'re quite aware of the differences in general terms - are still prone to miss the more minute details of distinctions and lump, for example, battleships and battlecruisers or tanks and tank destroyers into a single category.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars (also heavily armed) as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armoured vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted and gun-armed) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial and generally plausible/acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details (chiefly the main armament in a rotating turret), but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (i.e. specialized armoured vehicles other than tanks, which are usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the armament in a rotating turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the armament in a rotating turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-gun armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the armament in a rotating turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the specific stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is generally meant to be (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function/mission they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the armament in a rotating turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the armament in a rotating turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the presence of a turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gunfire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank called]] [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tank_classification tank]], the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the presence of a turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary (both between different nations and in time), and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function they\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the presence of a turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as a tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define by function they\\\'re intended to perform) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the presence of a turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the presence of a turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult it\\\'s to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the presence of a turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection/keeping to change from one firing position to other - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversiasl generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the presence of a turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversiasl generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversiasl generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people put the emphasis on particular construction details /chiefly the presence of a turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversiasl generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat, not in visual contact with enemy land troops (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire engagements - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protection intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and meanwhile also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define) - i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] etc. - from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a Gun Motor Carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definition of \\\'tank\\\' is a wee bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have their main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but they\\\'re not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definitions may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definiton of \\\'tank\\\' is a bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definiton of \\\'tank\\\' is a bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armoured fighting vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definiton of \\\'tank\\\' is a bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, until the 1930s many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definiton of \\\'tank\\\' is a bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and classification quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored (and heavily armed) cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define what a \\\"tank\\\" is.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized armoured vehicles and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definiton of \\\'tank\\\' is a bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definiton of \\\'tank\\\' is a bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some of its heavy armored cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definiton of \\\'tank\\\' is a bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks (which are specialized and usually quite easy to define), i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

Any positive definiton of \\\'tank\\\' is a bit more difficult to reach, but in the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=] from the \\\"armoured combat vehicle\\\" category, or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles/tracked recovery vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured combat vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles/tracked recovery vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles/tracked recovery vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in a turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles/tracked recovery vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and drive to the enemy rear - i.e. typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles/tracked recovery vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and wreak havoc in the enemy rear - i.e. an typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"[[NonIndicativeName wheeled tanks]]\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles/tracked recovery vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and wreak havoc in the enemy rear - i.e. an typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaulsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"wheeled tanks\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles/tracked recovery vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and wreak havoc in the enemy rear - i.e. an typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaullsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"wheeled tanks\\\"; and also quite neatly illustrating how difficult is to define \\\"a tank.\\\"
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or (to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]]): [to exclude] \\\"armoured vehicles which are equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=]/recon vehicles/tracked recovery vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and wreak havoc in the enemy rear - i.e. an typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaullsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"wheeled tanks\\\".
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers AND APC/IFVs, or to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers [=AND APC/IFVs=], or to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]] \\\"armoured vehicles equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=] vehicles/tracked recovery vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and wreak havoc in the enemy rear - i.e. an typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaullsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"wheeled tanks\\\".
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers AND APC/IFVs, or to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers AND APC/IFVs, or to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]] \\\"armoured vehicles equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=] vehicles/tracked recovery vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and wreak havoc in the enemy rear - i.e. an typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus:
--> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaullsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"wheeled tanks\\\".
Changed line(s) 1 from:
Well, there \'\'is\'\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers AND APC/IFVs, or to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]] \
to:
Well, there \\\'\\\'is\\\'\\\' a distinct category of armored vehicle that is called tank, the problem is that it\\\'s bit difficult to reach an uncontroversial generally acceptable definition of it. By far the easisest is, in my opinion, to exclude all non-tanks, i.e. self-propelled gun/missile system carriers AND APC/IFVs, or to put it [[SesquipedalianLoquaciousness less understandably]] \\\"armoured vehicles equipped with specialized weapon systems but not constructed with an intention of their employment in intensive front-line combat in direct contact with enemy land forces \\\'\\\'and\\\'\\\' armoured vehicles primarily constructed for personnel transportation.\\\"
(Point also being that the raison d\\\'Ítre of [=APC/IFVs/self-propelled artillery/AA=] vehicles/tracked recovery vehicles etc. is to accompany and support forces based around tanks as their primary offensive weapon.)

Some people stress the construction details /chiefly the turret/, but then almost all WWI tanks were turretless, yet employed in an attempts to break through the front trench line and wreak havoc in the enemy rear - i.e. an typical tank operations - while many self-propelled weapon systems have main weapon installed in a rotating turret, but there are not intended to engage in \\\"slugging it out\\\" with the enemy forces in prolonged direct fire confrontations - they are either intended as mobile weapons carriers with limited shell-fragment protectiom intended to fire their weapons from the second line of combat (e.g. self-propelled indirect fire artillery systems, most anti-air vehicles) or to keep their distance from an actual frontline (at least from enemy infantry and its anti-armour weapons), while engaging enemy troops from safer distance with direct gun fire (US WWII tank destroyers) or missiles (modern missile tank destroyers) while still relying on their mobility for protection - for their [[GlassCannon own good]].

Of course the definition may vary, and sometimes the boundaries are quite blurred - my favourite is American [[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T28_Super_Heavy_Tank T28 prototype]] - which started as a superheavy tank (because it was intended to be employed as tank in break through the Siegfried Line), then reclassified as a gun motor carriage/self-propelled gun (as it had a large calibre gun in turretless mounting) and then again reclassified as tank, before the project was cancelled.

In the Treaty on Conventional Forces in Europe, the battle tank is defined thus: --> The term \\\"battle tank\\\" means a self-propelled armoured fighting vehicle, capable of heavy firepower, primarily of a high muzzle velocity direct fire main gun necessary to engage armoured and other targets, with high cross-country mobility, with a high level of self-protection, and which is not designed and equipped primarily to transport combat troops. Such armoured vehicles serve as the principal weapon system of ground-force tank and other armoured formations.
-->Battle tanks are tracked armoured fighting vehicles which weigh at least 16.5 metric tonnes unladen weight and which are armed with a 360-degree traverse gun of at least 75 millimeters calibre.
-->In addition, any wheeled armoured fighting vehicles entering into service which meet all the other criteria stated above shall also be deemed battle tanks.

Regardless of the stipulations for main the calibre of main weapon (historically, many tanks were only machine-guns armed) and weight, this should be taken both as a quite good general definition of what the tank is (tracked armed armoured vehicle intended for engaging the enemy in direct combat with direct fire; usually turretted) while still providing for some exceptions and unusual quirks - e.g. the [[GaullsWithGrenades French Army]] classified some its heavy armored cars as \\\"wheeled tanks\\\".
Top

How well does it match the trope?

Example of:

/

Media sources:

/

Report