The Very Best of Glen Campbell

Alphabetizing "Al-Khalid"

Isn't al- an Urdu article? Should it be capitalized "al-Khalid", and sorted under K? Or is it too unfamiliar to English-speakers to bother with such esoterica? —Michael Z. 2007-07-29 21:01 Z

Al is Arabic and nothing to do with the Hindustani Urdu.

Chanakyathegreat 15:31, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you. Do you think we should sort it under A, or K? —Michael Z. 2007-08-08 21:16 Z

How can that be. It is not to be sorted without the original name. Al-Khalid. But I am totally against the inclusion of the tank since it is a variant of the original Type 90 i.e with Ukranian engine and we have a further development, Type-96 by China and hence Type 90 or its variants cannot be in the list.Chanakyathegreat 05:48, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Flags

Enough bickering about the flags.

This is a template of links to articles about modern tanks. From the earlier discussion on this page, and from the consensus content of this template, I surmise that the criteria for inclusion are the following:

1. Articles about tanks
2. Modern tanks (although we haven't defined precisely "modern" tank)
3. Production tanks, not prototypes

The link to the article MBT 2000, with the link text "Al-Khalid" keeps coming and going. The fracas appears to be completely about the flag and the name, not about whether the vehicle fits into the criteria above.

{{Modern IFV and APC}} has done just fine without any flags. Let's remove the flags until we can agree what flag to put next to every example in the template.

Let's use the name of the article, "MBT 2000". Debate about the name and proposed renaming should be discussed and resolved at talk:MBT 2000—if the article is renamed, then this template's link ought to be changed to match.

Does anyone maintain that this article about a modern tank shouldn't be on this template at all? The article about a different tank, the Type 96 lists the Type 90 prototypes, but it is not an article about this tank, the Type 90-III/MBT 2000/Al-Khalid.

I'll make the change. —Michael Z. 2007-08-11 18:52 Z

More discussion about the use of flag icons at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history#Flag use in infoboxes. —Michael Z. 2007-08-11 18:54 Z

The fracas appears to be completely about the flag and the name, not about whether the vehicle fits into the criteria above.

Don't misguide. I had earlier said about the addition of T-72 to the list if Type 90 is added to the list and since already the much more advanced Type 96 is already there, the question arises wheather the Type 90/A/M must also be in the list. It can be since the K1 and K2 is there in the list. Similarly we can have Type 90 and Type 96.Chanakyathegreat 06:52, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

There are so many in the {{Modern IFV and APC}} list. Not possible to add the nation and the flag in that list. If possible we can add Flags to the IFV list. Chanakyathegreat 07:10, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for leaving the MBT 2000, but I still think the flags are a mistake. If you read the Military history project talk I pointed to*, you'll see that there are many other reasons in addition to template size to omit flags. Controversy about which flag to use is clearly a good reason to omit them here.

The other tanks in the templates all bear the flags of the countries where they were first in production, and where they were first employed, so the MBT 2000/Al-Khalid should bear the Pakistani flag. Or if you insist that it should have the flag of the developer, then it must bear both Chinese and Pakistani flags. But that wouldn't be so good. Better to just leave them out, just like in all other AFV navigation boxes, at least until we agree which flag should be there.

I really still don't understand what you're saying about the T-72—it was introduced in 1971, and is clearly not a modern tank. Are you saying that the Chinese Type 90 should be added? I don't think so, because we aren't including prototypes in the template, only production tanks. China and Pakistan did 8 or 10 years of development to create the MBT 2000/Al-Khalid, so this 2001 tank is clearly different from the original Type 90 prototype. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 07:25 Z

By the way, if the the MBT 2000 is labelled with the flags of its originators, then so should the M-84 be labelled with the Yugoslav flag, not the Serbian. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 14:32 Z

• I've removed the flags - they were not helping the template. If you want to indicate the "country" of a tank, please go to List of armoured fighting vehicles by country. Carcharoth 14:55, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Thank you.

No other AFV navigation template has needed flags: {{WWIIFrenchAFVs}}, {{WWIIHungarianAFVs}}, {{WWIIItalianAFVs}}, {{WWIIJapaneseAFVs}}, {{WWIISovietAFVs}}, {{PostWWIISovietAFVS}}, {{WWIIAmericanAFVs}}, {{WWIIGermanAFVs}}, {{WWIIBritishAFVs}}, {{Modern IFV and APC}}, {{ModernFrenchAFVs}}, {{ModernUKAFVsNav}}, {{ModernUKNonAFVNav}}. Most represent only one country, but at least four of them have AFVs from more than one. —Michael Z. 2007-08-12 14:59 Z

Agreed. If anything, alphabetical order, or country flag, makes little sense in a template like this. What would make sense is picking a date (the template does say 'modern' after all), such as date built if possible to find out, and putting that in brackets next to the tank name, and putting them in date order. Military history, remember...? :-) Carcharoth 20:37, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Though looking at a few articles, whether to pick first delivery date, or final completion date, or first deployment date, or something else, could be problematic. Carcharoth 20:40, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Picking a date could indeed be problematic.

We can't pick a cutoff date to define "modern". For example, the Challenger 1 has been replaced in service by the newer Challenger 2 (a different design, despite the similar name), while the older M1 Abrams is still a modern tank (newer version, but still the same basic design).

It may be useful to add the date of inception to the template, but it might start new debates about what belongs here. Just like country of origin or country of principal employment, it would be supplementary information, and not necessary for the template to do its job of linking to the articles. —Michael Z. 2007-08-13 15:04 Z

I agree. Just link the tanks, nothing else. Possibly what people think it should be showing is all the tanks currently in service today (excepting the old ones in third world countries - the tanks that either fail to start, or blow up when started...). But I don't know enough about tanks to say for sure. Carcharoth 22:29, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Why Ch'onma-ho isn't modern?

Why Ch'onma-ho isn't modern? SuperTank17 (talk • contribs) 07:19, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

For one, it is only an upgrade of a T-62, which by itself is an extremely ancient machine. Added to that is the fact that we have almost no technical knowledge of it, and no specs or pther details. Third, even assuming that it is modernized, I doubt that it can be anything more capable than a slightly upgraded T-72, which would find no place here.... Still, if there is a consensus to include the Ch'onma-ho here, then I would not disagree.... Sniperz11 11:08, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Old hull. No consensus about it. Flayer 19:20, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

What do you suggest... keep or not? SuperTank17, any points you'd like to make? Sniperz11 08:30, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I suggest not keeping any upgrades of soviet tanks that older than T-72. I doubt whether we should keep T-72 upgrades, but T-62 upgrade like Ch'onma-ho is too old. Flayer 18:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Long names

What is the point of adding long technical names to this template, like "FV4034 Challenger 2"?

This is a navigation device: the simpler it is, the better it will work. This template's job is not to teach readers anything about these tanks—that's what the articles are for. —Michael Z. 2007-09-19 00:32 Z

I agree. The point is that most only know tanks as the Challenger 2 or Leclerc. Putting their designation on a navigation template is stupid, especially if they're as long winded as the Challenger 2s. Sniperz11 06:24, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

TR-85 is not modern

Any rebulid version of T-55 isn't modern. I can hardly agree that some rebulid versions of T-72 are modern, but not TR-85. Flayer 11:47, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

And why do you think that an drastic upgrade of T-55 can't be modern? --SuperTank17 11:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Because it has an obsolete hull of T-55. If we decide that T-55's hull is not obsolete, then we should add also Ch'onma-ho, Magach, Sabra (tank), M60-2000 Main Battle Tank, Stridsvagn 103.... Flayer 15:31, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

How can a hull alone be obsolete? What are the functions that a modern tank hull fulfils that a T-55's hull can't? The only thing I can think of is its inherent level of armour, which can be supplemented with appliqué and ERA.

Which of these tanks, if any, serve in a country's front-line units? Which incorporate modern technologies? Which have up-to-date engines, armour, weapons, fire control? Which are weapon systems designed to compete against other modern tanks?

