Talk:Tanks of the United States

Orphaned references in Tanks in the United States

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tanks in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hunnicutt":

• From M4 Sherman: Hunnicutt 1978
• From M551 Sheridan: Hunnicutt, R. P. "Sheridan: A History of the American Light Tank." Volume 2, 1995, Presidio Press; ISBN 0-89141-570-X.
• From M48 Patton: Hunnicutt

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Name change

I would suggest moving this article to "Tanks of the United States" to match other names used on Wikipedia.--agr (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is done then Tanks in the Spanish Army should be moved as well (seems a little arbitrary though). username 1 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tanks in the Spanish Army is named as such because it deals only with tanks in the Spanish Army, not tanks in the Spanish Navy or tanks in the Spanish Air Force (the former actually does use tanks). JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

M1

In the section on the M1, there is a line that reads, "The M1A1 was vastly superior to Iraq's Soviet-era tanks. Most lacked night vision systems and rangefinders." I think that's supposed to mean, "The M1A1 was vastly superior to Iraq's Soviet-era tanks, most of which lacked night vision systems and rangefinders," not "The M1A1 was vastly superior to Iraq's Soviet-era tanks even though most M1A1's lacked night vision systems and rangefinders." However, I am not going to assume anything. Can the author provide some clarity? Thanks. Good Skoda (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Took a look at the M1 page, and it is supposed to be "The M1A1 was vastly superior to Iraq's Soviet-era tanks, most of which lacked night vision systems and rangefinders," so I will make it so Good Skoda (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WWI, Patton, etc

George Patton was not at Cambrai in any capacity. He was at Champlieu, 75 miles away, when the offensive was launched. The nearest he got was, 10 days after the battle, a visit to British Tank HQ at Albert, 30 miles from Cambrai. The USA didn't have a Tank Corps, or any Tank crews, or any Tanks at the time of Cambrai. That should be obvious from what is stated two paragraphs previously. All this has been thrashed out in the srticle on Patton, from which much of this passage has clearly been copied before the alterations were made.

The US Heavy Tank Battalion trained in England. Eisenhower had no dealings with it.

Hengistmate (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

T-72 range finders and night vision

The line "The T-72s like most Soviet export designs lacked night vision systems and then-modern rangefinders, though they did have some night fighting tanks with older active infrared systems or floodlights—just not the latest starlight scopes and passive infrared scopes as on the Abrams"

Is wrong, Iraqi equipped its tanks with modern range finders bought from Belgium and also had night vision installed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.103.83 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So, the exported tanks lacked the equipment, which was retrofitted after sale? So the current phrasing is correct? 62.49.63.203 (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Destroyed Israeli Pattons during Yom Kippur War

The photo in this article titled "Destroyed Israeli Pattons during Yom Kippur War" appears erroneous. The photo shows Arabic markings on the turret of the knocked out tank. not Hebrew. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. A.D. Monroe III's Edit, March 2015.

It is, of course, true that no nation entered WWI prepared for armoured warfare, but the difference is that by the time of the USA's entry, armoured warfare was a fact, which it had not been in 1914 and 1915. The concept had existed in theory since the late 19th century and in reality since the first tank action, in September 1916. That is the whole point of the sentence in question: that whilst two of the major combatants had developed armoured forces, and a third was belatedly trying to catch up, the USA was still in a 1914 state of readiness. That is a point worth making. In the same month that America entered the War, the French launched an attack supported by 132 tanks. As far as Pershing was concerned, armoured warfare was very real; in June 1917 he ordered a report into how the AEF could be equipped with tanks and other armoured vehicles. A little over a year later, the AEF was operating 144 tanks loaned by France, receiving support from French tank units, and operating tanks loaned by Great Britain. That was not a figment of someone's imagination.

Of more concern is the statement in the lead paragraph that US tanks were used in WWI. They weren't. Hengistmate (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Diffs would be helpful to editorial commentary like this.

When you state that "[claimed that] US tanks were used in WWI. They weren't", are you referring to solely US-made tanks, or general use of tanks by US troops? "US tanks" could be read either way. It would be helpful for you to also state just how much use of tanks (if any) was made by US forces. This might even include plans or preparations for more extensive use of tanks, had the war continued for longer. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:00, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

(@Hengistmate:, Minor point of order: when naming someone in a comment, it's polite to add a {{ping}}. And, as suggested, it's best to comment on edits (using diffs) rather than editors. Because of WP:AGF, I'm assuming that was the intent.)

The stated "fact" of armored warfare is WP:SYNTH. Tanks were a fact (as sourced), but Armored warfare also requires organized armored units and a comprehensive set of tactics of their use; that really didn't exist until the end of WWI at best, and arguably only started with Blitzkrieg, since that dismissed all previous theories of tank tactics.

Yes, the US was behind on tank use, but not by much, since that had just started. They were more significantly behind in traditional warfare elements, since they had virtually no standing army when they joined WWI. No WP:RS is given for US being "belatedly" behind specifically in armored warfare, so per WP:UNDUE, it cannot be stated.

--A D Monroe III (talk) 17:48, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Mr. A.D. Monroe III's Edit, April the 23rd, 2015.

I'm not sure why this article should begin with information about the King armoured car, since it took no part in the War, and, more importantly, wasn't a tank. En passant, it wasn't "the United State's [sic] first armored combat vehicle"; it was preceded by the Autocar and the Packard (both built in the USA for Canada), the Davidson-Cadillac, and the Jeffery. The Autocar did see action throughout WWI, with Canadian forces on the Western Front, and the Jeffery was purchased by the British Army and employed in various parts of the Empire.

