Can a Tank have wheels?

Well today what we call a "tank" will nearly always conform to the requirements of being a "Main Battle Tank."

Everything else (tracks or not) tend to be called "self-propelled guns" or whatever.

File: hqdefault.jpg (12KB, 480x360px) Image search: [Google]

12KB, 480x360px

>>32930590
If a tank is determined by what moves it then this wouldn't be a tank either.

>>32930590
>Everything else (tracks or not) tend to be called "self-propelled guns" or whatever.

This. The chassis is still lightly or no armored to accommodate the weight of the gun then it technically is a SPG.

>>32930621
Its not.

>>32930638
How?

>>32930590
Even tanks that have tracks are called self-propelled guns.

Then again, it doesn't have the shape, size, caliber, and mobility of a MBT.

File: 1-image-01[1].jpg (87KB, 500x332px) Image search: [Google]

87KB, 500x332px

Do you consider this a tank, OP?

A tank should be defined as the following:
>A fully tracked vehicle
>Has some form of armor and an enclosed fighting compartment
>Main armament is a gun
>Is capable of providing infantry-support as well as fighting enemy armor
Not going to mention turrets because the first tanks didn't have them and also because I'll trigger the Swedes.

>>32930664
It's a piece of shit, not a tank

>>32930799
Not an argument.

File: 2017_02_08_23_04_57_Tank_Definition_of_Tank_by_Merriam_Webster.png (23KB, 780x193px) Image search: [Google]

23KB, 780x193px

>>32930812
Those legs would be a bitch to maintain and a higher profile doesn't help. Also I bet the top speed wouldn't be great.

File: puma.jpg (46KB, 800x457px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 800x457px

OP: This is not a tank, it is an armored car.

Generally wheeled armored vehicles like this Panhard were designed as scout vehicles that could dash in quick and quiet and if they got into trouble hit hard and get the hell out of there. They lacked the armor to stand up to a real tank in combat.

Other such vehicles would be the British Saladin or the German SdKfz 234 "Puma". A more modern and essentially failed vehicle of thus type would be the US Army's Stryker MGS.

File: 1485776046371.jpg (786KB, 1073x710px) Image search: [Google]

786KB, 1073x710px

>>32930568

Tanks have tracks, lots of armor, and a big gun in a turret.

If it doesn't have all three, it's not a tank, but some other sort of vehicle.

Pic related, another thing that isn't a tank.

File: British_Mark_V-star_Tank.jpg (207KB, 800x398px) Image search: [Google]

207KB, 800x398px

>>32931014
WW1 tanks didn't fit all those qualifications

File: 003.jpg (364KB, 2000x1000px) Image search: [Google]

364KB, 2000x1000px

>There are people on /k/ RIGHT NOW who think a tanks are only dictated by the last half a decade of tanks

>>32931030

OK, then fuck it, the word tank has absolutely no meaning if the only thing that qualifies as a tank is whatever people had in WW1. I guess those sandcrawler bullshit things that ISIS cobbles together once in a while are what a tank is.

File: panzer1.jpg (158KB, 1024x683px) Image search: [Google]

158KB, 1024x683px

>>32931014

A large number of WWI tanks, interwar, and early WWII tanks don't fir the model of "lots of armor, big gun". The Panzer I was armed with two MG13 Machine guns and was hella lightly armored.

And don't mention a turret. The Swedes are triggering as we speak.

File: leonardo-da-vincis-tank-invention1.jpg (32KB, 400x350px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x350px

>>32931065
Apparently Leonardo Da Vincis war vehicle is classified as a tank aswell tho and this is from the mid 1400s and pretty sure it was meant to have wheels.

Pretty sure the term tank is relatively loose.

File: M109A6-Firing.jpg (117KB, 899x602px) Image search: [Google]

117KB, 899x602px

>>32931065

It has meaning, you just have a shitty defintion. By your definition the M109 Paladin would qualify as a tank, when it is a SPG, but not the Swedish S-tank, which is a tank.

