Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Military_history/Military_land_vehicles_task

Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force

List of armoured fighting vehicles of World War I

I have tagged the articles in this list for the task force, however there are a number of red links if anyone is looking for a project. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

Icon image

I noticed that the beige-on-beige tank image in the task force icon lacked contrast, so I created a gray derivative - also resized for better icon aspect ratio and removed labels. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make the change to the icon, can a coordinator please help? New image is Image:Mil Land Vehicle Icon.svg and looks like this:

Award image is in the works, but may take a little while due to non-voluntary wikibreak. Dhatfield (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kirill ^(prof) 11:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure which icon was changed - I was thinking of the userbox icon, but I got over my dimness attack and changed it. Please comment if you preferred the old colours. Dhatfield (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion there's no difference in it except for the fact that it's uglier. But than that's just my opinion. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for anything you've got

Just finished a translation of Gepanzerte Pioniermaschine from GerWP, with my handy-dandy Ger-Eng dictionary, which (I think) makes this the first new page under the TF. The page needs checking I didn't mangle things too badly, at the very least. Regards. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

List of main battle tanks by generation

There appears to be no supportable citation for the definition of MBT generations used in this list. Can someone provide any evidence that it shouldn't be deleted? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-07-16 20:54 z

This is an interesting discussion and any way the list is presented one could argue "point of view". As you mention in the talk page of that specific list, the Soviets/Russians recognize at least four generations worth of tank design, while the West tends to recognize three generations of main battle tank generations, which may also refer to medium tanks - the early Patton series, then perhaps the M60 Patton as a second-generation tank (even if it was technically a redesign of a first-generation tank) and then the M1 Abrams as a 3rd generation tank. I'm not sure if literature specific to the United States even specifies technological generations, since the United States missed one due to the Vietnam War. In my opinion the list should be redesigned to define generations by date, and therefore the "generations" would be specific to Wikipedia as opposed to one of the world's nation's idea of technological generations. JonCatalán (talk) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The first generation MBTs are tanks made immediately after WWII. The second generation MBTs have better sights in comparison to the first generation MBTs. Also second generation MBTs were the first ones to use laser sights and APFSDS rounds. The third generation consists of tanks armed with high caliber and velocity guns like M1A1 Abrams. Third generation tanks also use composite armour as well as armour made out of highly resistant sintered ceramic materials. Third generation tanks also have full stabilization system for the main gun. There tanks between second and third generations, like Soviet T-72 which has powerful gun which would classify it as a third generation MBT but at the same time the stabilization system is much too primitive for it to a third generation MBT. It also lacks engine power to be a third generation MBT and has ammunition with less quality. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for any verifiable evidence at all to support your opinion. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 17:19 z

What I wrote there is a translation of most important parts of MBT generations description from two websites: [1] and [2]. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of that categorization is inconsistent. For example, APDS were put into service in 1944 and fin-stabilized APDS were not really viable until the advent of the smoothbore (which was introduced a lot earlier in Soviet tanks) - APFSDS in rifled guns were limited to a L:d length of 7:1 (see: Simpkin, Richard, Tank Warfare). Ceramic armor (which is not always sintered in modern tank armor - some ceramics cannot be sintered) was introduced, really, in the late 1940s. The German 12.8cm tank gun had about the same muzzle velocity as modern 12cm tank guns. If the T-72 doesn't make it as a third-generation tank then neither should the T-80, although it should be noted that hundreds of these types of tanks have been retrofitted with modern ballistic equipment. That's why I think we should go with our own system and define it in the article. JonCatalán (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When we have to, we can break up articles about tanks by decade, or by historical events, by hard characteristics, or whatever. (We already have several lists including MBTs.) But it is against the principle of verifiability to make up our own tank generations and then create a list specifically to promote our original research. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 17:19 z

Then I suggest the list be deleted, since it's not really veriefiable in the first place and any type of categorization would have clear POV. JonCatalán (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

A-Class review for Panzer I now open

The A-Class review for Panzer I is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! Kirill ^(prof) 01:54, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Request for illustration

We (illustrators) have a very hard time finding articles that need diagrams or illustrations to better explain the subject. Is there a template for this? Does this fall under supporting materials? Ideally, the relevant talk page should have a description of what type of diagram is needed and it's components / labels. I think this is an area where WP can improve dramatically, and we can lead the way. Thoughts?