So the King has no claim to anything, really. I would suggest the simplest and most effective way to bring this section up to scratch is to borrow prodigiously from the first section of the article on the M1917, since that is where the story begins. Hengistmate (talk) 17:18, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I agree the King was minor, and the text not properly sourced. I wasn't my text. I just refactored existing text so it could be further improved by others. (It's common in WP to only replace/refactor text, not just remove it in hopes of sometime later it can be improved "offline".) I suggest The King, Autocar and Jeffery all be included. The assertion that the story only begins with the M1917 isn't sourced; we should list the early bits and let others make of it what they will. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:58, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Heavy/Medium Tanks?!

In the WWII section there's a heavy/medium tank section for the M26 Pershing. The M26 was originally designated as a heavy tank. It was reclassified as a medium tank, but that wasn't until 1946. The title should simply be "Heavy Tanks". I will change this if no one opposes. I will also add the M4A3E2 Sherman Jumbo to the heavy tank section in the WWII section and the M4A3 to the medium tank section in Korea if no one opposes that either.2601:245:C101:6BCC:0:0:0:D71A (talk) 12:35, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

Heavy and Medium classifications change with time. We can't pretend they didn't and shoehorn classifications to make them tidy.

I see no reason to call any Sherman "heavy".

--A D Monroe III^(talk) 20:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC)

The Sherman Jumbo is heavy tank (look on the M4 Sherman page and you will know what I mean), and what do you mean "shoehorn"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:0:0:0:D71A (talk) 13:27, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Opinions based on WP:SYNTH aren't allowed. If WP:RSs specifically say the Jumbo was "heavy" and not "medium", then we say so as well. Otherwise, Shermans are medium tanks, according to sources.

"wikt:Shoehorn" means to force something in where it doesn't really fit. In this case, it refers to forcing a clear black-and-white demarcation between heavy and medium where none exists, and ignoring that what vague demarcations existed changed over time. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:07, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Are tank destroyers also tanks?

Should we list US tank destroyers in this article? We had a tiny EW over this. I think it's worth discussing.

Saying no means TDs aren't tanks. That, in turn, means we have some well-agreed definition that distinguishes between a tank and a TD -- something that sources (not editors' opinions) agree on. Other than TDs might have a better AP gun, and sometimes heavier armor, I can't think of any established definition; besides, that definition might be the same as the dif between a heavy tank vs. a medium tank.

I don't see a good reason to keep them out.

Comments? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 21:35, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically tank destroyers, as well as assault guns, are types of self-propelled guns. However, I think it's fair TDs and AGs are included in this article, as they both have purposes similar (note I said SIMILAR) to tanks. TDs are intended to destroy enemy tanks, which a tank can do. An assault gun is intended to support infantry with the strength of an artillery cannon, which a tank can also do. If we do keep them in (which we probably will), we may as well add self-propelled artillery vehicles as well. However, if they are not fully tracked vehicles (one U.S. TD was just a half track with a tank gun and another just a truck with a tank gun, and most vehicles used in the AG role for the U.S. were just half tracks with mortars), I don't think we should include them.2601:245:C101:6BCC:0:0:0:D71A (talk) 23:53, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

Technically, there's no "technically" about TDs. AGs are typically not called tanks because they have no turret. TDs are typically not called AGs because they have a turret, but a lot of AGs were given TD roles, and some even called TDs. Technically, it's all a big gray-area mess. Hence my thinking we might as well include TDs, since if any TDs gets added, we'll be hard-pressed to find defend-able sourced reasons to remove them.

However, although lay-persons tend to call any military vehicle a "tank" doesn't mean we must bring all combat vehicles in here. We could make a case for excluding anything without a turret (AGs) and anything without real armor (SPA) -- those distinctions can be made black-and-white (tracks+armor+turret = tank). We could add AGs and SPA, but then the name of this article would have to change to AFVs of the United States, or even Military vehicles of the United States depending on how far we go. I'm not against that, but it would be a big change.

Adding TDs, however, would still fit under the current scope, if we accept that TDs are tanks just as heavy tanks are tanks (the ones with turrets, that is).

I think adding AGs are a different discussion. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 14:55, 7 November 2017 (UTC)

M8 Howitzer Motor Carriage, AG or SPA?

(I separated the M8 from the above section -- related but different subject.) --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There arlready IS an assault gun on the page (the M8 Howitzer Motor Carriage. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:3991:13A3:91CD:9123 (talk) 00:11, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes. The question is, does it, and all the many missing AGs, belong here? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 15:41, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The M8 has tracks, a turret, real armor, and a real gun. I think we can keep it.2601:245:C101:6BCC:9C12:2C88:8320:887F (talk) 21:36, 10 November 2017 (UTC)

The M8 is not actually officially classified as an assault gun, but as self-propelled artillery, though it did perform "close support", so might be called an AG, but that would need a source, not just editors' opinion. As to being classified as a "tank" for purposes of including in this article per "tracks+turret+armor = tank", the discussion above hasn't reached consensus on even TDs being tanks, so including either AGs or SPA should probably wait for that. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:24, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

There aren't "many missing AGs" to add, as i said i don't think we should have vehicles that are not fully tracked, so the M8 is the only one.