>>32930568
A tank in the military definition:
>Armoured
>Designed for direct combat use
>Designed for offensive use
>Not designed to carry infantry
>Armed with a direct fire cannon, on a turret
This includes wheeled tanks
It does not include the stryker 105mm, which has no turret

A tank in common usage
>Armoured vehicle
>Designed for some sort of combat
This includes Lenco Bearcat

>>32930713
Looks more like an APC-type vehicle if you ask me, even with the mortar.

>>32931084
And they would still fit the definition of tank because said definition morphed over time from the time tanks were still figuring out what the hell they were to their present, more solidified state. Fuck the swedes.

>>32931084
DEFINITIONS EVOLVE

>>32931115
>It does not include the stryker 105mm, which has no turret
But it does have a turret. It's just an unmanned turret.

>>32931122
It's just an armored weapons platform.

File: triggered.jpg (318KB, 1699x593px) Image search: [Google]

318KB, 1699x593px

>This many people voted no

>>32931030
>WW1 tanks didn't fit all those qualifications
That's hardly surprising, they were still developing the definition, just like how an automatic pistol used to mean one which was capable of self-loading, semi-automatic fire, because the definition of 'automatic' wasn't set yet.

>>32931084
>The Panzer I was armed with two MG13 Machine guns and was hella lightly armored.

Go build this shit today and see if anyone calls it a tank.

>>32931174
Everybody called it a tank when it was rolling across Europe shooting Frenchmen.

Just like everybody called the MkIV a tank when it was rolling across France shooting Germans.

If you want to imagine the world's first tank was not a tank you are retarded.

>No turret
>Is a tank

>>32931115
>>32931154
ww1 tanks where heavily armoured for their time, as where ww2 tanks and cold war.

A tank is typically designated a tank by its intended use. but stereo-typically nowadays it's heavy armour able to take hits, armour piercing firepower able to take out other tanks, and good mobility. as well as being able to fill the roles an MBT does, assuming it's an MBT and not a light tank.

File: tmp_11790-sydney-funnel-web1437244137.jpg (66KB, 620x390px) Image search: [Google]

66KB, 620x390px

>>32930621
Spider Tank

File: Strv-103 skirtless BnW.jpg (477KB, 1647x933px) Image search: [Google]

477KB, 1647x933px

>>32931209
The Swedes beg to differ

>>32931274
>inb4 someone calls it an assault gun

File: STRV-103-S Tank-Swedish-Main Battle Tank2.webm (1MB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 640x480px

>>32931274
>>32931317
Gotta go fast

File: bt7.jpg (54KB, 639x428px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 639x428px

>>32930568
A wheeled vehicle could be a tank if a militarily decided to designate as a tank and used it as a tank.

There are no universal technical definitions for a tank. Tanks have been been turret-less, cannon-less and in some cases even track-optional.

>>32931774
turretless typically makes them a tank-destroyer, cannonless makes it whatever the hell you use it for eg: engineering vehicle, apc etc. track-less im assuming you mean makes them more an armoured gun carrier eg:m1128 ags, rooikat, centauro

File: Mako.jpg (40KB, 620x349px) Image search: [Google]

40KB, 620x349px

>>32931774
I agree with this, a tank should be defined by its role of providing armoured direct fire support rather than its method of movement. Though I still think something that serves the role of a tank but is turretless should be called an SPG.

OPs image is not a tank, it's an armoured car, it does not fulfill a tank's role

>>32931845
Classification is determined by role.
Role influences design.
Design does not determine classification.

Common requirements mean that vehicles of the same role tend to share common characteristics. That is different then vehicles requiring characteristics to fill that role.

>BT-7: Light tank that could remove its tracks.
>Strv-103: MBT without a turret.
>M10: Tracked, armored, turreted, cannon-armed tank destroyer.
ect.

>>32931115

>not designed to carry infantry

What about the Merkava

>>32932055
Stop this meme. It isn't. It doesn't.