I agree, although I'm a horrible illustrator. Perhaps I can make diagrams from my photographs? JonCatalán (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could ask some of the folks at Commons who have uploaded the images in Category:Aircraft line drawings... though I think they are just copying from Air Force websites. Either way, those diagrams would be so useful to us that I don't see why we shouldn't ask. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 04:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Units

Do units whose primary mission include the use of land vehicles (such as tanks) fall under the scope of this task force? I've been tagging a number of articles, and then I bumped into the Soviet Tank Corps... I'd have thought yes, and tagged it so. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 11:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Same issue with sciences and tactics, such as armoured warfare. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 14:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything that is related to land military vehicles is under the scope of this task force therefore use of land vehicles, sciences and tactics all fall in that category. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. I think I've doubled the current count of tagged articles. Hope to double that before the weekend. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 02:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Panzer I A-Class Review Re-opened

The A-Class Review for Panzer I has been reopened. Your comments are welcomed! JonCatalán (talk) 00:03, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

TAM tank A-class Review Open

An A-class review for TAM (tank) has been opened. Your comments are welcomed! Thanks!. JonCatalán (talk) 00:23, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Talk page notification inquiry

Does anybody care if I leave notifications about articles relevant to this task force going through an A-class review, peer review or FAC on your talk pages? JonCatalán (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer no notice unless I've edited the article. I do check the wikiproject talk pages occasionally, and will pick and choose those article which are more appropriate for me to comment on. bahamut0013 ♠♣ 11:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Navigation templates

The navigation templates for AFVs need some coördination and refurbishing.

Some examples include {{WWIAFVs}}, {{WWIISovietAFVs}}, {{PostWWIISovietAFVS}}, {{Modern IFV and APC}}, {{Post-Cold War tanks}}. Some necessary tasks come to mind:

Organize these into coordinated template categories
Base them all on {{military navigation}}
Make them all consistent in style
- Use the default style instead of “wide”?
Resolve any conflicts or omissions
- Add {{Cold War tanks}}, or convert the APC and tank templates into “Post-WWII” ones?

What else needs to be done here? —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 01:43 z

There is another template, although it's only for the portal, which you can see here - {{TankTopics}}. It should have most tanks listed on it, except for a few which I don't know about or haven't added on yet (like the TAM and Nahuel.

I think there should be separate templates for 'Post Cold-War Main Battle Tanks' (the main battle tank distinction is important, otherwise why not include modern light tanks? And this refers to light tanks for their role, not for their weight class - the TAM, for example, can be classified as a near light tank for its weight, but it is a main battle tank in role), 'Cold War Medium Tanks' (for tanks such as the AMX-30, Leopard 1, M47 Patton, M48 Patton, M60 Patton, T-55, T-62, T-64, et cetera), and others. The Cold War template, in my opinion, is necessary to link these tank articles together and ease navigation. Tanks which may not make the cut for said template would be like the Spanish Lince, which was never mass produced or put into service.

On that note, would anybody contest me starting a template for Spanish tanks? There aren't that many of them, and it would be used to link the currently existent articles Leopard 2E, Lince and Verdeja. In the near future it will also link AMX-30E, Trubia light tank and whatever else I can find sources on. I'm not sure about adding the Panzer I and T-26, since those articles already have a number of templates in them. That said, I do like that some templates are "wide" and some are the width of the infobox, since it allows these to be spread apart, without really bunching the article. JonCatalán (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my sandbox for an example of a Cold War Tank navigation box. I included four heavy tanks. JonCatalán (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. The default templates stack nicely under the infobox, and will be collapsed if there's more than one, right? Some may still be much too tall, though, so perhaps we should stick with the wide format for the bottom of an article (which most of the navigation boxes already do use)?

Should we break up AFVs into Cold War and post-Cold War, or unify them all into post-WWII? Of course we'd have to include light and heavy tanks going back to 1945. MBT kinda has two definitions: one meaning a country's main tank, and the other a more functional definition—if we accept the latter, then the TAM might be considered a “medium tank,” in which category I've also seen it placed. —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 02:10 z

Accessibility

There's a problem with the navigation boxes under the infobox - they do not fall under MoS guidelines, and when they do they create a whitespace. For example, the SpanishTanks template had to widened and moved to the bottom of the page. JonCatalán (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Which MOS guideline is the problem?

For now, I propose we stick with the style=wide navboxes for the bottom of an article. If we use the Mil Nav templates, they are flexible enough to easily change the location and style later.

