Jump to content

Talk:List of main battle tanks by country

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Comments

[edit]

Great page. However, could we add a numbers column if possible? It would be great to be able to see how large each countries tank divisions are. However, this information is probably not accessible for most countries.

Just a thought. The Bryce 07:14, 1 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

What is a Main Battle Tank

[edit]

The definition can be Heavy Armour in the Military of a Nation. There may be one, two or more such tanks in the Army and hence that nation will have multiple MBT's. In that case this article becomes wrong.

The perception of a single MBT and Many light tanks is no more feasible, because today many armies fielding heavy armour and that also in good numbers making it difficult to differentiate even within the heavy tanks. Chanakyathegreat 03:42, 22 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Main battle tank" is a type of armoured fighting vehicle. The phrase does not mean "the main tank of a country". —Michael Z. 2007-08-15 21:52 Z

Another suggestion, comments...

[edit]

Looks great, but I think we should have a cost column as well (average per tank).

Also, there seems to be a contridiction. South Korea is listed twice ("South Korea" under S, and "Republic of Korea" under K) and, although the tanks are the same, the manufacturer differs (Rotem or Hyundai? Read it was Hyundai...). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by RebDrummer61 (talk • contribs) 23:09, 21 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]

MTLB

[edit]

how is this a Tank, it seems more like a armoured personal carrier(Esskater11 02:21, 29 June 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Piranha III

[edit]

Its not an MBT. An armored personnel carrier or a light armored vehicle at the most. Surely not an MBT even if the country uses it in that role.

Table columns

[edit]

As suggested above, a figure for the number of tanks in service would be useful. It makes more sense to put it in brackets after each tank than to add a column, since some countries have more than one MBT.

But why have a column for manufacturer? Each row represents a country not a tank, so there can be multiple values, which makes no sense. This belongs in the respective tanks' articles, not here. —Michael Z. 2007-08-16 05:45 Z

Once again, please don't add a column that doesn't make sense. For example:
 Pakistan Al-Khalid, T-80UD, Type 85-IIAP, Al-Zarar Heavy Industries Taxila
Heavy Industries Taxila is not Pakistan's only company. Neither is it the company that built all four of Pakistan's MBTs, which come from at least three different countries.
Adding manufacturers only makes sense if the key column in the table is tank, not country. If you want to add them, please refactor the table so it is not meaningless. —Michael Z. 2007-08-21 15:16 Z

Does the "TAM" qualify as an MBT?

[edit]

Hi All,
The MBT classification criteria seems to focus on "heavily armoured, heavily armed" tanks. If so, the "TAM" would not fit in it (hence, in this list). But for Argentina, it seems to be in the role of an MBT. Can anyone please comment? Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 04:42, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Even if it doesn't fit the technical criteria of a modern MBT, I would say leave it in if it is serving as the country's MBT. —Michael Z. 2008-06-13 14:56 z

Inaccurate list, includes tanks not classified as MBTs!

[edit]

This list (which I believe is very useful) currently includes several tanks that clearly do NOT fit in the criteria to be classified as MBTs, as for example:

Additionally, there is a severe lack of sources/references for the majority of the statements.

If nobody reasonably opposes, I'll remove the beforementioned cases where it's clear that the tanks cannot be considered "MBT".
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 07:15, 13 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's okay to leave in medium tanks, like the Sherman and T-34, because they probably represent old equipment being used in the role of MBT.
If light tanks are serving in their typical roles, they should probably be removed. I almost did so recently, but decided to be conservative: if they are being used as stand-ins for MBTs, or peacetime trainers by a country's tank units, then it would make sense to leave them here. —Michael Z. 2008-06-13 14:49 z
Thanks for the quick feedback! :-) If that criteria is used, then the issue will be to decide (with adequate references) if a tank is serving in the role of an MBT for a specific country. I guess that would generate a bit of discussion. And IMHO, it would make this particular list of MBTs redundant, as there already exists a List of armoured fighting vehicles by country.
My opinion is that this list should only include tanks that can be/have been adequately classified as MBTs, based on available references (and not just on "gut feeeling") which should include what the corresponding wikiarticle says.
For the time being, I'll wait before removing anything, it'd be great if we can gather more comments on this. Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:11, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
the list List of armoured fighting vehicles by country is completely different from this, this is a list of today MBT (or would be a lisr of MBT) in service by country, the other is a list of all time AFV originated in each country, so this list is not redundant Francomemoria (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]
i'm agree light tanks would be not in this list Francomemoria (talk) 10:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Lead section

[edit]

The lead section must unambiguously state the list's membership criteria. There have recently been questions about vehicles which technically are not MBTs serving in that role. I believe that these should be included, and I'd like to suggest a rewording of the lead section.

See Wikipedia:Lists (stand-alone lists)#Lead and selection criteria.

