Jump to content

Template talk:Post–Cold War tanks/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2

Modern tanks

If "modern tanks" why is T-80 on the list but Challenger 1 not? GraemeLeggett 16:00, 23 September 2005 (UTC)

Separating prototype and in-service tanks

There is an important distinction between tanks in service. I'm also skeptical of including tanks which have no production planned, e.g. Black Eagle is a marketing prototype, T-95 is just a rumour, PT-94 has been cancelled.

I propose this template be divided as below. I have also added missing vehicles. —Michael Z. 2006-08-29 21:08 Z

In service

Prototype and proposed

Hi... a few suggestions

  • Why do we need to include Merkava 3 as well?? It quite irritating to go directly to Merkava 4, when a single link to the Merkava would be good. By that logic.. the Challenger 1, Leopard 2A4, 2A5 & 2A6 should also be included.
  • Secondly, the Arjun is in Limited service with the Indian Army (the Mk.1 version at least). Of course, it doesn't matter. Sam is the case with the MBT-2000. The black Eagle tank is a rumored prototype, and until someone actually sees the prototype, I suggest that we leave it out. No one has seen it, except for a hazy, very obscured view of a prototype camoflaged tank at some show. Plus, its still on the drawing board.
  • I suggest that we only include tanks for which a prototype has been built, shown and tested, as well as those that have entered service in the past 10 yrs or will enter service in the next 3-4 years at most. That should remove the Type-88 from contention. Its too old and not the latest tank in service.
  • I suggest a navbar on the template. I'm trying to add it, but I'm too good at the syntax. Could someone who's an expert add the navbar???


Waiting for ur opinions.

Cheers. Sniperz11 12:48, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Now Type 74 added? This is ridiculous...

Either we should split the template and separate between later developments of old tanks and modern tanks, or concentrate on the most modern tanks and prototypes. Flayer 11:29, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

changes

I have merged the Merkavas and deleted the Type-74.

1. Merkavas are on the same page, and it doesn't make sense to have two links to the same page, especially when one tank is modern than the other.

2. I'm quoting from the Type 74 page:

"The design did not enter widespread use until 1980, by which point other western forces were starting the introduction of much more capable designs."
"The Type 74 was generally outdated even before it entered service. The Type 90 was to have replaced it outright, but with the ending of the cold war these plans were scaled back. In 1993 four Type 74's were improved to the new Type 74 KAI standard, adding a passive infrared camera, side skirts, and so on. The upgrade proved to be extremely expensive, and the program was dropped."

Obviously, the Type-74 is certainly no MODERN TANK.


From the , I can only count the following as 'modern' and worthy of being on this page:


Those which I think may not/ should not be included

  • Ch'onma-ho - A T-62 upgrade, on par with T-72 at best. Nothing much known about it. Still, may as well include it, since S. Korea has 2 tanks, and people may be interested in its counterpart. Plus, it may as well be a good tank for all we know.


  • T-80 Old design- contemporary of Challenger 1, M1A1 and Leopard 1. Has been supplanted by T-84s and T-90s which are better.
  • M-84 - As above. Old version. Has been replaced/supplanted by the recent M-95 Degman, which is more modern.
  • Type 88 (tank) - A 1980s design which is outdated now, and has been replaced by Type 96/99.
  • T-95 - Prototype/concept design still. No published info/pics. Far too speculative
  • Black Eagle tank - As above- Speculative/secretive. No accurate info.
  • Tank EX - A prototype designed as an experiment. Not in service, nor under trials.

Hope to hear ur views

Cheers. Sniperz11 14:11, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Basically, I agree, but there are some points...
Flayer 14:44, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

I agree to your points. However, we must consider the fact that most of these tanks do not have separate pages for their latest variants.

1. Hence, the best option is to leave it as it is. Also, if we do link the tank in the template to the section that refers to the latest variant, that would obviously put off anyone who visits the page, since most would not know much, and would like to read from the beginning of the page.

2. This can explain the Leo 2, Abrams, Merkava and Zulfiqar points that you raised.

3. Another point is whether we should include the designation of the latest version, like M1A2, KLeopard 2A6, Merkava 4, etc. My opinion is that it would not be advisable, since most people are not familiar with their designations but the general names. Plus, it would make the template look garbled and fuzzy, and affect easy reading.

4. As for the Al-Khalid, I agree. However, MBT-2000 is the Pakistani designation for the tank, and can remain as such. However, i suggest that we move the page to an Al-Khalid Tank page, and make the MBT-2000 a redirect, since the tank is most commonly known as the Al-Khalid. I await your opinions before i do so.