>>32932073

it can though

>>32932055
>>32932073
CAN carry casualties and HAS

>>32932120
>>32932124
It CAN fit people where the ammunition goes. Does it? No, it almost never does. The only time they MIGHT do it is casualties when fire is too heavy to put them in anything else. So quit this fucking meme. It is not DESIGNED to carry infantry. Fuck off, take this meme, and go fucking hang yourself.

>>32930568
it's semantic, but I have never heard of a wheeled vehicle being referred to as a tank
maybe a ww1 prototype once with overlapping disk wheels and no treads

generally if it has wheels it's either a half track, self propelled gun, armored car, APC

File: AMX-10-RC.jpg (1MB, 3072x2048px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3072x2048px

>>32932232
This is a tank. By doctrine and by usage.

jut because something doesn't looks like a tank, it doesn't mean it isn't one. See: STRV103.

>>32932282
That is not a tank tho.

>>32932306
Ask French.

Let's explain it using an example. Is Stryker MGS a tank? Definitely no in US army, but if thanks to some miracle MGS would be adopted by French army, the Stryker magically becomes a tank for their army.

>>32932282
thats a light recon vehicle able to pack a punch

>>32932306
Used by tank units, crewed by tankers and in the tank section.

I wounder what it could be?

>>32932282
>>32932317
its closer to an armoured car. if you ask any one who doesn't know dick about armoured fighting vehicles they'll say literally anything that has armour and a gun is a tank.

>>32932346
"Tank" is as much of a role than physical status. In the French army, it is used as a tank (and in other roles but it's part of some tank regiments.

It is a lightly armoured, highly mobile tank. But it's not a Main Battle tank (MBT).

>>32932356
it's used as a reconnaissance vehicle

File: 2017-02-09.png (2MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1920x1080px

>>32932346
If you are so knowledgeable about military, then solve this simple puzzle.

Which of these vehicles is not a tank destroyer?

>>32932375
tank destroyer / tank.

>>32930996

ok sparky

>>32932282
Actually no, it's not. It's a reconnaissance vehicle.

>>32932356
>it is used as a tank
That is incorrect.

>>32930568
No, a tank is by definition tracked. Besides, wheels suck ass off road. The only real use of wheeled self-propelled AFV is replacing towed artillery.

>>32930568
the word tank is a deliberate misnomer used to disguise the british project as a water carrying tanker. a better term is armored fighting vehicle which could mean either a tracked or wheeled (or halftrack) variety of vehicles.

Is it better to say that the more important thing is how the vehicle in question is used, its capabilities etc than whether it's a tank or not?

That's the problem with making an arbitrary category, you have exceptions as needed.

>>32931065
Tank has no meaning, since its a codeword that has gotten into common language. But the name is about the usage rather than design

>>32930713
Thats a tankette dude

>>32931331
>swedish autistic screeching

>>32932586
that particular one is a mortar carrier

>>32932577

It definitely has meaning and general rules, but I agree the capabilities and how it is used definitely are an important factor.

I would say conventionally yes, as others have said they are are usually tracked, turreted, and well armored tracked vehicles mounting a direct fire cannon used to support infantry or engage enemy armor.

Now the Swedish S tank: No turret, but otherwise fits the bill and is used by doctrine in a tanks role, so it is still a tank. For example.

The Panhard, AMX10, Saladdin, , etc all boast direct fire guns that hit hard enough, decent armor, and a turret, but wheels instead of tracks, however doctrine wise they are built as light reconnaissance vehicles and not meant as a main line of infantry support, and could simply not stand up to an AFV slugfest.

Look at the Alvis Scorpion that replaced the Saladin. It packs a 75mm gun, armor, a turret, cannon, and tracks, but it's role is that of a scout vehicle. What does that make it? A light tank?

>>32932655
>decent armor,
No.

>>32932661
>decent armor
>could simply not stand up to an AFV slugfest

Yeah, it's not tank armor, but it's going to stop you from catching a bullet.

>>32932342
So if a medical unit gets attached to tank section, do the ambulances become classified as tanks?

>>32931734
They must hate it when they hit a dip and dig the barrel into the ground.

