Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Tank

Tank

Reasons for requesting peer review:

1. The article has undergone a complete rewrite from Former FA, Start Class to B Class, trimmed from 60kB to 37kB, improved citations, references and links to 50kB with no increase in the text length of the article, added images, a timeline, external links - I think it's ready for peer review.
2. Co-editors Micheal Z. and Trekphiler seem to have no significant problems with the article and consider it greatly improved. Edit: see below Dhatfield (talk) 10:30, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
3. I need feedback on style, content (or lack thereof), contestable statements, weakness in the article: the usual suspects.
4. I may be unaware of MilHist conventions that I should be using.

Dhatfield (talk) 11:25, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Mzajac

Tank#Blitzkrieg and combined arms, ¶ 3, starting with "Operation Barbarossa started as an echo..."

This seems to be missing some important factors, and not quite right in the details. It may be hard to explain completely in just a paragraph, but there are some critically important lessons in tank warfare buried here.

I don't know about rigid structure, but the Soviets were completely surprised by the attack, were deployed without depth, and had poor training and tactical skill. They had tanks in huge numbers, but a dismal maintenance state and dire lack of replacement parts and even recovery vehicles did in much of the Soviet armour. The 1930s purge of the officer corps is also often cited, but there is some disagreement as to how important this was. In fact the Germans did precipitate a panic, but they had much, much farther to go than in France, and there was some bad weather.

Another often-cited idea is the shock of the Germans upon encountering the hitherto unsuspected T-34 and KV tanks, and "tank panic" which affected their infantry.

Finally, the Soviets' turned the war around in part thanks to their ability to completely overproduce the Germans even though they had to relocate their entire tank industry to the Urals and had significantly fewer resources. If you had to sum up the whole thing in relation to tanks, I would say that they fortunately had the best tank in the world and managed to concentrate on non-stop production while minimizing design changes to make it serve throughout the war. See T-34 and Operation Barbarossa for more detail and some good citations.

I have rewritten this section based on Operation Barbarossa#Causes of initial Soviet defeats and Operation Barbarossa#Causes of the failure of Operation Barbarossa. These are sparsely cited so I cannot determine which contains the relevant facts. I am keeping Deighton for now. T-34 statement now has an appropriate citation.  Done, subject to approval. Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tank#Firepower, ¶ 1: "A modern type of tank ordnance arising from the close range urban combat in Iraq is a 120 mm calibre "shotgun" round for the M1 Abrams which will fire 1,100 tungsten pellets."

The particular round may be new, or new to US forces, but canister shot and flechette ammunition for cannon, artillery and tank guns go way back.

Good point - this has been re-written to indicate that this is the a recent application of canister shot to the tank. As far as I know, no modern tanks have flechette ammunition other than the KEP. Subject to approval. Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I don't have any references, but I still don't think that canister is a recent application to the tank, or that it has experienced a general revival. My understanding, based totally on hearsay, is that a tank would typically carry one or two for self-defence in wartime, but this may change for urban combat.

Edited to: "Canister shot may be used in close or urban combat situations where the risk of hitting friendly forces with shrapnel from HE rounds is unacceptably high." Acceptable? Dhatfield (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

This may be poorly-publicized, because of the sensitive nature of antipersonnel ordnance. The only thing I can find off-hand is Flechette#Controversy for the Israeli use, and Beehive (ammunition) for US use in Vietnam. This question needs a better reference than USA Today.

As far as I know, Beehive and the Isreali flechette ammunition are fired from artillery pieces. I haven't seen any mention of tank AP flechette. Dhatfield (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

"Tactics otherwise proscribe" urban combat also needs clarification or better context. Tanks have been used to good effect in urban warfare since at least WWII, and various armed forces have developed and codified the tactics. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 15:02 z

It was my perception, and I did not think it was contested. Since it is, it's gone.  Done Dhatfield (talk) 20:46, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, urban areas where AFVs are vulnerable are typically bypassed by the first elements of an advance. But when it's time to clear the cities, tanks are a valuable asset, if used properly. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 01:47 z

I think the level of detail we are talking about needs a Tank tactics article to do it justice. Dhatfield (talk) 09:55, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Another possible approach here. We could roll 21st century and urban together? Dhatfield (talk) 20:55, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Tank#Water operations, ¶ 1: "Combat engineering teams require large quantities of specialised equipment and hours or even days to construct pontoon bridges capable of carrying the weight of a main battle tank in combat conditions."