[Aside: couldn't this be fixed by designing the infobox to accept a navbox as an inclusion, putting them both into one table or div?].—Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzajac (talk • contribs)

See Wikipedia:Layout and the discussion on SandyGeorgia's talk page. JonCatalán (talk) 02:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's definitely something new; campaignboxes have been using that layout for years, and nobody has complained about accessibility issues with them. If that argument sticks, we may need to totally rework the whole navbox stacking design project-wide. Kirill ^(prof) 03:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion about navboxes at WT:ACCESS, but I'm not 100% clear on how this may affect the campaignboxes, etc. I've posted a specific question at WT:ACCESS#Military history campaignboxes. —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 15:39 z

A screen-reader user replied and said “they're not much of a problem,” with a brief comment. —Michael Z. 2008-08-29 15:04 z

That's good to know. Kirill ^(prof) 18:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

List of templates

Please add more. —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 02:10 z

WWI

{{WWIAFVs}}

WWII

{{WWIIAmericanAFVs}}
British
- {{WWIIBritishAFVs}}
- {{WWIIBritishCommGuns}}
French
- {{WWIIFrenchAFVs}}
- {{WWIIFrenchSoftVeh}}
{{WWIIGermanAFVs}}
{{WWIIHungarianAFVs}}
{{WWIIItalianAFVs}}
{{WWIIPolishAFVs}}
{{WWIISovietAFVs}}
{{WWIISwedishAFVs}}

Post-WWII (Cold War and post-Cold War)

British
- {{ModernUKAFVsNav}}
- {{ModernUKNonAFVNav}}
{{PostWWIISovietAFVS}}
{{Modern IFV and APC}}
{{Post-Cold War tanks}}

Any period

{{Spanish tanks}}

Comments regarding TAM on {{Post-Cold War tanks}}

Please see existing commentary on the talk page, and reasons for its inclusion. I want to gain more support for its inclusion to avoid a potential edit war (it seems one has almost begun, as edits have been reverted at least twice to remove the TAM from the template). JonCatalán (talk) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm fed up with the constant squabbling over individual tanks on that template. There aren't enough participants in the talk there to develop a focus. I think it has to get redefined, again, here at the project where we may have enough editors looking at the big picture.

We need a more comprehensive template, or more of them, so that all post-WWII tanks are included in navigation somewhere. We need a scheme that is inclusive and objective, to reduce the arguments.

How about two separate navboxes, allowing significant overlap?:

Cold War tanks: tanks introduced and in active service in the period between 1945 and 1991. Sections for light, medium, heavy, and MBT.
post-Cold War tanks: tanks introduced and in active service in the period starting 1989, including significant new marks, refurbs, and rebuilds. Sections for MBTs and other tanks. I would prefer to leave out the prototypes, many of which are marketed or in extended “development,” but may never see service.

Note that some tanks will have both navboxes, but they are collapsible to save space. The only problem is that IFVs and APCs are not also clearly divided into the two eras. —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 02:27 z

One of the issues is how one interprets the role of a tank. For example, the TAM in role is a main battle tank (it's designed to fight against other tanks, provide infantry support, et cetera), even if in weight class it may not be up to par with other tanks (it's handicapped by the government's weight requirements and cost requirements). Apparently, some don't see it like this. So, it's only natural that we debate until consensus is reached. On the other hand, the edit wars which sometimes arise over the template are pointless - there should be something to promote discussion on the template's talk page. I'm afraid of re-including the TAM because I feel that it will be taken off again, without the editor even discussing it on the talk page (or now this page). However, we need a clear definition of the type of tank which fits within the scope of the template. That way editors have a clear idea of what they can add and what they can, and then we will successfully avoid the majority of the arguments that the template talk page gets.

Regarding the two templates, I believe they should be separate. It's OK if they overlap, although I don't think they will. I think the current post-Cold War Tank template is fine, although perhaps we should rename it to moderntanks, because most of the tanks listed in the template began production prior to the Cold War. In that sense, what we're really doing is splitting tanks up by generations. I also think we should leave IFVs and APCs out of the template, and later on create templates for these. Navigation should be easy and huge, confusing lists should be avoided. JonCatalán (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to rethink it all from the top down. I'll state right now that every type of AFV should be represented in the navigation templates. The TAM belongs in there with other tanks, and so do a lot of the other ones which have been left out, including older tanks in service, refurbs, etc. I don't know yet whether this means adding subdivisions to the tank template, or something else.

The problem is this: WWII AFV navigation has been subdivided into templates by country, by long-standing consensus. For post-WWII AFVs we have a mix of by country (British, Soviet) and by class (tanks, IFV & APC). There isn't a comprehensive set of post-WWII AFV nav templates, so why shouldn't we shift gears and follow the WWII example? —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 00:01 z

Progress

I've converted many of these templates to use template:Military navigation. Like the campaignboxes, they will show up in the narrow style by default, and wide if given the parameter style=wide, so they can be used below the infobox or at the bottom of an article. —Michael Z. 2008-08-30 00:55 z

Too large (taken from this talk page)

OK, we tried a lot of different ways to collapse this HUGE box. We need to take action though!!! What do you think of this one?