Currently:

This is a list of main battle tanks in active military service with countries of the world. A main battle tank (MBT) is the type of powerful, heavily-armoured and highly mobile tank which is the backbone of a mechanized land force.

Proposal, with change indicated:

This is a list of main battle tanks, and other vehicles serving that role, in active military service with countries of the world. A main battle tank (MBT) is the type of powerful, heavily-armoured and highly mobile tank which is the backbone of a mechanized land force.

Any objections? —Michael Z. 2008-06-13 15:10 z

oppose I think that the proposed change itself looks reasonable, as it'd allow inclusion of tanks that technically would not qualify as MBTs but that are used in that role. However, as per my comment in other section of this page, in my opinion that would create an issue when deciding (and justifying) if a tank (or other AFV, eg: an armoured car!) is really acting in the role of an MBT for a given army. What I believe would make this list redundant.
My opinion is that the "Lead Section" should be kept as it is, and the list should include 'only' tanks that fall into the classification of a MBT, so the list is meaningful and not redundant.
Regards, DPdH (talk) 03:46, 18 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I agree that it would require us to determine in what role an AFV is serving, by deduction, or preferably following a reference. don't think this should be a problem. If it's supportable, then we include it, otherwise not—just as for any other fact mentioned in Wikipedia. Keep in mind that main battle tank is not just a technical description of a piece of equipment, more importantly it is the role of a piece of equipment in a military organization.
And it would certainly not make it redundant with List of AFVs by country, which is a list by country of origin. That list is about industrial production, this one about military employment.
This is a list by country—the table's main index field is country. So it is implied that it lists the relevant info about main battle tanks of all countries, even if that info consists of "no army", "no MBT", or even "X used in role of MBT".
Please reconsider your objection. —Michael Z. 2008-06-18 15:41 z
Thanks for your quick and informing response, the criteria you present seems reasonable. I'd like to see what other wikipedians interested in this topic think, before making a decision. Regards, DPdH (talk) 08:12, 19 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I've seen no further comments, so as per my response above I'm changing my vote to support the change proposed by Michael Z. Regards, DPdH (talk) 02:24, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
oppose. MBT it's not a role is just a tank classification, a MBT in a recce unit is ever a MBTFrancomemoria (talk) 22:56, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Arjun

[edit]

Please stop revert-warring over the numbers of Arjun tanks in service. According to Jane's, 124 have been ordered, half of them are built, but none are in service. Please don't put contrary information in here without some source. —Michael Z. 2008-10-01 06:16 z

Text at the bottoms of the page

[edit]

There appears to be a conversation in a foreign (to me) language after the references

What's going on there? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.60.95.72 (talk) 01:00, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nations that don't have MBTs

[edit]

Should I remove nations on here which don't have MBTs or have a military, it seems a bit redundant having all these nations without MBTs being listed here as well as ones with them. Nohomers48 (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Would say so. Those entries seem to be odd. --Pgallert (talk) 13:59, 28 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've removed these, except the entries that had some note. Tomas85 (talk) 01:10, 26 September 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The USA uses the T80?

[edit]

No jokes here people, why exactly does it list the United States has 5 T80UD's here? If they were for testing they shouldn't be on here, and the lower number tells us different. Also, if you're going to list a second tank, list the M60A3's in RESERVE! I'm removing this ASAP. AloDuranium (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

While the United States does have 5 T-80s, none of them are actually in service, they were only bought for research purposes. Including those T-80s for the US section makes as much sense as including all the T-55s they use for target practice. Nohomers48 (talk) 05:01, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

To be more precuse US have 1 T-80U from UK and bought 4 T-80UD tanks from Ukraine, these tanks were modified from original T-80UD, they have some equipment from T-84U Oplot tank, probably all or some of them new welded turret.DamianPL (talk) 14:34, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

M1 tanks in US service

[edit]

GDLS manufactured frm 1980 to 1985 more than 3000 M1 and frm 1984 to 1985 894 M1IP's as is stated on the armorsite and in books like S. Zaloga's "M1 Abrams" anf few others. These tanks are mostly stored, some of them used by some ARNG units.

GDLS from 1985 to 1992/93 manufactured ~4393 M1A1's in all versions for US.Army and USMC and from 1992/93 77 M1A2's.

In late 90 and in early years 2000 of XXI century GLDS upgraded almost all M1IP's, 400 oldest M1A1's and at least 1000 basic M1's to M1A2 and M1A2SEP variants basing on GLDS, US goverment and press notes.

Unfortunetly some internet sources do not note these oldest variants still stored for future upgrades or misunderstand sources and include them in to more than 4000 M1A1 manufactured.