I also think relative effectiveness is not a criterion determining modernness. The relative effectiveness of most of these has never been tested in battle, and their protection levels are closely kept secret, so we cannot realistically compare them and say that "this one is not good enough to be modern". Furthermore, there are operational and strategic considerations which may render such criteria moot—for example, one can argue that the T-34-85 was a more effective weapon system than the Panther or Tiger, because it could be manufactured in much higher numbers and didn't have to go through an unreliable teething period during a critical point in the war.

I'm not arguing either way, but I think the answer is more complicated than picking a "modern hull". —Michael Z. 2007-09-20 19:34 Z

Why Type 96?

Why there's a Type 96 tank if there's already a Type 99? --SuperTank17 11:45, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

It bothers me too. Flayer 19:10, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Going by the articles, these seem to be two very different tanks. Why does this bother you? —Michael Z. 2007-09-20 19:17 Z

Merkava Mark 3 and Merkava Mark 4, both definitely modern, are also "very different" from one to another.... Flayer 19:26, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, that was a serious question. Will someone please tell me why it bothers them that two modern tank articles both have links in the navigation?

The article Merkava implies that the IV is a further development of the III. Is that correct? Adding two separate links to one article wouldn't help the reader find it, only slightly increase the confusion, I think.

While the Type 99 and Type 96 seem to be two separate designs with different lineages, used in different roles (high-tech vs. rank-and-file, like the Soviet T-80 and T-72). And requiring links to the two separate articles. What did I get wrong here? —Michael Z. 2007-09-21 00:51 Z

Why K2 Black Panther?

Why the K2 Black Panther is included even though it is just a prototype? --SuperTank17 20:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Its undergoing user trials. Hence, its in the final stages of development. Sniperz11 20:55, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Proposed renaming of category:Modern tanks

I've proposed renaming the children of Category:Tanks by era, including Modern tanks, to conform to the same system used for the parent category Armoured fighting vehicles by era. This was discussed in principal and agreed to at WT:WEAPON#Armoured fighting vehicles by era. The current nomination for the renaming is at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion/Log/2007 September 22. The specific category moves are:

• World War I tanks → Tanks of World War I
• Inter-war tanks → Tanks of the interwar period
• World War II tanks → Tanks of World War II
• Cold War tanks → Tanks of the Cold War
• Modern tanks → Tanks of the post-Cold War period

This change is meant to conform to Wikipedia's standard category naming scheme "X of Y", and to rename the respective periods in the context of other WP categories ("Modern era" has a different specific meaning).

This move may affect this template (or not). The post-Cold War period is 1989–91 to the present. If we decided to change the name of this template to be consistent with the category, then it would free the discussion from irresolvable questions of defining what a modern tank is, and boil it down to the period. In my opinion, this would not eliminate all discussion, but it would simplify the criteria and be a good thing. —Michael Z. 2007-09-22 22:32 Z

The category has been moved without any objections. —Michael Z. 2007-10-03 17:24 Z

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was move Duja► 08:17, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

---

I'm recommending moving this template to template:Post-Cold War tanks. Criteria for inclusion would be tanks which were first produced, or significantly upgraded after the end of the Cold War (after 1989–91). Advantages:

1. Consistent with Category:Tanks of the post-Cold War period
2. In turn consistent with other period categories in Category:Tanks by era
3. Inclusion is based on a well-defined criterion, not the undefined category of "modern" (see this page for endless debates and revert wars)

I don't expect this to obviate all debate about inclusion, but it will allow us to discuss concrete questions rather than "I know one when I see it" opinions. —Michael Z. 2007-10-03 17:43 Z

I strongly support such a move, although I doubt that that will end the heated debates that we have. Sniperz11 19:53, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Tank generations

I would be interested in finding a supportable definition of "modern" tanks. For the sake of interest, here's how the Soviets saw tanks during the Cold War:

The Soviets saw tank generations in this manner: 1920-1945, first generation; 1946-1960, second generation; 1961-1980, third generation; and 1981-present, fourth generation. Since the last really new tank design, the T-80, came out in 1976, they feel that they have not produced a true Fourth Generation Tank Design. In comparison, they count the M1, Challenger, and Leopard 2 as Fourth Generation and the LeClerc as Fifth Generation. —Sewell (1988), "Why Three tanks?", note 1.

 —Michael Z. 2007-10-03 22:19 Z

See also List of main battle tanks by generation. —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 20:02 Z

Template alignment

Can we increase the font size of the template, and keep it centred? Sniperz11 11:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That's the standard formatting for military history templates: Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Style_guide#Templates. It fits under the infoboxes. —Michael Z. 2007-10-12 23:56 Z

Thanks.. just saw that... Sniperz11 02:34, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria

There was some earlier discussion about the TR-85, which included an argument that it doesn't belong in this navigation template:

Because it has an obsolete hull of T-55. If we decide that T-55's hull is not obsolete, then we should add also Ch'onma-ho, Magach, Sabra (tank), M60-2000 Main Battle Tank, Stridsvagn 103.

Good point, but the premise isn't right. The TR-85 was not a T-55, but had a new, longer hull based on the T-55 (much like the prototype Black Eagle tank is based on a lengthened T-80 hull). It first entered service in 1987, years after the M1 Abrams and Merkava, and nearly at the end of the Cold War. The TR-85 M1 is a radical upgrade (not a newly-built vehicle), including the addition of a turret bustle and modern technologies, and it is the main national tank of Romania, currently in front-line service. With its 100mm gun it may not be a match for some other tanks on the list, but judging it by its gun or combat effectiveness is a trap (see below).

I specifically would like to avoid disqualifying tanks for subjective criteria such as having an "obsolete hull".

Do we really mean it's an old hull? What would be the cut-off date? Please consider that the M1 Abrams's hull entered series production in 1980, the Leopard 2's in 1979, the Merkava's in 1978, the T-84's in 1976 (for the T-80), and the T-90's in 1971 (for the T-72). A modern tank can clearly be built on a Cold-War hull.

Obsolete implies having outdated characteristics. I think a modern tank's hull is a steel box, just like the hull of a Cold War tank. In what way is the T-55's hull obsolete?

Is it because the tank isn't a match for "modern" tanks? We can't use this criterion because many tanks in service have not been tested in battle, and verifiable information comparing their effectiveness simply doesn't exist

Is it obsolete because its 100mm gun is out of date? I've already mentioned the problem of evaluating combat effectiveness, and the unknown characteristics of newer ammunition and fire-control are added into the mix. But 120 and 125mm guns are also Cold War developments, so having one isn't what makes a tank modern. Remember that several of our modern tanks have had their original guns upgraded to 120 or 125mm, just like the Al-Zarar, which is essentially a T-54A with a 125mm gun.

Does the fact that its original armour is too thin disqualify the T-55? Again, protection levels are top secret, and what would be the minimum thickness to qualify? But this is also not fair because most developments since the Cold War have focussed on protection technologies which are added on to conventional hulls, like composite materials, reactive armour, countermeasures, and even stand-off RPG screens.

I don't think the idea that particular hulls have modern characteristics is supportable by academic sources (but I'd be glad to reconsider my view if we can find something). So what makes modern tanks modern?

Modernness has to be judged by the tank's intended role and by its service history. Did someone build or upgrade this tank specifically for the modern battlefield? Did they put it in front-line service, intending it to face other modern tanks?

This navigation box includes links to articles about new tanks and upgraded versions of tanks which entered front-line service since the end of the Cold War in 1989–91.

I think this corresponds to criteria for inclusion in Category:Tanks of the post-Cold War period, leaving out prototypes which haven't entered service. (Perhaps the template should have a separate section for prototypes, but that is a separate discussion.)

Back to the list of examples which accompanied the TR-85:

Ch'onma-ho is hard to judge because of the lack of information. But it is a front-line tank in service, facing the South Korean K1, and it appears that major versions of it appeared since the end of the Cold War. It belongs here.