5. As for the K2 Black Panther, it has already begun production (info on the page), and thus, can remain in the template. Plus, much has been publicly revealed about the tank, and thus, its not a secret like some of the the other ones.

6. As for the Degman and the PT-91, although they are upgraded versions of the T-72s, they are sufficiently new and incorporate modern features, that make them on par with the modern tanks. Just the fact that they are upgraded versions should not make us think any less of their capabilities.

Cheers. Sniperz11 15:19, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. 04:35, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Still, we have to remove Ch'onma-ho. It is far not modern, even if people may be interested in K2 Black Panther's counterpart. We're not gonna include some old soviet tanks of Syria just to have a counterpart for Merkava, right? Flayer 12:24, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Agreed, and done. Sniperz11 12:45, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Al-Khalid vs. Type 96

The link to Type 96 already leeds to Type 90-IIM version, which is MBT 2000, which is Al-Khalid. Therefore, there is no need to have chineese flag near Al-Khalid. Flayer 12:13, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

True, but the MBT 2000 page still has more information about the AK. I think that we can leave Al-Khalid there, since removing it may very well lead to an edit war and possible vandalism. Plus, the Al-Khalid i think is a slightly modified version of the IIM (similar i guess to the Su-30MKI vs Su-30). Plus, I believe that Pakistan has also bought the rights to build and re-export it. In any case, the Tank is a joint venture between the Chinese and Pakistan (HVF, Taxila), with some Ukranian help in the engine. As it is, I think we can leave the Chinese flag there, since removing either flag would remove context and skew the information. Cheers. Sniperz11 12:55, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
I have no intention to remove Al-Khalid, but Al-Khalid is a Pakistanian tank, when Type 90-IIM is a chinese tank. Type 90-IIM is listed within Type 96 entry with Chinese flag only, so Al-Khalid should be listed (leading to MBT 2000) with Pakistanian flag only. Otherwise, we should put there an Ukrainian flag as well, and soviet flag near T-84 and T-90... Messy. Flayer 13:19, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
The Al-Khalid is the same as the IIM. It has been slightly modified for the Pakistani use. The Ukranian help was limited only to supplying the Engines. Secondly, Even the Pakistani sources call it a Joint-Collaboration between the two countries. Obviously, when you use the Base version of another country's product, and collaborate with it to tailor it to your needs, its obviously a JV, and both nations must be mentioned.
I quote from FAS.org, which states on http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/mbt-2000.htm, "Pakistan's development of the MBT-2000 Al Khalid began in 1988, and in January 1990 an agreement was reached with China to jointly design, develop and manufacture system.".
A similar example would be the Su-30MKI. Although it uses as a base, a russian Su-30, and adds a whole lot of Indian features, as well as technologies Bought & Sourced from France and Israel, it is not attributed only to India. Russia is also included. However, Both Israel and France are not mentioned, since the tech was only sourced from them, and they did not do any work on the development except probably for integration work.
I await your response in order to make the needed changes or not. Cheers. Sniperz11 14:21, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Take a look on the template now. Agreed? Flayer 17:11, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Its perfect, except that I still think we should include the flag of China in the Al-Khalid. Whats ur view on this? Cheers. Sniperz11 17:23, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I think not... Flayer 18:46, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
Any special reasons? Since the Chinese-90IIM was upgraded jointly by Pak & China to make the Al-Khalid, which makes it a joint project, and not a solely pakistani tank. Descriptions, even the official ones overwhelmingly describe the AK as such- A JV project between Pakistan & China. Sniperz11 20:16, 19 May 2007 (UTC)
OK, OK, convinced me. Flayer 10:59, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
Haha.... Cheers to that. Sniperz11 11:36, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Since Al-Khalid is Type 90-IIM and T-96 already in the list. Khalid not being a seperate new tank into itself it is removed.

Chanakyathegreat 14:40, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

MKI has got Indian components like Tarang and a seperate project Vatrivel was launched for it. Many other systems developed for LCA also went into the MKI. MBT 2000 got the Ukranian engine and that's the difference with the Chinese version. Chanakyathegreat 14:45, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

What is a "Modern Tank"?