But this is not necessarily typical after WWII. Although the need for reconnaissance and preparation should be taken into account, bridging tanks can be deployed in mere minutes, and I understand that some of the Cold-War Soviet pontoon bridges can be erected across substantial rivers in well under an hour. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 05:17 z

I cited lotsa Soviet water-crossing info at talk:Tank#Water operations. Executive summary: 17-m tank-launched bridge in 1.5 mins, a motor-rifle battalion can conduct a crossing from the march in 45 mins (but tanks usually take longer), a division can build a 119-m pontoon bridge in 17 minutes, which tanks can cross at 30 kph! —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 07:46 z

Excellent data.  Done Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Tank#Tank power plants, table: might be interesting to add the weights and/or power-to-weight ratios to the table in "tank power plants" but best not make it too complex. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 05:17 z

 Done Dhatfield (talk) 10:29, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

JonCatalán

Hey Doug,

The Tank article looks a lot better, but here are some things that I think could be improved. I would like to here your opinion if you think otherwise, as my suggestions may or may not always be the best! But, in any case, here it goes.

1. I think the 21st Century section under History focuses too much on U.S. involvement in Iraq. Apart from M1 Abrams and Challenger 2s, the Italians deployed the 4th Armored Regiment to Iraq under Operation Antica Babilonia, from late 2005 to sometime in 2006, when the regiment was supposed to leave due to Italy's decision to end involvement in the war. Due to Leopard 1s and 2s being deployed to Afghanistan, including Canadian and Danish tanks, perhaps this should be mentioned, as well. I think it would be better to avoid exact details about country's involvements with tanks in assymetrical warfare, since the list is big (those already mentioned, plus French Leclercs in Lebanon and tanks used in Kosovo and Israel's experiences in Lebanon, Gaza and the West Bank). Instead, in my opinion the article should focus on tank warfare in assymetrical warfare, in general. Perhaps, avoiding exact instinces will also avoid potential heat from people who are opposed to certain countries and certain wars, thereby avoiding conflict in the talk page.

I completely agree, although a list (a timeline?) of conflicts shouldn't be too contentious? That section of the history is by far the weakest. You seem very well informed, maybe you'd consider writing a section? I'm more of an amateur images, cleanup & copyedit kind of guy. Dhatfield (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made a start here. Would you take a look and tell me if you think I'm heading in the right direction? Dhatfield (talk) 20:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

1. The article needs referecing, and soon I will take some time to add as many as I can.

Brilliant. You are a referencing genius. Dhatfield (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

1. Reactive armour consists of small explosive-filled bricks that detonate when damaged by HEAT fire, bending or disrupting the incoming molten metallic jet. - A HEAT jet is not really molten metal, it's just an extending-penetrator (as some papers have called it) moving at hypervelocity relative to its own medium and the medium its penetrating, and so it can be called neither solid nor liquid. I have a source that can be used when it's reworded, and if you'd like I can reword it myself. Furthermore, explosive reactive armor is made up of flier plates, more so than just explosives. In fact, I will work on the sentence myself and we can discuss how it looks here. The comment on tandem warheads can be expanded by giving some information on Kontakt-5, but unfortunately I only have the patent in Russian and have not yet paid anybody to translate it (I planned on doing so after finishing basic training, here in Spain).

We look forward to your input. I'll be on hand, I'm currently going through the images on the page and doing enhancing them. I haven't forgotten about the Challenger 2 smoothbore - I'm just gathering my strength for another go at EasyTimeline. Anybody know how to centre and frame a transcluded page on WP?

Otherwise, it looks good! JonCatalan (talk) 21:14, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments and input Jon. If we keep going, maybe we can bump up to GA assessment in a bit. Dhatfield (talk) 13:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Nick Dowling

Nice work on the article. My comments are:

• The lead photo (of an M1 in Iraq) should be replaced as it's low quality (the image seems to be a bit out of focus and the colours blend together) and shows a tank operating in the relatively rare role of urban counter-insurgency.

• Very interesting you mention this. Two points:

1. I am working on an image that will show the parts of a tank and this may be a good choice for the lead image once it's finished. See image on right.

   

   Diagram of M1A1

2. We are currently debating the content for the 21st Century section. I desperately need input (preferably someone to write the section), because I'm just learning and hacking together whatever I can find on the net - not the best recipe for a good section. The start of it is here, but Jonathan (see above) tells me this is mostly nonsense - not surprising - and is sending some refs, so hopefully I can improve it.