The Stridsvagn 103 had its last major revision enter service in the 1980s, and was replaced by the Leopard 2 in the mid-1990s, so I think it is disqualified. I don't know enough about the Magach, Sabra, and M60-2000's characteristics and service to judge whether they qualify, but it bears discussion.

Shall I add the proposed criteria to the template instructions, or are there any problems with it? —Michael Z. 2007-10-15 20:51 Z

You make some valid points there Michael. Since the name of this template is tanks of the Post Cold war, I think we should include only those variants which have entered service after 1990, or will enter service in the near future...

The advantage of the renaming of this template is that we now no longer have to worry about how 'modern' the tank itself is. I suggest a few criteria:

1. The Tank has entered service on or after 1990.

2. In case of upgrades, only the latest upgrade version will be considered. (Eg M1A2, Leo 2A6).

3. Prototypes may be included as long as they are being tested, ie, preproduction and user-trials are going on.

4. We do not include tanks that are being phased out, or are no longer in the market.

5. No includion of upgrades

Looking at the service acceptance dates of the tanks on the template, and those you've mentioned.

Al-Khalid - 2001

Ariete - 1995 (Upgraded version ready for production)

Arjun - 15 built, 124 on Order

Challenger 2 - 1993

K1A1 88 - 2001

K2 - 2007 (3 production models rolled out)

Leclerc - 1992

Leopard 2A6 - (No info.. need to add to page)

M1A2 Abrams - 1992

M-95 Degman - 2 on order

M-2001 - 2005

Merkava Mk. 4 - 1999

PT-91 Twardy - 1995

T-84 - 1998

T-90 - 1999 (T-90C)

Type-90 - 1990

Type-96 - 1996

Type-99 - 1999

The main point about the hull is 3 things- the Engine, Transmission, and to a lesser extent, Armour. If a tank has modernized engine, yada yada, I think we can consider the hull to be somewhat modern. The shell by itself is nothing. Its the inside that we worry about. In most cases, using a hull means using the engine and tranny in it, and that makes a tank old by compromising its mobility.

The point about guns is altogether different. Theres a reason all modern armies have moved away from 105 and 115 mm guns; they're just too old and weak. The fact that may countries are upgrading their 105 mm tanks to 120 or 125 mm should say it all. In addition, most of these guns are modernized regularly. However, their nature makes such upgrades small. As it stands, technologically, guns have a longer lifespan then other parts of the tank. That doesn't mean that 100 mm guns are modern, or can match up to the modern guns.

I think that we should then include the TR-85, even though they may not be modern. As for the Ch'onma-ho, just because it faces frontline tanks, that shouldn't be a reason to include it. We need to discuss this in detail, and probably, just by itself. This is a very slippery slope we're on, coz if we start including th 'frontline tanks' of all countries, there'll be no end to it.

As for the Magach, Sabra and others, they are being phased out, and replaced by more advanced Merkavas. Hence, I think we shouldn't included.

Sniperz11 03:36, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I still think you're hung up on performance, and it is still impossible for us to compare real performance of these vehicles.

For all we know, Cold-War tank A can still match brand-new tank B in firepower, protection, or mobility, or all of the above. Or maybe brand-new tank C enjoys a 50% advantage over brand-new tank D. I do know that the T-80 of the late 1970s had comparable mobility to anything new (those old babies are gas-guzzlers, though). Gun calibre is a result of the arms race, but it started to level out when the T-64 was introduced with a 125mm smoothbore, over 40 years ago. Since then, technology in fire control, ammunition, and armour has been the factor differentiating tanks, and again, we can't directly compare vehicles that way, and we can't judge how much of the equation gun calibre still accounts for. Also, there has been more of an emphasis on unconventional warfare in this century, although the importance of that is debatable when talking about main battle tanks.

In real terms, it's hard to say that the Ch'onma-ho's 115mm gun is so much worse, since it's very close to the 120 and 125mm calibre of the latest guns, and we don't know what other improvements it has or has not.

I still don't think this exercise should be about a tank being as good as another, whether we can determine that or not. But this requires more thought, and I'll compromise for now by adding the TR-85, and leaving off the Ch'onma-ho. —Michael Z. 2007-10-19 04:00 Z

What about the P'okpoong-Ho? Ominae (talk) 05:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

As is stated in its article, it's believed that newer versions of the Ch'onma-ho are fitted with a 125mm gun. The only major innovations after the Cold War were battle management systems and improvements in electronics. Today's tanks, in general, are still Cold War tanks - new tanks are built to these standards; there is nothing driving a fast improvement of tanks, and most of these improvements can be spiraled into existing turrets and hulls. JonCatalán (talk) 10:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

New tanks inclusion.

Ok... since the last major edits, there have been some updates- The new Japanese tank and Tank Ex. Im not aware of any others. Do we or do we not include them? Please discuss here. Thanks. ^T/_@Sniperz11_edits^sign 05:35, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that we would include future tanks only after their completion. test projects are not included for older tanks, and we should follow the same procedure with newer tanks. until these tanks are accepted into service, or at least proposed to sale, they are no more than incomplete projects. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:47, 8 September 2008 (UTC)

Al-Khalid back to the Original name Type 90.

Micheal, I had earlier warned you from naming the tank as Al-Khalid. I had repeatedly told you that it's the name of the tank MBT 2000 (Variant of Type 90) in Pakistani service. A new version of the MBT 2000 has appeared.[1] That's the Chinese has introduced a new version. So it's time to revert back and correct all the mistakes.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

The Pakistani Al-Khalid also includes Ukrainian components and a very modern FCS. It's not the same tank as a baseline T-90, even if based on it. JonCatalán (talk) 21:57, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Type 10

Who is removing the Type 10? The prototype is currently undergoing trials, and should remain on the list. Otherwise, having the K2 up in the list would make absolutely no sense. enomosiki (talk) 08:14, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion debate

OK, I'm resurrecting the inclusion debate here, in light of recent changes. Which tanks should we add or remove?? If you think any tank should be added, please list them below. If any need to be deleted, again, please discuss... Sniperz11_{@^C S} 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Inclusion Criteria

The previous debates about inclusion criteria for this template were inconclusive... please discuss so that we can create and vet a semi-official rule list for inclusion. Thanks. Sniperz11_{@^C S} 18:57, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, definitely. But some of the chaff can be easily weeded out without a guideline.

Rebuilds of old tanks? We have the T-54E (excuse me, “Ramses II”), which was built before 1965! It clearly doesn't belong, since the update was designed in the 1980s, and is not differentiated from dozens of other T-54/55 updates, except for the addition of a gun from the 1950s. Sabra is a more sophisticated update, but it is Turkey's second-line tank.

We have so far disqualified prototypes, for good reason. The Black Eagle tank was demonstrated over a decade ago, and remains vapourware. We also removed the T-95, which hardly qualifies as wishful thinking. We shouldn't include anything else which is "expected to be armed" with a certain gun, or whose "production is expected to start" in a certain year. Either remove Type 10 tank, or add another half-dozen vapourware projects. M-95 Degman is not in service, K2 Black Panther is doubtful, and the M-2001 looks like vapourware, but it's hard to tell because there's so much weaselling in that article.

Items on the commercial market but not in service? Old upgraded tanks which are only in manufacturer's catalogues? Remove M60-2000, which is not in service, or add a few dozen more offerings.

I'm cleaning up the template, based on what I see as consensus and common sense. Please discuss here instead of reverting. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 17:20 z

Omission criteria

This might be helpful. Let's build lists of tanks which don't qualify here. We can keep building each list so we can clearly see what belongs in the category, and debate the merits of including each category in the navigation template separately. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 18:23 z

Antiques

These are older tanks which have been upgraded (not newly-built), and are not used as front-line tanks by industrialized countries.