It looks like I caused a small problem when I added the Type 74, so sorry about that. However, as an infrequent editor on this template, it's not clear to me what exactly constitutes a "modern tank" for the template. I read above where Sniperz11 had listed some thoughts on what the requirements should be, but those should be more formalized or listed somewhere. So going forward, it would be helpful to have either a definition of modern based on a strict date, such as any tank developed past 1980 or certain criteria which a tank must meet to fit on the template. Publicus 14:05, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Al-Khalid: Potential edit War

Hi. I can see an edit war brewing here between Chanakyathegreat and others regarding whether to include the Al-Khalid in or not. I'm adding this section for discussions on that matter. Sniperz11 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

My personal opinion has been expressed above, and I'm personally in favor of including the Al-Khalid. The Al-Khalid page is much more detailed than the type 96 page (at least wrt the Type-96 IIM variant). Secondly, there are some other differences between the IIM and AK, which used the IIM as a base. The BMS for commander tanks (indigenously developed), newer thermal sights and FCS, Ukranian engine, among others.
The purpose of wikipedia is to provide information to the reader, and obviously, that means that the AK page should be linked, especially since it states the correct facts, and does not make it seem that the Al Khalid is anything other than a largely modified, license produced IIM. Sniperz11 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Whole licensed produced tanks need to be added. Like T-90 Russia. T-90 with an Algerian name as Russia-Algeria, T-72 Ajeya becomes India Russian, similarly T-90 Bhishma becomes India-Russia etc. Hence a same tank cannot be added twice with different names. Chanakyathegreat 16:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)


I'm confused. From reading the articles Type 96 and Type 88 (tank), it looks like the models Type 88, Type 90/Al Khalid, and Type 96 were each (more-or-less) independently developed from versions of the Type 85, although the latter two may have more in common. And the Type 98/99 was separately developed? —Michael Z. 2007-06-26 04:03 Z
Who developed? Can we add T-90 Aka Bhisma to the list?Chanakyathegreat 14:22, 8 July 2007 (UTC)
Enough revert-warring. Al-Khalid is an article about a modern tank, and it should be linked, since I haven't read a cogent argument against its inclusion. —Michael Z. 2007-08-07 06:22 Z

Chanakyathegreat, please stop removing the link to the Al-Khalid MBT article from the template.

The T-90 was developed for Russian service, it is primarily employed by the Russian military. It has also been exported to India, where it has a local name, Bhishma. Its article is linked in this navigation template once, by its primary service name, and accompanied by the flag of its main employer. Arguably, other T-72 variants appear in the template, but these have a significant history of separate development.

The Al-Khalid tank is unique in this list, in that it was developed abroad for Pakistan. But its article is linked in this navigation template, exactly once, by its primary service name, and accompanied by the flag of its main employer, just like every article about a modern tank in service.

Stop using the details of the development of the subject as an excuse to remove the Pakistani flag. If you are sad that there is a Pakistani flag on the template, please deal with your disappointment in an adult fashion. If you want to change the template, please discuss it here until there is consensus supporting the change. —Michael Z. 2007-08-07 16:42 Z

It is foolish if one calls the MBT 2000 (Al-Khalid) as a Pakistani Tank. It's the Chinese made tank with the Ukranian Engine. If you want it to be there, recognise the contributers of the tank, that is China (PRC) and Ukraine that has made the most contribution in making the tank and then transferring the technology to Pakistan to license production of the tank there. The engine comes from Ukraine. Don't know whether the license production means mere assembling or some components being made in Pakistan.
Chanakyathegreat 03:59, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Also kindly note that the MBT-2000 was not meant uniquely for Pakistan. It was made for PRC. Even if it was uniquely made for Pakistan, it's Origin is PRC. Here the tank experienced problems during the testing phase in Pakistan with the Chinese engine and hence the Ukrainian engine was used. On what basis is it Pakistani? In the name. Even that is Saudi Arabian. On what basis you want the tank to be in the list?
Chanakyathegreat 04:02, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Truth must be put in that manner. You cannot just stamp the made in tag and a flag according to your wish. If you wish to do so, then everything need to be rewritten. Which is not possible. One has to make sure that the Jaguar, Hawk aircrafts are made in India. You must know that HAL makes Jaguar. License production and also add many local components developed by DARE (DRDO). Can we have the Indian Flag on the Jaguar? And there are many more examples related to many other nations which all need to be rewritten, which is not possible.Chanakyathegreat 04:10, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Also let me remind you that if Algeria choose a different engine for the T-90 and they give a new name for that tank, will it become an Algerian tank?
Chanakyathegreat 04:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)
Well, we both got blocked. Live and learn.
But the Al-Khalid is a modern tank going into service. There is no other article about it—it is not a Type 96, even though that article describes its development history. It belongs on this template.
So I'll restore the link, without the Pakistani flag. Chanakyathegreat, does this satisfy your concerns? —Michael Z. 2007-08-10 15:21 Z

No. Reason[1] Al-Khalid is the name given to the tank by the Pakistani Army like the T-90 is known as Bhishma in Indian Army service. I think it is better to give the Chinese name for the tank. i.e Al-Khalid is the export version of MBT 2000 which is a modified version of the Type-90II.