>>32932073
The british Churchill was used to carry combat engineers in WW2.

14 year olds in here aren't going to know what you guys mean by "gun". Just sayin.

PANZER KAMPF WAGON!!!

File: 1416045593353.jpg (186KB, 1327x834px) Image search: [Google]

186KB, 1327x834px

>>32932790
"armoured fighting vehicle"

File: nag800jpg.jpg (48KB, 800x392px) Image search: [Google]

48KB, 800x392px

>>32932055
>>32932120
Conformed to be a mem by Merkgunner so many times already.
Do you think all their Namers, Achzarits, and soon enough the Eitans are just for show?

>>32932682
A fucking UAH can prevent me from catching a bullet. It by no means is decently armored. I'd consider decently armored to be at minimum frontal protection from AP from a 2A42 at 300m

>>32932744
It has lowrider-tier hydraulics so you can drive it with the front angled fairly steeply upwards

>>32932751
Incorrect. A modified Churchill, the AVRE, was used to carry combat engineers. It used a tank chassis and had a big gun, but I would hesitate to call it a tank.

File: rooikat-105-REUOM04.jpg (41KB, 726x430px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 726x430px

>>32930568
>wheeled armoured vehicles with tank guns
Otherwise known as the South African option.

Did you just assume my combat role?

File: FlamboyantTestyBlackcrappie.webm (3MB, 1920x1080px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 1920x1080px

>>32932897
inspired by the nazi puma


webm sort of related

>>32932968
>wow thats a nicely coloured ww2 footage oh wait

>>32932968
It's kinda strange how that particular design is still modern.

File: stryker_MBT.jpg (157KB, 1200x800px) Image search: [Google]

157KB, 1200x800px

>>32932955
check your armored class privilage shitlord
this isn't culturole appropriation

>>32930759
>implying strv 103 isn't the dankest MBT ever made.

File: LAND_SPH_G6_155mm.jpg (74KB, 800x533px) Image search: [Google]

74KB, 800x533px

>>32932968
The Saffers take it to a new level though.
>tfw you will never laugh off a TM-46 landmine from within your Casspir bumping down a dirtroad in Angola

File: BlandWelllitBaboon-mobile.jpg (57KB, 640x426px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 640x426px

>>32933049
>other tanks can't make adorable curtsies

>>32933061
are the fuel-cans-acting-as-additional-side-armor filled or empty during operational use?

File: 1418571957854.jpg (49KB, 299x288px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 299x288px

>>32933061
>their tank can't dig it's own fighting position

>>32933068
I suspect filled unless in urban environments. The tank is fairly fire-resistant, and the fluid helped fairly well against AP projectiles
>https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MiWCpIJ5dBw

this thread reminds me that I want a game centering around armored cars with guns like the Panhard. As few games about tanks there are, there's even fewer about wheeled fighting vehicles.

>>32933079
that video does not inspire much morale for the s tank crews i imagine

>>32932778
Then what should we use? BabykillerAssaultStick?

>>32933108
Why not? The crew wouldn't have sustained serious injury from most of the attacks.

>>32933107
Best bet is probably armoured warfare, though I thinks the pvp is fairly dead lately, pve always has people in it

>>32933069
It can, its bulldozerblades are hydraulig and functioning as a second layer of lower glaces.

>>32931734
Awww it poops.

>>32930568
Updated definition -
A tank in the post 1937 military definition fulfills of these criteria:

>Armoured
>Armed with a direct fire cannon at least 76mm
>Designed for combat use
(might be redundant, what armoured vehicle with 76mm+ gun isn't designed for combat?
)
And fulfills at least 2 of the following criteria
>Designed for aggressive offensive use
(paladins, AT halftracks, don't qualify)
>Not designed to carry infantry
(can still fill this criteria if later adapted to, like T55 (Jews, Ruskies) or Ram(Kangaroo)
>Cannon mounted on a turret

This includes wheeled tanks, such as OP, and light tanks, such as the scorpion or PT76
It also includese WW2 tank destroyers of American pattern.
It does not include the stug or Jagdpanther, which were designed for defence.
It does not include the stryker 105mm, which has no turret and wasn't designed for offensive use
I don't consider the Swede meme tank a tank, since everything I've read shows it was designed
for defensive tactics.