v • d • e

NATO Designation for Russian and former Soviet missiles

air-to-air missiles · complete list

AA-1 Alkali · AA-2 Atoll · AA-3 Anab · AA-4 Awl · AA-5 Ash · AA-6 Acrid · AA-7 Apex · AA-8 Aphid · AA-9 Amos · AA-10 Alamo · AA-11 Archer · AA-12 Adder · AA-X-13 Arrow

air-to-surface missiles · complete list

AS-1 Kennel · AS-2 Kipper · AS-3 Kangaroo · AS-4 Kitchen · AS-5 Kelt · AS-6 Kingfish · AS-7 Kerry · AS-9 Kyle · AS-10 Karen · AS-11 Kilter · AS-12 Kegler · AS-14 · AS-15 Kent · AS-16 Kickback · AS-17 Krypton

anti-tank missiles · complete list

AT-1 Snapper · AT-2 Swatter · AT-3 Sagger · AT-4 Spigot · AT-5 Spandrel · AT-6 Spiral · AT-7 Saxhorn · AT-8 Songster · AT-9 Spiral-2 · AT-10 Stabber · AT-11 Sniper · AT-12 Swinger · AT-13 Saxhorn-2 · АТ-14 Spriggan · АТ-15 Springer · AT-16 Scallion

surface-to-air missiles · complete list

Ground based	SA-1 Guild · SA-2 Guideline · SA-3 Goa · SA-4 Ganef · SA-5 Gammon · SA-6 Gainful · SA-7 Grail · SA-8 Gecko · SA-9 Gaskin · SA-10 Grumble · SA-11 Gadfly · SA-12 Gladiator/Giant · SA-13 Gopher · SA-14 Gremlin · SA-15 Gauntlet · SA-16 Gimlet · SA-17 Grizzly · SA-18 Grouse · SA-19 Grison · SA-20 Gargoyle · SA-21 Growler · SA-22 Greyhound · SA-23 Gladiator\Giant · SA-24 Grinch

Naval based	SA-N-1 Goa · SA-N-2 Guideline · SA-N-3 Goblet · SA-N-4 Gecko · SA-N-5 Grail · SA-N-6 Grumble · SA-N-7 Gadfly · SA-N-8 Gremlin · SA-N-9 Gauntlet · SA-N-10 Grouse · SA-N-11 Grison · SA-N-12 Grizzly · SA-N-14 Grouse · SA-N-20 Gargoyle

Surface-to-surface missiles · complete list

Ground based	SS-1 Scud · SS-2 Sibling · SS-3 Shyster · SS-4 Sandal · SS-5 Skean · SS-6 Sapwood · SS-7 Saddler · SS-8 Sasin · SS-9 Scarp · SS-10 Scrag · SS-11 Sego · SS-12 Scaleboard · SS-13 Savage · SS-14 Scamp\Scapegoat · SS-15 Scrooge · SS-16 Sinner · SS-17 Spanker · SS-18 Satan · SS-19 Stiletto · SS-20 Saber · SS-21 Scarab · SS-22 Scaleboard · SS-23 Spider · SS-24 Scalpel · SS-25 Sickle · SS-26 Stone · SS-27 Stalin

Naval based	SS-N-1 Scrubber · SS-N-2 Styx · SS-N-3 Shaddock · SS-N-4 · SS-N-5 Sark · SS-N-6 Serb · SS-N-7 Starbright · SS-N-8 Sawfly · SS-N-9 Siren · SS-N-10 Sandbox · SS-N-13 · SS-N-14 Silex · SS-N-15 Starfish · SS-N-16 Stallion · SS-N-17 Snipe · SS-N-18 Stingray · SS-N-19 Shipwreck · SS-N-20 Sturgeon · SS-N-21 Sampson · SS-N-22 Sunburn · SS-N-23 Skiff · SS-N-25 Switchblade · SS-N-26 · SS-N-27

I basically merged 3 huge tables (AAM, SAM and SANM) into one nice and neet navbox.

Thanks, Germ (talk) 00:43, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for AMX-30E now open!

An A-class review for the article AMX-30E has been opened. Any and all editors are invited to participate! Thank you! JonCatalán (talk) 06:18, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

A-class review for Panzer IV opened

Panzer IV is now going through an A-class review. All comments are welcomed! JonCatalán (talk) 04:35, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

3rd opinion needed at T-80

Does anyone have a bit of time to weigh in on a dispute getting out of hand at talk:T-80? At issue is the use of self-published sources. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-08-24 18:22 z

Can we get a link to the specific subsection? TomStar81 (Talk) 03:13, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There are many, but the point may be moot as one of the players seems to have left the game. Thank you. —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 05:23 z

Contents