The explanation from the above article suggests. The original Type 90-II project continued as an export programme. To overcome its inadequate travelling performance, the design team modified the tank to have the option to be fitted with foreign-made powerpack. The revised tank design known as Type 90-IIM was finally certified in 2000. During the 2001 Abu Dhabi Defence Exhibition, the tank was first revealed by NORINCO under its export name MBT2000. From November 2000, the tank has been produced in Pakistan as the Al-Khalid MBT. This version is powered by the Ukrainian-made 1,200hp 6TD diesel engine.

So the export name of the tank is MBT2000 for export to friendly countries of China. Chanakyathegreat 16:03, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Also add the T-72 into the list since we are adding a tank that is inferior to the Type 98 and also note that the Type-98 is a more close resemblance to the T-72. All from the article i.e

The Beijing-based 201 Institute (now China North Vehicle Research Institute) and Inner Mongolia-based 617 Factory (now Inner-Mongolia First Machinery Group Corporation) introduced the initial prototype known as Type 90-II in 1990. The tank features a Chinese designed chassis developed from the T-72, a welded turret, and a Chinese 125mm main gun fitted with the Russian 2A46’s autoloader. However, this design did not meet the PLA’s performance expectations, and a major effort was initiated to improve its travelling performance. As a result, a new version featuring a re-designed chassis which is a more close resemblance of the T-72 was introduced in 1993. This variant later led to the Type 98 MBT, which was finally chosen by the PLA for production.

Chanakyathegreat 16:10, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat's "reason"[2] is unconvincing. This article about Chinese tank development uses the Chinese prototype and marketing names for Type 90-II "original prototype", the Type 90-IIA "not delivered", and the Type 90-IIM/MBT2000 "used to create Al-Khalid license production tank". But it refers to the model produced in Pakistan as Al-Khalid, every time: "From November 2000, the tank has been produced in Pakistan as the Al-Khalid MBT". The sources cited in the article also call it the Al-Khalid.[3][4]

So the export name of the tank is MBT2000 for export to friendly countries of China

No. This tank has not been produced or exported by China. The marketing name for the Chinese prototype at arms shows is MBT 2000.
The version actually being produced in Pakistan is called "Al-Khalid", and it may even get exported from there to Saudi Arabia.
I'm becoming convinced that the articrle should be moved from the Chinese marketing name MBT 2000 to the Pakistani service name, Al-Khalid.
(I don't understand what you mean by adding the T-72 to the template. The criterion is "modern tanks" (whatever we decide that means), not "tanks superior to the Type 98", and obviously not "tanks which don't resemble the T-72", because many of them do. But if you think it is important, then please show me a reliable source saying that the Al-Khalid is inferior to the Type 98 and explain its relevance.)
Regards. —Michael Z. 2007-08-10 19:47 Z
http://www.sinodefence.com/army/tank/type90.asp The Sino defence website which contains a lot of info on the Chinese defense industry is unconvincing and the Pakistani website is more authentic is unacceptable.
Not necessary that the product be with the military of the nation producing it. eg:Scorpene submarine. The reason for the tank (Type 90) not in Chinese service was because the Chinese found the tank to be an unsatisfactory one and hence was offered for export.

In the late 1990s the improved Type 90-II was marketed as MBT2000 to foreign customers. The tank is built by Pakistan under license as the Al-Khalid.

There are three subversion of the Type 90 I.e the

Type 90-II - The original prototype with a 1,200hp engine (Perkins CV12-1200) and digital fire control system

Type 90-IIA - Intended for Pakistan with the French 1,500hp diesel V series engine, but not delivered because of US-Indian pressure caused France to join embargo of Pakistan for its nuke testing

Type 90-IIM (MBT 2000) - Replacement for Type 90-IIA, 1,200hp Ukrainian 6TD engine used to create Al-Khalid license production tank

So it is better to have the tank in the list as the Type-90.