• Update: I have fixed the colour bleed in the sky (a mistake from my early GIMP days) & put the new pic (now Featured) in the design section. The 'out of focus' appearance is from jpg artifacts in the original - they were horrible. I haven't found another image that is as dynamic, has as much atmosphere and illustrates a tank 'in action' like the current lead. If you have any suggestions, please fire away. Dhatfield (talk) 16:30, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• More citations are needed, especially for the 'tank design' section

• Again, references have me stumped. I have scraped together whatever I can find, but I don't have the library that an expert does. I've said this before about five times and I'll keep saying it, any assistance you can provide with references would be much appreciated.

• Some bits of the history section are missleading - eg "Operation Barbarossa started with the Soviets having a superior tank design, the T-34" (true, but T-34s made up only a small part of the Soviet tank force in June 1941)

• That may or may not be true (I honestly don't know), but Soviet mass production quickly made good any lack of numbers. They did, however, start with the design. I'm not defending this sentence to the death, if you can think of a better (referenced) phrasing, please make the changes.

and Shermans "were no match for the German Panther and Tiger tanks" (this is arguable given their greatly better reliability and somewhat irrelevant given that Shermans operated as part of combined-arms teams).

• Now written as:

When entering WWII American mass production capacity enabled her to rapidly construct thousands of relatively cheap Sherman tanks. A compromise all round, the Sherman was reliable and formed a large part of the Anglo-American ground forces, but in a tank vs tank battle they were no match for the German Panther and Tiger tanks. Numerical and logistical superiority and the successful use of combined arms allowed the Allies to overpower the German forces during the Battle of Normandy. The Sherman Firefly was introduced to improve the Sherman's firepower, but concerns about protection remained.

The 21st Century section of the history section needs to be reworked as it is too brief and doesn't discuss tank development. The 21st Century section should discuss the recent debate over whether heavy tanks are still useful in modern warfare. Nick Dowling (talk) 00:11, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

• True, I'll look into this. Dhatfield (talk) 07:48, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The Land

Glad to see someone taking this on! I get the impression that you've done a good job of removing semi-irrrelevant detail and forking it off to daughter articles. I would now expect the article to get longer, as more important detail is re-added. I am no tank expert but know a fair bit of military history, and I can see a number of problems, listed below. The Land (talk) 15:33, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for showing an interest - this article is desperately lacking contributors. To give you a bit of background, I copyedited the article and made us a new timeline and Featured Picture (my first, it's in the design section), but I don't have the knowledge or references to generate new, high quality text content. That just isn't my area of expertise. As a result I can only reply to your comments in the areas where my (sketchy) knowledge exists.

• History. In general, this section is written with insufficient awareness of the context.
  • More is needed on World War I: there needs to be much more about how and why tanks were developed and deployed.
    • The paragraph that starts "In contrast to World War II..." - why not contrast the lack of tanks in the German army with the many tanks in the Allied armies?
    • It should be noted that the tank, in spite of its problems, was part of the combined arms offensive techniques which won the war in 1918.

• Fair enough, but the point may be contested because if I remember correctly, the number of tanks in the Allied armies at the end of the war was dismal. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• • Interwar: Again, needs more depth. Go into some detail about what the technical and doctrinal changes were.
  • World War II: "However, the geographic scale of the conflict, the dogged resistance of the Soviet combat troops, Soviet manpower and production capability and the Russian Winter prevented a repeat of the Blitzkrieg of 1940". Not quite. The Blitzkrieg on the Eastern Front captured huge amounts of Russian territory.

• True, but not strategic panic and certainly not capitulation of the state. Could use clarification on that point. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I think "strategic panic" is exactly what happened. The Land (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Ha! Okay, you got me. Dhatfield (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Len Deighton is probably not a very reliable source.

• As I am told repeatedly :) However, lacking other sources I do the best I can. When I arrived citations in this article (barring WWI) were rare. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• • • Surely the vast tank battles on the Eastern Front which decided the War deserve some mention in the article?

• I am concerned that too much information in the history section could unbalance the article and cause the reader to lose interest, but you make a good point. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• Tank doctrine probably warrants a section - you might replace the C3I section with doctrine, which is a broader topic.

• There have been rumblings about a tank tactics and/or tank doctrine article for some time. It would be fantastic, but if I write it it would be unreferenced opinion - not good. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are some low-value links which can be remove, e.g. obsolete.

• Perhaps, but I wanted to make this 'kiddie friendly'. What does a male teenager look up first on WP (okay, after pornography). To me that means linking all terminology, however trivial. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I can only reiterate that we could really use your input, particularly with respect to high quality references. The biggest lack in the article is the 21st century history section. Dhatfield (talk) 21:23, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do in the areas I mentioned. The Land (talk) 09:27, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. Dhatfield (talk) 09:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)