A tank in common usage
>Armoured vehicle
>Designed for some sort of combat
This includes Lenco Bearcat

>>32935409
There's some things wrong with this. First of all, the Stryker MGS does in fact have a turret. It's an unmanned turret. Of course, the fact that you're unable to realize this is indicative of the fact that you should shut the fuck up about everything involving tanks.

>This includes wheeled tanks...
No, it doesn't. They are not designed for the attack. They are primarily reconnaissance and fire support. They are not used as tanks. Course, you haven't paid the slightest bit of attention to people telling you this.

Your criteria are bad and you should feel bad.

>>32933079
>the birds that landed by the tank right before the 30mm gun run

WOOPS

>>32935547
"Turret" means "Can shoot 360 degrees"
Stryker can't shoot to the side or it will fall over

>>32930568
No, if it doesn't have tracks it's an armored vehicle (usually an APC or armored car). If it has treads and wheels it's a half track (also an APC).

>>32935547
>They are not designed for the attack. They are primarily reconnaissance and fire support.
Yeah, they are. Just like the PT 76 or Scorpion.

>>32935587
This is a meme. The MGS can in fact shoot to its side. No, it does not fall over.

>>32935606
Exactly. I wouldn't count those as tanks either. Hence the ellipses.

>>32935621
Then you'd be straight wrong.

>>32935612
Regardless Stryker 105mm was never designed for aggressive offensive use, and it WAS designed to carry infantry.

A tank must have the following characteristics:

A fully enclosed, 360 degree traversable turret.
Heavy armor.
Tracks.
A large-caliber high-velocity cannon designed for direct fire.

So if a vehicle has wheels, it's not a tank.

>>32931094
I think we give a little latitude when typing a theoretical war vehicle from the 15TH FUCKING CENTURY

>>32931734
>>32931317
>>32931274
its a modern StuG

>>32935696
>Then you'd be straight wrong.
These things aren't for attacking. They're for reconnaissance and fire support. You are flat up wrong.

>>32935696
>Regardless Stryker 105mm was never designed for aggressive offensive use,
Just like other things you for some reason do call tanks. I, not being retarded, fully realize that the things you are calling tanks are no more tanks than the Stryker MGS is.
>and it WAS designed to carry infantry.
No, it wasn't. The Stryker MGS does not carry infantry.

File: 2s14 zhalo-s.jpg (244KB, 1000x725px) Image search: [Google]

244KB, 1000x725px

>>32932897
It has been a thing long before that.

>>32932968
>>32933001
Seriously, put a US Army paint job on it and change the decals and it could easily pass as a mini MRAP kind of thing.

Fucking Germans

>>32931110
i think tanks main definition is that it can fight opposing armor heads on while it is mobile over cross terrain.

if can use any means to propel itself fire laser beams missiles or shells doesn't matter.

>>32931110
>S-tank, which is a tank.
no, it's not.
it's an updated jagdpanther
designed for defensive tactics

>>32935894
it could eat a 100 jagdpanther alive tho.
it's a fucking beast.

File: Faible Tonnage.png (345KB, 935x704px) Image search: [Google]

345KB, 935x704px

>>32930759
>implying the first real tank wasn't the Faible Tonnage modèle 1917

Tires: Armored vehicle
Treads: Tank
It's not difficult.

>>32935894
>it's an updated jagdpanther
>designed for defensive tactics
lebbit.com/r/AskHistorians/comments/4fj5ow/what_factors_led_to_the_design_and_deployment_of/
No. You kids say the same meme about the Abrams because of the turbine and it isn't any more true there

>>32930713
APC mortar carrier. Doesn't have wheels so US will never buy, and real airborne troops want to be pedestrians the moment they detach their parachute.

>>32936074
I'd probably say it's the first modern tank.