Steel Beasts military (and civilian) simulation program developers that are mostly ex tank crews from NATO countries (also US), stated on their site such numbers of M1 tanks manufactured:

2374 M1 tanks, 894 M1IP's, 3280 M1A1's, 2289 M1A1HA's, unknown number of M1A1HC's, 77 new builded M1A2's + 600 upgraded M1's to this standard + 240 M1A2SEP's (unknown if these tanks were indeed new builds or older versions upgraded). This numbers are from time period of 1980 to 2007 and desen't include more tanks upgraded from 2007 to 2010 to newest standard like M1A1SA, M1A1FEP and M1A2SEP.

But the current numbers of 5970 M1A1/A2's in Army service, 403 M1A1's in USMC service and ~3200 M1/M1IP's in ARNG service and storage are closest to true numbers.

DamianPL (talk) 11:02, 17 September 2010 (UTC)DamianPL[reply]

This book says only 2,374 were produced between 1980 and 1985, 4,550 M1A1s from 1985 to 1993, and 269 M1A1s for the Marines in 1991. Plus, yes, about 70 new production M1A2s... the rest are rebuilds of older tanks. This puts total production for US use at 7,263. It also doesn't take into consideration sales of surplus tanks, testbeds, conversions, combat losses, and attrition through use.
The Armorsite is comprehensive, but unfortunately it tends to conflate quantities (for example, they appear to have added the Marine M1A1s to the total M1A1 production for the Army, and then added it again for the Marines, effectively adding almost 300 'phantom' M1A1s). It also contains information from several, often outdated, sources. They also claim 1,000 more M1s produced than the source I provided (again, they appear to be adding M1s and IPM1s when IPM1s were, in fact, rebuilds of existing M1s). Also, I don't see anywhere on the Armorsite where it says that they're in storage... I could just be missing it, though. Could you, perhaps, point me to the relevant section?
You also have to consider that half the Marine inventory comes from tanks transferred from the army rather than new production, and then another 200 or so from the US inventory were leased or sold as used tanks to foreign countries.
As far as the book is concerned - can you provide a full citation? Page numbers and publishing details so that the numbers can be confirmed? - Jonathon A H (talk) 16:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Your completely wrong, M1IP's were new builded tanks, not rebuild so besides more than 2000 M1's there were also 894 new builded M1IP's later some M1 tanks were rebuilded to M1IP variants.

M1 and M1IP variants that are still in their original configuration are stored, I know that from tankers and sources like TankNet, not all of them were rebuilded and still waiting for such. If You search photos or video material from ANAD Ypu can see many of them in rebuilding process.

As for solded tanks, only 59 M1A1's for Australia, additional 58 for Saudi Arabia modified to M1A2S configuration and 140 for Iraq are from US stocks, rest of exported tanks were new builds for customers. So I don't see reason to underestimate quantity of tanks used by US armed forces.

John Pike in his estimation gets in to consideration only M1A1 and M1A2 variants used by Army. Unfortunetly it doesen't give the full view on how many tanks US armed forces have.

Also book that You use as a source is a joke. IPM1 is not correct designation, correct designation is M1IP and IP doesen't mean Improved Product but Improved Performance. Also why IP is after M1 not as in the book? Like in all US designation such letter code is after alpha numerical designation.

Also why authors designated USMC tanks ass Common Tanks? Oficial designation is M1A1HC (Heavy Common) Heavy because it got 2nd generation Heavy Armor package, Common because this variant was also adopted by US.Army.

Attrition to use is normal but this doesen't mean that tanks are not used, such tanks are send to storage and wait for rebuilding/repairing process. Combat losses were extremely low and most tanks were rebuilded, sources claims only 20-25 completely destroyed tanks with beyond repair status in OIF and 21 in ODS.

DamianPL (talk) 17:10, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to be confused, this isn't a forum, it's not TankNet (I post there, too, I recognize your name), it's Wikipedia. We're here to discuss the merits of the articles and information in a rational manner. You make all of these claims, but you haven't provided any verifiable or reliable sources yourself. At the very least I've provided a published book. Forums and other Wikis are not considered reliable, verifiable, or acceptable sources according to Wikipedia. Please read Wikipedia:Verifiability. I'm quite willing to change my position, but I need proof beyond your personal claims and research. - Jonathon A H (talk) 17:31, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Addendum - Er, and it is IPM1. Otherwise you can tell both General Dynamics and he US Army that they got the designation of their own tank wrong? I'm sure they'd love to have you correct it for them... - Jonathon A H (talk) 17:42, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

R.P. Hunnicutt "Abrams : A History Of The American Main Battle Tank vol.2" "Production of the basic Ml continued at both plants for a total run of 2374 tanks. The last basic Ml was completed in January 1985." page 216.

Same author and book "The first IPM1 was delivered in October 1984 and production continued until May 1986 with a total run of 894 tanks." page 231.