• Al Zarrar (Pakistani upgrade of T-54/55 or Type 59)
• BM Bulat (Malyshev T-64 upgrade, in service with Ukraine)
• M60-2000
• Ramses II (T-54E)
• Sabra
• T-55MV
• T-72MP (Ukraine)
• T-72AM "Banan" (Ukraine)
• T-72AG (Ukraine)
• T-72-120 (Ukraine)
• BMT-72 (Ukraine)

Discussion

TR-85 is not included on this list because it is substantially rebuilt and in front-line service with Romania. —Michael Z. 2008-05-28 18:23 z

Prototype tanks

These are not in industrial production or not in active service. Examples may be in field testing, in development, or concept demonstrators.

• Black Eagle tank
• K2 Black Panther
• M-2001
• M-95 Degman
• Type 10 tank

For sale

Like a prototype, but offered for sale rather than being developed by a nation's military.

• Black Eagle tank
• M60-2000
• T-72MP (Ukraine)
• T-72AM "Banan" (Ukraine)
• T-72AG (Ukraine)
• T-72-120 (Ukraine)
• BMT-72 (Ukraine)

Vapourware

Not seen.

• T-95

Inclusion of Sabra

[discussion copied from user talk:Flayer and user talk:Mzajac —MZ]

Hi. Would you please better explain this edit?

TR-85M1 is Romania's front-line tank, with apparently 300 in service. It is a fundamental rebuild, with structural changes to the turret and hull. Sabra is a very extensive modernization to give Turkey's M60 a longer life as a second-line tank, and there is no indication that it is in service yet. We don't include prototypes in the template, or old tanks used in the second line.

If the Sabra is included, then that opens up the field to the others in the list at Template talk:Post-Cold War tanks#Antiques, and probably many more. —Michael Z. 2008-05-31 01:09 z

According to article Sabra (tank) and its external links, Sabra is also a fundamental rebuild (of M60, superior to T-55) with some structural changes. The main guns, fire control systems, power packs, tracks, add-on armour, ERA, engine/transmission, and some of the subsystems were modernized by using new systems. It is also a front-line tank of the Turkish Army. Nothing about life extension. We may not include Sabra if we also exclude TR-85. Flayer (talk) 18:35, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

[end copied]

The article doesn't seem to say that, or at least I can't find the the words fundamental, rebuild, or structural in Sabra (tank).

Regardless of that, I maintain that if we include second-line tanks which are rebuilt models from the 1950s, then the whole list of #Antiques above would be open for consideration. I think the criteria should only allow tanks of older vintage if they are serving in the first line.

I know there are diverse opinions here so let's get some more discussion on the topic. Should Sabra be included? —Michael Z. 2008-05-31 22:50 z

If you include the Sabra, then why not include the Magach? If not include the Leopard 2E (see below), why include them? The Sabra is a M60 Patton modernization kit, based heavily on Israel's Magach 7C, so it's no less of a variant than the Leopard 2E is (well, more heavily modified). Neither are Magachs or Sabras brand-new construction - they are all modifications of existing hulls and turrets. I don't think it should be included. I still don't understand the parameters of this template - they seem completely contradictory. The Challenger 2, Leopard 2, M1 Abrams and Merkava were all developed prior to the end of the Cold War (twenty years prior, at that) - so, why can't the Ch'ŏnma-ho be included? It shouldn't be thought of as a T-62, but based on the T-62 - they were mostly manufactured in North Korea. Other than that, why include the T-84? More specifically, why include it over the T-80? The T-84 is hardly modified beyond the T-80UD (except for modifications for export, which are not yet in service in any army). Just some thoughts. JonCatalán (talk) 10:45, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree with most of that.

But the T-84, a front-line tank based on the high-tech T-80 of 1976 (actually, on the T-80UD of 1987), belongs here just as much as the T-90, a front-line tank which is a version of the basic-technology T-72 of 1971. —Michael Z. 2008-07-14 03:03 z

We may also exclude Sabra and TR-85, and keep only brand new tanks (all the rest). Flayer (talk) 22:37, 13 July 2008 (UTC)

Question: What about the Leopard 2E? Or, as it is a variant of the Leopard 2 it cannot be included? JonCatalán (talk) 12:15, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears to be a variant of Leopard 2A6. The biggest difference is that final assembly is in Spain. —Michael Z. 2008-06-23 15:22 z

Reverting over Sabra

Flayer added Sabra to the template again with the edit summary Undid revision 228928278 by Mzajac (talk)Sabra IS in active servicein Turkey, called M60T.

Please provide a reference, and add it to the article. It currently implies that the Sabra only exists in testing of prototypes, and is expected to finish a production run in 2009:

The prototype was completed and passed the qualification tests in May 2006. Several other prototypes are being tested in Israel and Turkey as part of USD 688 million contract dated 29 March 2002. The M60A1 modernization program is currently in the mass modernization phase. The project will end by April 2009. The remaining M60 tanks are likely to undergo the same upgrade process with more involvement of Turkish companies, upon completion of the upgrade of first 170 tanks.

Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-07-31 23:18 z

According to Turkish Army atricle: "At present, the primary main battle tanks of the Turkish Army are the Leopard 2A4 and the M60T." According to Modern equipment and uniform of the Turkish Army article: 170 M60T named. Flayer (talk) 12:35, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Then is it fair to assume that the Leo 2 is the primary MBT and the M60T secondary? If so, then should we include second-line tanks in this template?

But that may be neither here nor there, because I can't find any evidence that the Sabra is in service at all. The Turkish Army article only mentions these tanks in passing and refers to the Sabra article, which says that a couple of prototypes are in testing, and the 170 tanks are to be completed in 2009. The only official references I can find agree:

• “The acceptance tests of prototype tank has been successfully performed. The activities of pilot and serial modernization are still ongoing. It is anticipated that the deliveries will be finished by April 2009.”[2]
• “The Prototype System Qualification Tests were successfully completed in May 2006. The Pilot and Serial Modernization activities are going on according to the program schedule. The deliveries will have been completed by April 2009.”[3]

Am I missing a reference that says the Sabra is in active service? —Michael Z. 2008-08-01 18:29 z

It's difficult to denote a tank as Turkey's main tank, since they really don't have one. It's assumed that the Leopard 2A4s are deployed to the West, against Greece, while the Turkish Army retains a large number of other types of tanks, including M60s and Leopard 1s. Not all M60s will receive upgrade kits as far as we know from current information, only 170 (as aforementioned on this page). Besides, the Turks are in the process of designing their own tank with the South Koreans. JonCatalán (talk) 00:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Adding TAM

I have added TAM to the list because it's a medium tank in service with the Argentine Army and was developed around the same time as the American M1 Abrams, German Leopard 2 and Israeli Merkava. It's in a different weight class and it may not be as advanced, but it fills the prerequisites in regards to its date of service, how far it's expected to remain in service and when it started to be developed. It's no less of a post cold-war tank than any of the tanks previously mentioned. JonCatalán (talk) 04:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

According to the article, TAM weights only 30.5 tonnes. The lightest of the modern Post-Cold War tanks weight 15 tonnes more, also having smaller inner space for 3 crewmen, unlike TAM. It means that TAM has much³ thicker armor than all modern Post-Cold War tanks, unless TAM features an unheard-of composite alloys like in 5th generation fighter aircraft. Is it true? :-/ It is a Medium tank, just like the obsolete T-34 and M4 Sherman, with slightly higher caliber. With the production of relatively expensive tanks converging more and more on the sweet spot of the versatile medium tank, the way was paved for the development of mechanized warfare and the modern main battle tank concept. All the other tanks in this template are Main Battle Tanks with much better armor. Flayer (talk) 14:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Moreover, all the other modern tanks (or versions) in this template has armed primarily with a 120-125 mm main gun. TAM has a 105 mm gun. (M1A1 and M1A2 are modern, M1 is not. Merkava Mark III and IV are modern, mark I and II are not. Leopard 2A4 and higher are modern, 2A3 and lower are not). That's why I remove TAM. Flayer (talk) 15:07, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, but you apparently missed the point. The TAM weighs 30.5 tonnes due to national requirements, not because it wasn't meant to be the country's main battle tank. I don't think weight should play a part in the classification, if the role of the tank is the same. This template doesn't cover heavy tanks, it covers post-cold war tanks, which the TAM obviously falls into. You are criticizing the TAM on grounds that are based on national requirements, not because Argentine asked for an 'obsolete tank' (which it is not - especially given South American's terrain). Can you not remove the tank until we actually argue about it here? JonCatalán (talk) 18:18, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

We specifically changed the name of this template from “modern tanks” to avoid questions of what is modern. Most main tanks are MBTs, but there's no need to disqualify Argentina's tank just because they didn't feel the need to build for the European Cold-War requirements of intensive warfare (maybe this is more a post-Cold War tank than the others?).