>>32932897
Goddamn that is a sexy beast

>>32933068
Filled up. Any burning would do jack shit against the tank, since it can take a napalm hit and roll away

>>32931734
So how hot are spent casings?

>>32930812
>Look at picture
>It is a picture of fecal matter
>Anon rightfully calls it shit
>Durr not an arugement, it is a tank!
Such is life on 4chan

>>32930568
Mate, there's no argument

The name tank came from the development of the "tank" by the allied forces in the first world war. The tank was a tracked heavy chassis AFV there for to be a tank it must maintain those primary items, otherwise it isnt a tank

File: sgtia-1-rima-3[1].jpg (234KB, 2000x1292px) Image search: [Google]

234KB, 2000x1292px

>>32932400
>called a tank in official nomenclature
>used by tank regiments (like the 1st RICM - Marine Infantry - Tank Regiment)
>used like a tank in doctrine.
huh-uh

File: Strv m31.jpg (10KB, 325x155px) Image search: [Google]

10KB, 325x155px

>>32930568
Why not both?

>>32931734
Did it just lay an egg?

>>32931317
The MG on the top is a turret. Given it's a gun and it rotates

File: 34535225.gif (479KB, 330x151px) Image search: [Google]

479KB, 330x151px

>>32930621
>>32930621

I really hop something like this is never actually prototyped and put into mass production

I don't think anyone wants to do with a fucking 6 legged MBT hauling ass at them up a mountain side at like 30mph

>>32930759
>>32930568
>>32930590
>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 millimetres 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.
>...
>The term “heavy armament combat vehicle” means an armoured combat vehicle with an integral or organic direct fire gun of at least 75 millimetres calibre, weighing at least 6.0 metric tonnes unladen weight, which does not fall within the definitions of an armoured personnel carrier, or an armoured infantry fighting vehicle or a battle
tank.

>>32930568
By definition no

>>32930568
>>32930996
armored car

mobility kill instantly if you shoot the wheels with a heavy weapon (an RPG might do it, let alone another cannon)
> notice I didnt say just shoot the wheels, they are vulnerable but not to small arms

>>32931030
they got grandfathered in

the earliest tanks might have been considered an APC really, but they defined the term so there you go.

File: weelllp.jpg (11KB, 200x200px) Image search: [Google]

11KB, 200x200px

>>32933061
> autism tank
> the post

>>32932282
>>32932317


French here, and nope, this is not a tank, nor a char, it's a reconnaissance armored vehicle.

French definition for char=>

Char:
Sens 4
Militaire ( Army )
Véhicule blindé et armé, monté sur des chenilles.
( Armored vehicle, mounted on tracks )
Traduction anglais : tank

English definition for tank:
3.Military.
an armored, self-propelled combat vehicle, armed with cannon and machine guns and moving on a caterpillar tread.

>>32937670
>>called a tank in official nomenclature

Nope. It's called engin blindé de reconnaissance AMX 10 RC

Which is French for reconnaissance armored vehicle.

Which is the same nomenclature as it's predecessor, the EBR ( Engin blindé de reconnaissance ), and it's successor the EBRC ( Engin blindé de reconnaissance et de combat )

Also, they are not in tank regiment, but in armored cavalry regiment, and the RICM isn't a good choice, as the regiment needed to keep the same letter, they had to chose whatever word could fit for the C.

And on paper, they are not use as tank, they were made for the cold war, to be use - like their name say - as reconnaissance vehicle, and also to counter attack on the flank of tank offensive.

Yup, today they are used in Africa country for their gun, but that's only because African and terrorist guys doesn't have enough firepower - or doesn't know how to use them well -, that we use them.

>>32936074
>Faible Tonnage

>>32931866
>I agree with this, a tank should be defined by its role

>>32931991
>Classification is determined by role.
>Role influences design.
>Design does not determine classification.

hear hear. historically defining a tank by physical features is impossible, because these features will change. a tank is a machine that is used primarily to close with an destroy the enemy using firepower, armor, mobility, and shock action. technology advances, but the underlying idea remains the same