Steven Zaloga in his book "M1 Abrams Main Battle Tank 1982-1992" says that "by April 1993, bringing production to 4802 M1A1's" and "Delivery of 221 M1A1 Common Tanks <dunno why they use such designation, maybe early one, later changed to Heavy Common> to the Marines Corps began in November 1990 and was completed in 1992." page 12.

So it gives 8368 tanks manufactured for US.Army and USMC, minus 59 sold to Australia, 58 sold to AS (M1A1's modified to M1A2S) and 140 M1A1's for Iraq - official combat losses beyond repair it gives still 8000 tanks in US inventory. This is ok?

As for designation name, it is strange, but ok, maybe I am wrong here.

83.31.20.41 (talk) 18:04, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For the most part, sure. I'm still seeing different numbers for the M1A1 production run, though. An article in Armor Magazine (Nov-Dec 1996 issue, pg 8)put it at 4,723 (so that gives a spread of 250 M1A1s between 3 sources). And the question of how many are actually in actual storage vs declared surplus is still in question. None of the sources addresses that. - Jonathon A H (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

And there are some official documents about M1 tanks in US inventory availabale?

As for stored tanks, many of them can be still somewhere in POMCUS and CONUS magazines, many are in ANAD and LATP/JSMC, they can be seen on google maps satelite images. The question is what is ratio between tanks used by active units, stored, in ARNG and in ANAD/LATP. DamianPL (talk) 22:26, 17 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

[edit]

Cyberbot II has detected that page contains external links that have either been globally or locally blacklisted. Links tend to be blacklisted because they have a history of being spammed, or are highly innappropriate for Wikipedia. This, however, doesn't necessarily mean it's spam, or not a good link. If the link is a good link, you may wish to request whitelisting by going to the request page for whitelisting. If you feel the link being caught by the blacklist is a false positive, or no longer needed on the blacklist, you may request the regex be removed or altered at the blacklist request page. If the link is blacklisted globally and you feel the above applies you may request to whitelist it using the before mentioned request page, or request its removal, or alteration, at the request page on meta. When requesting whitelisting, be sure to supply the link to be whitelisted and wrap the link in nowiki tags. The whitelisting process can take its time so once a request has been filled out, you may set the invisible parameter on the tag to true. Please be aware that the bot will replace removed tags, and will remove misplaced tags regularly.

Below is a list of links that were found on the main page:

  • http://www.army-technology.com/projects/t90/
    Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

If you would like me to provide more information on the talk page, contact User:Cyberpower678 and ask him to program me with more info.

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 11:34, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

 Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II NotifyOnline 19:39, 9 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of main battle tanks by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:46, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting

[edit]

The formatting for the Bangladeshi section is completed screwed up, and the flag of Bangladesh is missing throughout the table. 2A02:C7D:51AC:5000:492E:1155:3ABB:3E0B (talk) 15:06, 9 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of main battle tanks by country. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:33, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Other columns

[edit]

I think it would greatly enrich the article if it had other columns indicating the cost (as suggested by RebDrummer61), armour, weight and caliber of the cannon. --181.111.29.241 (talk) 21:31, 10 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Saudi M1A2S Abrams

[edit]

The table says the tank has had its DU removed. Does that mean it never had it added? Also, what is the SOURCE for that claim. There is none cited. So it could just be more US military fanboy jibberish. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 133.7.7.240 (talk) 11:47, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

My adding

[edit]

I added "light tanks" or "medium tanks" in some cases as they needs, personally if this is a list of MBT there is no reason because they are in, but if i remember i need consensus for deleting — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.232.13.210 (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2019 (UTC)[reply]

i can update using as source the military balance 2018, if there is consensus i can update with all the estimates from same source sorry for my english — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.21.9.50 (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC) if need you can contact here Francomemoria (talk) 10:11, 10 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cuban T-64’s?

[edit]

Hi, long time reader of Wikipedia. Don't want to outright edit the page, but under the section for Cuba it lists 20 T-64 tanks. As far as I understand it, T-64's were never exported abroad, and only ever inherited by post-Soviet states. I believe this to be in error, unless proper citation can be provided. Honestly, I hope a citation can be provided, because Cuba possessing 20 T-64 tanks would be a fascinating little historical anecdote to learn about. Toby P Jarvis (talk) 17:10, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Additionally, the section for Egypt lists 500 T-64M's; typo? Intended to say T-62M's? Toby P Jarvis (talk) 17:19, 30 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Peru T62's?

[edit]

The article claims 2000 T62's which is most certainly wrong. I do not have access to the IISS "The Military Balance 2014" which is claimed as source.

All easily accessible sources do not mention any T62 tanks in Peru. I found mentioning of T62s in Peru in the 70s/80s, there was speculation abut 100 T62s.

I believie it is a typo, as Peru was in talks with China about M 2000 tanks but I dont know if any were ordered/ delivered. Merzto (talk) 10:48, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_country&oldid=1258083267"