Since it is indigenously built in the 1990s, and continues to serve as a front-line vehicle, I believe it belongs here.

(To pre·empt the ongoing battles over particular tanks, I am starting to consider just including everything in service here, perhaps with one or two subdivisions of the template.) —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 00:55 z

What about a Cold War Main Battle Tank template, as well? That way we can link tanks like the Leopard 1, AMX-30, et cetera, and we don't have to worry about them (the Leopard 1 is still in service, and so are tanks such as the T-62 (the Russians have deployed them to Georgia), T-64, et cetera). Furthermore, is there anyway these templates could link to the tank portal, or would there be no reason (other than mine - which is to bring activity to the portal) to?

Regardless, what I think is important to take into consideration in respect to the TAM, as was touched on by Michael, is that because the TAM wasn't built to the requirements of a tank which was meant to fight in Europe it doesn't disqualify it from being a main battle tank (which it is, in the Argentine Army - and is used as one). The terrain in Argentina is unique, especially when taking into consideration the soft soil of the Pampas to the south, the rain forest to the north (area of Brazil) and the mountains on the Chilean border (where this vehicle was first deployed - a reason why it did not see combat during the Falkland War) - it's very similar to Spanish requirements for the Lince, although terrain in Argentina is even more unique. In any case, my point is that it remains a modern main battle tank, and has been upgraded after the end of the Cold War (well, an upgrade exists called the R301 - it's not clear if it has actually be done throughout the fleet). JonCatalán (talk) 01:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yup, the whole scheme needs a little work. I suggest we:

• Coordinate at the military vehicle task force
• Unify with the existing WWII and Cold War AFV templates.
• Conform more closely to the milhist standards, either using the standard navigation templates, or adapting the campaignboxes.

 —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 01:27 z

I've made an initial proposal at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force#Navigation templates. —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 01:44 z

Stingray light tank

If we include TAM, we sholud already include Stingray light tank... Flayer (talk) 05:01, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Maybe like this?

Flayer (talk) 05:06, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The TAM serves a completely different purpose than the Stingray light tank. It serves the purpose of a main battle tank in the Argentine Army. It's just lighter than most other main battle tanks due to national requirements. While the Stingray is not really meant to engage other tanks, the TAM is (which is underscored by the recent modernization package which is mentioned by Janes (not in the article because I don't have the source) which includes a new better hunter/killer FCS). The TAM is also meant for infantry support (the TAM/VCTP doctrine is very similar to the United States' Abrams/Bradley doctrine). The TAM is meant to fulfill the role of a main battle tank, not that of a light tank. You are taking this completely the wrong way. JonCatalán (talk) 05:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

In regards to the template, it should go by the tank's role not by its weight. There are light tanks being developed in almost the same weight class (late 20 tonnes), such as the CV-120 and the LT-105 based on the Pizarro, but their roles are not the same as that of the TAM's. The TAM is unique because of the terrain it fights on, not because of its role differs from that of other main battle tanks on the list. That's the point you're missing. JonCatalán (talk) 05:09, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I think, that TAM is a medium tank. It was meant to be a medium tank, and it fulfills the role of a medium tank. Flayer (talk) 05:22, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, in your opinion what is a medium tank? How does a medium tank differentiate itself from a main battle tank? In all honesty, the change from medium tank to main battle tank is just a change in name, just like the change from medium tank to heavy tank (medium tanks of the 1960s weighed as much as heavy tanks of the Second World War). What is important is the role and not the weight class. JonCatalán (talk) 05:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

From Tank classification#Main battle tank (late twentieth century) - The term "main battle tank" is applied to tanks designed to function as the backbone of modern ground forces. JonCatalán (talk) 05:28, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Good work Michael... Coming to TAM and the related and ever-present issue of what this template should be, I think it'd be a good idea to sit together and define... something that we've tried to do for some time now, with the discussion always going cold or getting diverted into specifics.

The renaming was the best thing that happened, as it removed the contentious discussion on what 'modern' meant. However, we're still left with loose ends such as the role vs designation, extremely modernized variant tanks...

As for TAM, my personal opinion is that we should look more at the role that the tank is put into, with certain limits - after all, an IFV can't be a good MBT, can it? Sniperz11_@^CS 05:48, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The TAM isn't an IFV. One of the TAM's variants, which uses the TAM's chassis, is an IFV and it's called the VCTP. JonCatalán (talk) 05:52, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hehe... you didnt get my point Jon. How far can we go in including tanks till it gets too diluted? We may say now that TAM is fine, next, someone will say that a 105 mm gun isnt that bad, after which we may again call in another candidate and say that even though it can carry troops, it can fight like an MBT... in which case, you can add the BMP-3 in here... get my drift??

Exactly!! It is easy to say, that certain vehicle was build due to national requirements to fulfill the role of a modern main battle tank. Someone may say, for example, that EE-9 Cascavel fulfills the role of a tank for Burkina Faso, considering the national requirements (and possibilities) of Burkina Faso. Flayer (talk) 14:17, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

No, you are again missing the point. The EE-9 doesn't fulfill that role for Burkina Faso, and was not designed to do so. You are taking things out of context and arguing to an extreme. JonCatalán (talk) 17:38, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We can add the TAM in here, but not defining the limits will be dangerous. Sniperz11_@^CS 06:05, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, which is why I suggested at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force#Navigation templates that this talk page should have a section where it defines the parameters of inclusion clearly. That way we can avoid debates like this one. JonCatalán (talk) 06:07, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Stingray is not post-Cold War. But this template's fate is under discussion at the project page, so let's stop fiddling and take the discussion there. —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 07:04 z

AMX 10 RC

What about this? AMX 10 RC is capable of penetrating a NATO triple heavy tank target at a range of 2000 meters. Flayer (talk) 05:18, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

It isn't used in the same role as a M1 Abrams or Merkava either. There's a long list of them. For example, Spain uses the B1 Centauro as an anti-tank vehicle. Yes, the TAM can also be used to knock-out other tanks, but this isn't its sole purpose. The TAM is a multipurpose tank, like the other tanks already listed in the template. It serves the same roles as those tanks in the Argentine Army, not just one (it's not limited). Yes, the TAM has shown weaknesses and its no longer ideal and may not be as technologically advanced as other tanks that fulfill the same role (lack of composite armor mixed with low armor protection (largely due to the weight requirement, but the Leopard 1 has less protection, as does the AMX-30, and they are both main battle tanks - although, of the Cold War), but it's still a modern tank. It's just built to the unique requirements of Argentina, not to the requirements of a European war. JonCatalán (talk) 05:24, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Not a tank, apparently not used in a tank role, and not post-Cold War. —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 07:07 z

Suggested name change (again) to Modern Main Battle Tanks

There already has been a discussion about changing the section's name to Modern Tanks, but this is also too ambiguous to the point where everything but the kitchen sink can be thrown in. Therefore, I propose the title of Modern Main Battle Tanks, to narrow the subject down to;

• Modern, as in vehicles that have been manufactured after 1990, (e.g. - Leclerc, Challenger 2, T-90, etc.) and others dating back as far as 1970's but with significant amount of upgrades incorporating state-of-the-art components and softwares applied to enable them to properly compete with each other. (e.g. - M1A2 SEP, Challenger, Leopard 2A5/6, Merkava 4, K1A1 and so on.)
• Main, as in forming the backbone of an armed force's heavy armored units. Those that are in reserves or in supporting roles should also be allowed only if they have a major presence, but they will also have to follow the Modern and Battle Tank rule.
• Battle Tank, as in specifically-designed tracked vehicles that provide heavy offensive and defensive capabilities with emphasis on heavy armor and firepower utilizing a large-caliber main gun and other assortments of secondary armaments. This should disallow other vehicles that may provide tank-like capabilities (e.g. - Stryker MGS, CV90105, etc.) to be listed on the section.