Since the criteria is not for a tank that is technically superior but the latest (w.r.t time) we can include the tank the capability of which is equivalent to the T-72 as Type-90. Now since already we have a tank that is superior to the Type 96 with explantion on various variants of its earlier models which include the Type 90-II and details on the export variant Type 90-IIM to Pakistan, I don't think it is necessary to list the tank again just because it is licensed produced in some country. Chanakyathegreat 05:31, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

From the Janes article written by a Pakistani. In many respects it appears to be almost identical to the Chinese Norinco Type 90-II MBT. The tank is a variant of the Type 90 and actually is the Type 90-IIM. In service tanks will always be given local names. The T-72 in Indian service is called as the Ajeya.Chanakyathegreat 05:35, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

If the list has to be filled with tank variants, it will take a whole page itself. Since the Type 96 is already in the list, Type 90 variants Type 90-II/Type 90-IIA/Type 90-IIM/MBT2000/Al-Khalid) can be removed.Chanakyathegreat 05:45, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't have the patience to decipher most of that, but you seem to be repeating yourself, after I addressed your arguments. Do you even understand anything I've written?
The fact remains that the tank in production in Pakistan is called the Al-Khalid. We don't refer to the T-64 as the obiekt 474, nor do we call the Type 96 the "Type 85-III". Jane's calls this Pakistani tank by its production name, not by the name of its Chinese prototype, and so should we.
I can see that you feel bad because this template has the name of a Pakistani tank, but no Indian name. Sorry. —Michael Z. 2007-08-11 05:55 Z

I feel sorry for you. Did you see Arjun MBT there. I think you lack knowledge and require a lot of reading. What I am against propaganda. I hate people spread lies as ultimate truth. That's why I said truth must be put as it is. There can only one thing that can be done. Have the Type 90 or remove the stuff altogether. I still don't understand on what basis you call the tank Pakistani. Because of the name or because it is license produced in Pakistan. That is not the criteria to add it to the list man. I can see some kind of overt nationalistic approach shown by some in you. Can't you think from the reality point of view, not just from the point of adding some flags to satify someone. Chanakyathegreat 08:56, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

You said Jane's calls this Pakistani tank by its production name, not by the name of its Chinese prototype, and so should we.

Let's forget who wrote it. The tank in Pakistani service will be called only by that name as how one will call the tank in another service. Will that make the Tank not Type 90. It's the Type 90 and must be represented as such in Wikipedia and not by its national or variant names. We must decide it must be there or not. Chanakyathegreat 09:05, 11 August 2007 (UTC)


Criteria for Inclusion

As Publicus mentioned above, there isn't any definite criteria for inclusion into this template. I have created this section for discussion into that issue. Cheers. Sniperz11 10:00, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

  1. Tanks in-service. I would suggest that we consider as "modern tanks" all those tanks currently in service. While many of the tanks in service could be seperated into Gen I, Gen II, etc--I think it is important for reference purposes to find those tanks currently in service in a modern army. Obviously, this could cause some problems, when a less wealthy country uses an older version of another country's tank, but I'd at least like to discuss this point as a possibility. Publicus 15:43, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Questions:

  • What is a "modern army"?
  • Does this include only a country's most modern tank in front-line service, or also older-generation tanks in active service, tanks in reserve units, tanks used for training only?

 —Michael Z. 2007-06-25 06:29 Z


This is not meant to be a full definition, but I think a modern tank is a post-Cold War tank, either developed after the Cold War, or significantly improved to be competitive during the period. For example, the T-54/55 is not a modern tank, but the Romanian TR-85, a heavily rebuilt version with modern fire control, armour, armament, and engine, redesigned turret, serving in front-line service, in current production, and meant to compete with other modern tanks is. Not sure where the cut-off line between the two is, though, and which characteristics it depends on. —Michael Z. 2007-06-26 04:12 Z
i do not agree. Flayer 09:18, 22 July 2007 (UTC)
Then what is a modern tank to you? —Michael Z. 2007-07-22 21:09 Z
It is easier to say what is not modern. Any rebuilt version of the obsolete T-54/55 is not a modern tank. Or maybe i should say modern tank must have modern fire control, modern armour, modern armament, modern engine, modern turret, and modern hull. Flayer 09:28, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Keep in mind that a number of these tanks' basic design goes back to the 1970s (several of them being direct developments of the T-72, which entered service in 1971). —Michael Z. 2007-08-06 01:51 Z
If you ask me, all those upgraded T-72 should be removed from 'modern tanks' collection, but keeping them is a compromise. Upgraded T-55 is just too much... (Old basic design is OK - most tanks has the same basic design) Flayer 13:08, 6 August 2007 (UTC)
But those T-72s are used as front-line tanks in industrialized countries: most notably the Russian T-90 (marketing name of the T-72BU), so a listing of modern tanks would be incomplete without them. I don't think any T-55s can be described this way (the Chinese derivatives have fundamental design changes, not just add-ons). —Michael Z. 2007-08-06 19:03 Z
Archive 1Archive 2
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Template_talk:Post–Cold_War_tanks/Archive_1&oldid=1092894344"