Additionally, tanks that are categorized by light, medium and heavy should be discouraged from being added, although the option is still open if all three criterias involving the Modern, Main and Battle Tank are met. However, with the decline of using the light, medium and heavy to classify most tanks that have been produced after 1980's, this should not cause much problems.

The list of things mentioned should help to clear up the clutter. — enomosiki (talk) 19:44, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Comments about the proposal:

• Modern has a very different meaning in a historical context (contemporary would be better), and we've already abandoned the term because no one could agree what constitutes a modern tank (or indeed what is significant, state-of-the-art, or how anyone could possibly evaluate what can properly compete with what).
• Main is not necessarily heavy—MBTs range from as little as 38 tonnes (T-64A) to 62 t (M1, Challenger) in weight, and there is already debate about whether Argentina's main tank for battle is a main battle tank.
• Battle tank—I think the more important question is whether they serve with armoured units in the tank role, instead of filling the infantry support, reconnaissance, or some other role. This basic information is missing from some articles, and unfortunately it may be impossible to determine for some vehicles which haven't seen service.

I couldn't support the current proposal. I do think we have had less squabbling over inclusions since the change, and I don't think shuffling it back will solve anything. —Michael Z. 2008-08-27 20:48 z

I've already started a thread at WT:AFV#Navigation templates to look at the whole park of such navigation templates. This should be discussed in the broader context and with more participants than here. —Michael Z. 2008-08-27 20:27 z

• You do have a point with the word contemporary. The significant and state-of-the-art upgrade part applies to vehicles that have been made back during the Cold War period, but are still in active service and providing major support as of present time. And, yes, unfortunately, we cannot properly evaluate which tank can properly compete with another, but we can benchmark the necessary data, such as firepower, armor, mobility, service length, and so on between each vehicles.
• I meant heavy as in having more weight than other front line armored vehicles in service with a nation's armed forces. Most MBTs that have rolled out of the production lines since the 1970's are within the range of 45 to 60 tonnes, with their weight more often than not increasing slightly as time passes and upgrades are applied.
• We should consider the purpose of the vehicle that it was originally designed for, and how they are used during exercises and on the battlefield.

Anyways, this is just something to think about, because the term Post-Cold War tanks can cover an awfully broad area. — enomosiki (talk) 22:06, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Also note the names of other templates (mentioned at WT:AFV, and children of the categories category:Tanks by era and category:Armoured fighting vehicles by era. —Michael Z. 2008-08-27 22:29 z

AFV navigation templates

There's a discussion about AFV navigation templates at WT:AFV#Navigation templates. Topics include style, and the organization of post-WWII templates. Please discuss there. —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 00:09 z

Template:Cold War tanks

A new template has been created. Discussion about both is taking place at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force. —Michael Z. 2008-09-30 17:12 z

Ramses II

Since you've asked for me to explain myself on the talk page, I'll give you the reasons why Ramses II tank is not being listed on this template. The Ramses II is an upgraded T-54 tank for the Egyptian Army—one that is being replaced by the M1 Abrams. There is no other tank upgrade on this template. Neither the Leopard 2E, or the Sabra or the Magach—furthermore, there are no cold war tanks that have remained in service with "third world armies", such as the Leopard 1 (which is still in service with many armies around the world), and the same issue exists wit the T-72 and the T-54/55. Before you edited the tank in, perhaps you should have partaken in the discussion on this talk page which have already gone over these issues. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:26, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Furthermore, you mention the Type 96, which according to the article was developed as the Type 85-III in 1995. This seems to have a similar relationship as the T-90 has to the T-72, while the Ramses II is a direct upgrade of the T-54/55. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:30, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

In this case, the M1A1, and the M1A2 Abrams should not exist becuase they are upgrades /based of/on a coldwar tank, the M1 Abrams.

About service with a third world army -a term i identify for the first time- the Abrams is used by the same army !

The army of egypt is # 11 on the world for god's sack

The Magach serius have started during the cold war era as i remember, while the Ramses II entered production as of 2004

The Ramses II is not being replaced by the Abrams , the T-55 is. It's true that it's production have been partialy abandoned in favor of the much more capable Abrams M1A1, but that does not mean that the Abrams is going to replace them any time soon.

The problem here is that u see it as just an upgrade, while i see it as a convertion. new road wheels, new tracks, new engine, new armament, new armour layout, new electronics, and even the hull have been modified.

Before you remove the tank, perhaps you should have noticed the edit summary i wrote, when i have edited it, and which no one seams to be against, but for you.

Direct me to certain instructions to add a tank here, because i cannot find any, eccepting for that the tamblet is for post cold war tanks, and therefor any post cold war tank should be placed in it no matter for which armed forces it was made, who made it, or who uses it.

Furthermore, the T-72, the Leopard 1 , and the T-55 are all cold war tanks, while the Ramses II's serial production started 13 years after the cold war ended. The Type-96 is based on the T-55 at least indirectly, but it's very clear that a T-55 can be upgraded to a Type-96. The T-90 is an upgrade of the T-72, a cold war tank -actually it's original name was T-72BM-. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:09, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

The M1A1 and M1A2 (the M1A1 modification actually took place prior to the end of the Cold War, by the way) are not listed. The M1 Abrams is listed because it's a main battle tank currently in service. The series as a whole is listed. It's listed both in the Cold War tanks template and the Post-Cold War tank template. A "conversion" from a basic design to a superior design is an upgrade, no matter what has been changed. Or, when the M1 Abrams gets (or may get) the new gas turbine (or diesel engine) and new gun it's a conversion, not an upgrade (the same goes from Leopard 2A4 to Leopard 2E)? Actually, I think Ramses II has been reverted before I even became active on this template. We can wait for other users to state their opinion. And, you seem to be missing the point. The Ramses II is an upgrade (or conversion, whatever way you want to put it) of a cold-war tank. No upgrades - none at all - are listed on this template. And, I don't think a T-55 can be upgraded to a Type 96, otherwise Pakistan would be modifying their Type 59s to Al-Khalids. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:13, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

It's not all cut and dried, and these questions are currently under discussion at WT:AFV.

I have probably removed the Rameses II from this template more than once, but after reading about it in a bit more detail, all I'm sure about is that I need to read still more. It does seem to be a very ambitious redesign of a tank, not just a refit for upgraded armament and engine.

[I suspect that pharaoh meant to write that a T-55 can't be upgraded to Type 96. Yeah, the T-90 is the latest T-72, but the marketing campaign seems to be successful, and everyone treats it as new. The T-84 is also the latest T-80UD, which is arguably a different model from the gas-turbine T-80. In my opinion the latest M1 is the same design as the original tank, with upgraded equipment.]

Anyway, let's discuss it at the project page (WT:AFV), where we might get more opinions. —Michael Z. 2008-10-06 02:53 z

It's hard to judge the T-90 because there is really no reliable source on it. However, from unreliable sources I've heard quite a few things about it which distance it from the T-72 (larger cassettes in the autoloader for longer two-piece kinetic energy penetrators and much greater armor protection). The Israeli Tiran series is also a radical improvement over captured T-54s and T-55s, and so should it be included as well? What about the Magach series? I think it would be a far better idea to make a template for individual tanks and their modifications, instead of linking them all from here - leave these to the main model of the tank. JonCatalán^(Talk) 03:10, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

First i want to thank Michael Z. for the link he nominated in his last contribution, a page i was not aware of it's existence. Before i join the discussion there, i want to reply on only two points here; the Tiran was made during the cold war not after it, there for it cannot be placed here even if we considered it a radical upgrade. In my opinion, it is not even close the amount of upgrade done for the T-54 to be a Tiran to that that brings it to the Ramses standard. The Tiran was concerned with replacing the armament, and the Ti-67 added the replacement of the engine as well - just like egyptian modifications of the same tank : [[4]] -. The Magach add radical upgrades that truly shift up the tank's performance, yet it was not done after the cold war, and does not include "major structural rebuilding", that's a term Michael Z. used, and i agree with him. One last pharaoh (talk) 09:34, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the Magach 7 - the most radical transformation of the tank - entered service in the mid-1990s, after the end of the Cold War. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:44, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Actually the Magach-7 is not the most radical transformation, it is the most advanced one.

[[5]] check it out ! it states that the cold war ended in 1991. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:25, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Right, and he Magach 7 entered service in the mid 1990s. This is after 1991. What about the Sabra? JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:31, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Will enter service soon. Flayer (talk) 10:25, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

It was more of a rhetorical question, to prove a point. JonCatalán^(Talk) 14:14, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

Which point ?

I checked the Magach article, and it was not mentioned when did the Magach-7 enter service. would you like to state where did you get that information from ? One last pharaoh (talk) 16:24, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The point that if the Ramses II can be included, so should the Magach and so should the Sabra. My reference is: *Gelbart, Marsh (2008). Modern Israeli Tanks and Infantry Carriers 1985-2004. Oxford, United Kingdom: Osprey. p. 48. ISBN 1 84176 579 1. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:31, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

In that case, you really should not consider it to be proved.

Or maybe you can consider it was proved in my last contribution before you claim that the Magach-7 is the most radical upgrade in the series.....to be wrong ofcourse. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:10, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

BTW, you do not have to provide an edit summery to talk pages, specially when this summery is only for stating that you have responded to a certain editor. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:11, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

The Sabra series is a complete reconstruction of the M60, to the point where it has radically more armor, a 120mm tank-gun, up-to-date generation electronics and sighting equipment, and much more. Newer versions of the Sabra, for example, have two layers of explosive reactive armor (as reported to Armada International). The Magach 7 has received several improvements in service which have increased cross-country performance and acceleration considerably, as compared to the M60 and older model Magachs. For example, the Magach 7A includes changes to the power pack and running gear, as well as new generation armor, while the Magach 7C saw even greater improvements to the armor. They are still being continuously upgraded with the most modern equipment. But, if you don't buy the Magach, there is no denying that the Sabra is a radical transformation of the Turkish M60 and if the Ramses II is included so should the Sabra. The Sabra was originally excluded because it was decided that tank variants, no matter how large their transformation, would not be included in the template. And, by the way, I can add an edit summary to whatever I want - I always have added edit summaries to my edits. ;) JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:36, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

I know you can, i said that you do not have to !

Any way, I think that the amount of difference between the Ramses II, and the T-54 is not less "radical" than that between the Sabra, and the M60. However, the difference is major structural rebuilding. the Sabra, and Magach add on the existing main body of the M48/60, but the Ramses is fare more "radical" in this aspect, lengthening the hull, and adding a new road wheel -Noting that the new road wheel is corresponding to the new hull length, not only for changing the suspension system-.

I think that we are getting closer to find a solution to this template problem in the (WT:AFV), which i think would be simply that all tanks that entered service in the time period after the end of the cold war. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:19, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

You are arguing a red herring. I never said that the Ramses II was a less radical improvement. I said that if the Ramses II was to be included in the template, so should the Sabra. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:44, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

And, i never said that you said so, and never contributed on the basis that you said so.

I have made a quick comparison between the changes done to the M60 in order to be a Sabra, or a Magach, and the ones done to the T-54 in order to become a Ramses; A comparison that explained what is the major difference which i consider a reason of why cannot the Sabra, and Magch be in the template, while the Ramses can. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:19, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

No offence, but the discussion surrounding inclusion in this template is sounding like a broken record for the last year. It's nobody's fault that not everyone will agree what is a different tank, since various models will have every possible degree of similarity on a continuum, from identical to completely unrelated. These ongoing discussions are not productive.

Maybe this can be resolved by eliminating these judgement calls completely, and taking some absolute stance, like one of these:

1. Article-based navigation: every tank article gets a link (why hide some from the readers?).
2. Reductionist navigation: every extended tank family gets a link, and all descendants are handled by adding a family-specific navbox, like T-54/55. This tactic may help unify the navigation for the huge lists of WWII AFVs.
3. Externally-referenced lists: every named tank gets a link (completely bypasses discussion, but leads to redundant article links). I don't favour this, because it would have navboxes duplicating lists of tanks.

Of course, the right place to discuss this is at WP:AFV, because it affects all of the AFV navboxes. —Michael Z. 2008-10-09 17:22 z

If we include the Ramses II tank, so we also should include TR-85, Ch'ŏnma-ho and Sabra (soon) - there is no way distinguish "radical" improvement of an obsolete tank from "not-that-radical-but-quite-radical" improvement. The template will lose its point completely. It should probably be rebuilt to present tanks by generations, or any such way to differ between modern last word first line MBTs like Leopard 2, Merkava Mark IV, M1 Abrams, Leclerc, T-90, Type 99 e.t.c and low budget reconstructions of some obsolete (mostly soviet) tanks like Ch'ŏnma-ho, TR-85, Ramses II and so on. Flayer (talk) 08:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with the sentiment, but I doubt that there is an objective way to define or distinguish these categories either. Although it would be nice to subdivide the template to make it more manageable for the reader, let's keep in mind that it is a navbox, not an encyclopedic “list of front-line tanks” and “list of rebuilt tanks,” or some such.

All it should be is a list of links to articles about tanks which were introduced after the Cold War ended, right? Perhaps we could subdivide it by tanks weighing under and over 50 tonnes, or by gun calibre? —Michael Z. 2008-10-12 16:05 z

Yes, something like that. Though I think we actually could subdivide the template to a list of reconstructed tanks and a list of tanks made of new parts, not from remains of older tanks. Flayer (talk) 18:02, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

A reconstructed tank template would probably list the Ramses II only ? One last pharaoh (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

No, another one is PT-91. Though it is a reconstruction of much newer tank. Flayer (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

What does the PT-91 have to be compared to the amount of changes to the Ramses ? It is nothing more than a modernized T-72M1, no matter how extensive this modernization is. My contribution below already explains that. One last pharaoh (talk) 16:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Non of the other tanks mentioned has "major structural rebuilding" like the Ramses II. It transformed the tank from a medium tank to a main battle tank ! that's like transforming old tanks to SP artillery, or APC's because the main battle tank concept started in the eastern block with the T-62. Read the Ramses II article to find more about what i mean. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

It is impossible to define or to distinguish "major structural rebuilding", "extensive modernization" and any other term to describe reconstructed tank. Flayer (talk) 21:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, sir it is ! mention one tank other than the Ramses II that extends the hull, and add a new road wheel to accommodate the new hull length. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you, Michael. the only concept is the era. other than that the Ramses should stay also, because it is new -entered service in 2004-, and modern -check the electronic systems used-. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:30, 12 October 2008 (UTC)

Subdivision

So, what about this?

Flayer (talk) 11:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Al-Khalid should probably be included a reconstructed tank, since it's based on the Chinese Type 90-IIM. Or, what do you think? JonCatalán^(Talk) 16:35, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

It seems to me that Al-Khalid tank based on Type 90-IIM in terms of sketches and schemes, not in terms of taking Type 90-IIM hull/chassis and making an Al-Khalid tank of it. Do you think otherwise? I wouldn't argue about this. Do you agree with the compromising idea of separating retooled/rebuilt/reconstructed tanks aside in this template? Flayer (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

In the suggested version, why do not the following: Al-Khalid, K1 88, M-95 Degman, T-84, T-90, Type 96, Type 99, and the Abrams all fall into the "Retooled" part ? One last pharaoh (talk) 16:45, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Because, that would imply that they are vehicles based on older chassis, when they're not. The development of the Al-Khalid is not like the development of the M1A2 Abrams, in other words. Or, it's not similar to that of the T-84 either (based on the T-80). In other words, the M1 Abrams is not based on an older chassis of another tank. It has just been improved over the years. The Type 99 should probably remain where it is too, as should the T-90. In that section, I believe that Flayer wished to imply that those tanks were heavy upgrades or large scale reconstructions of older chassis'. Otherwise, you'd also have to include the Challenger 2 tank, Merkava, Leopard 2 and Arjun MBT (which has technically been designed since the 1970s). Should the Arjun even be included? There are doubts of whether or not it is even in active service within the Indian Army (the 124 which were supposed to be fabricated have not been produced, let alone entered service). JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:00, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. Flayer (talk) 17:58, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Exactly. That's my point. I do not think we would agree on one concept when we take in mind the amount of modernization. The only concept we should care about is -as the template's name suggests- the time. these templates would do it's job when it lists tanks made after the end of the cold war, just as simple as that. maybe we can classify them into some thing that every one agrees on which would probably be: (tanks in actual service, and those that did not enter service yet.), or (Tanks based on older vehicles, and those which are completely new designs.). One last pharaoh (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note: after i finished writing, i found out that Michael made a contribution, so here is what i was going to say. Now let me read what he has written. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:56, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Retooled typically applies to manufacturing equipment. Let's say “Rebuilt”. Yes, the intention is to indicate tanks which are significantly rebuilt from old tanks of a different model, so I don't think that the Ch'ŏnma-ho and PT-91 strictly fall into this.

The Type 90-II and IIM, and MBT-2000 are prototype or marketing designators, and not in-service tank models, so Al-Khalid is essentially a new tank manufactured for the first time in 2001. It is more a new tank than, e.g., Leopard 2, T-90 or T-84, based on Leo 1, T-72 and T-80UD, respectively.

Another, strictly objective, way to subdivide these is by weight class (listed here with rounded-off weight, for convenience):

• Class 30: TAM (31)
• Class 40: Al-Khalid (48), Ch'ŏnma-ho (40), M-95 Degman (45), PT-91 Twardy (46), Ramses II (48), T-84 (48), T-90 (47), TR-85 (47), Type 96 (46), Zulfiqar (40)
• Class 50: Ariete (54), Arjun (59), K1 88-tank (51/55), Leclerc (55), Sabra (59), Type 90 (50), Type 99 (54)
• Class 60: Challenger 2 (63), Leopard 2 (62), M1 Abrams (61/68), Merkava (63/63/65/65)
• Class 70: M1A2 SEP (70)

Or by gun calibre:

• 100mm: TR-85
• 105mm: K1 88-Tank (1987), M1 Abrams (M1, 1980), Merkava (I/II, 1978), Ramses II, TAM
• 115mm: Ch'ŏnma-ho
• 120mm: Ariete, Arjun, Challenger 2 (rifled), K1 88-Tank (A1, 2001), Leclerc, Leopard 2, M1 Abrams (M1A1/A2/SEP, 1986), Merkava (III/IV, 1989), Sabra, Type 90
• 125mm: Al-Khalid, M-95 Degman, PT-91, T-84, T-90, Type 96, Type 99, Zulfiqar

[Update: tweaked the lists, italicized entries listed here for info only.]

Remember, we're just trying to find a sensible way to group these articles for the reader's convenience. This implies nothing about quality, effectiveness, or up-to-dateness. In fact, strictly objectively, Leopard 2, M1 Abrams, Merkava, and TAM belong in the Cold War tanks template—and the two navboxes should both appear in these tanks' articles.

Just quibbling about the details. All of these articles deserve to have links in the navboxes, so I'm in favour of this change. —Michael Z. 2008-10-13 19:40 z

Weight class or gun caliber seem like sensible solutions. It seems that one of the major problems is different points of view (of which we are all guilty of, for obvious and good reasons). I would agree with a reorganization of the template based on those parameters. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:55, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if either of these is the best way, but it may be the only way that a committee can create a stable categorization scheme. If there were a way to add tabs to the template without making it look like a Christmas tree, it may be nice to provide both weight-class and gun-calibre views. —Michael Z. 2008-10-13 19:58 z

And i agree too. I prefer the classification by gun caliber, that is more realistic, because the absolute weight of the tank does not represent the real amount of protection in modern tanks. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The amount of protection has nothing to do with this. It's just a way of subdividing tanks, and it happens to conveniently group tanks of similar heritage. We can't claim to say much of anything about the amount of protection on any of these tanks, since that is secret information. —Michael Z. 2008-10-13 20:18 z

I have a notice here, the older models of the tank should not be included, since it is included in the cold war template, where it belongs. I think we have just found a solution for the long debate since now the Abrams M1A1, and M1A2 would be represented in the 120mm tab, clearly stating that these specific 2 models are the ones intended; so as the Merkava where the MK3, and MK-4 would be represented in their right class.

I suggest that older models of these tanks would be mentioned there by their name ex. the Merkava 1/2 would be seen as "Merkava1/2", or "Merkava MK-1, Merkava MK-2" while directing to the tank's article.

Michael, i think you have just found the solution for multiple issues ! Thanx :) One last pharaoh (talk) 20:09, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't recommend that approach, since 1) it would create multiple, redundant links for individual articles, which just makes things less clear, and 2) it invites every tank in service since 1940 or so to have its latest version added to the Post-Cold War tanks.

Please try to understand that this is a navigation box for related articles, not a standalone “List of tanks”. —Michael Z. 2008-10-13 20:18 z

Agree. I think that while subdividing by weight we should sort by 50 tonnes (below 50 / above 50), while subdividing by calibre we should sort by 120 mm (120 and higher / below 120) - it would be enough. Though I think that keeping "new" tanks above and "rebuilt" tanks below is simple and fine. Flayer (talk) 20:14, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was pleasantly surprised at how the 10-tonne weight-class steps almost perfectly arrange all of the represented tanks into the following: 1 the TAM “medium” tank, 2 all of the Soviet-legacy tanks, 3 a group of Western-style tanks, and 4 the selection of everybody's heavy-weight favourite “best in the world” tanks. This is somewhat education in itself. —Michael Z. 2008-10-13 20:26 z

Yes, but there is a little problem with the Class 60 / Class 70 - the exact maximum weight is still largely classified. It wouldn't be correct to say that M1A2 SEP is heavier than Mеrkava mark IV. Flayer (talk) 20:34, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

The problem is that the M1's weight is not converted to tonnes, while the other weight are given in metric tonnes. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:36, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid i have to leave you now. I have a report to make...two actually, but one of them i do not have to search for it's informations. Any way, i agree with the general idea, so what ever you decide based on that, i am in. Just make sure you wont remove the Ramses. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:43, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Something like the tabs on Portal:United States Navy? JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:02, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I do not think so, since that is a portal, while this is a template. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:11, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

I was using it as an example of how to integrate tabs into a table... JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:21, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Of course it would have to flip views within the template on the page using Javascript (the portal tabs actually jump to different pages). If it's doable, then someone must have already included it somewhere in Wikipedia. I'd like it to remain graphically very minimal. —Michael Z. 2008-10-13 20:13 z

Here is my suggestion :

Arranged alphabetically, separate tanks with common links. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:28, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Note that i do not know how to add what these tanks are classified according to into the template, so that is not the final form. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:31, 13 October 2008 (UTC)