Talk:List of main battle tanks by generation/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Soviet tank generations

This list needs some references. For the sake of comparison to whatever the current list represents, 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. 2007-10-15 20:04 Z

The generations system used in this article are MBT generations. SuperTank17 11:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

I see that, but where does it come from? Can you cite any reference? —Michael Z. 2007-10-25 02:24 Z

I didn't learn this from one or two sources but from all of the information I have gathered from many sources I eventually came up with a list of MBTs by generation which uses few facts to make it more reliable. For example every tank before T-62 is a first generation MBT because T-62 is believed to be world's first second generation MBT. Also on Polish Wikipedia there's MBT classification in article about tanks. It doesn't cite any sources and hasn't been deleted for a long time. SuperTank17 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Looks very arbitrary to me. I see why the LeClerc is considered the first of a new generation. I don't see, for example, how the T-62 is. It's an "improved" T-55, frankly. With no sources this whole article is really questionable. DMorpheus 18:18, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with u about one thing here, which is that the T-62 is no more than an upgrade for the T-55. they were built by different factories, designed by different engineers, and had completely different armament systems -the T-62 was the first mass-produced tank to use a smooth boor main gun, as to enable firing missiles, while the T-55 had a rifled gun that would not be able to fire missiles until many years of development after the production of the T-62-. The T-62 was a failure being twice as costly as the T-55, while not being worthing that -of course, having 2 T-55s is far better than having one T-62, at least by their generation standards-. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:30, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, we need some real indication that this concept exists, and of who holds to it (not everyone I think, since I don't recall Zaloga or Foss classifying tanks in these terms). For categorical statements, like that the T-62 is the first second-generation MBT, we need real book references. We should also state what defines these generations: is it quantitative characteristics like gun calibre, particular technologies like smoothbore guns, or simply dates of introduction?

A good article or list needs the support of references to show that it is more than just hearsay.

Incidentally, yet another set of tank generations I have read about a few times is in writing about Chinese tanks, where the T-54A/Type 59 represents the first generation of Chinese-made tanks. —Michael Z. 2007-10-26 01:51 Z

An example of why this needs improvement: a statement like "it is considered the world's first second-generation main battle tank" in the article T-62 falls under the description of weasel words. The passive verb "is considered" is carefully avoiding saying who considers it to be the first 2nd-gen MBT, presumably because the author doesn't know. So we're not saying that it is the first, and we aren't saying who says it's the first—so what are we saying? —Michael Z. 2007-10-26 01:58 Z

Acually I added that one to the Wikipedia and someone changed it using "it is considered" instead of "it is". The statement actually comes from http://www.softland.com.pl/aerojac/aaa/t62/t62.htm which uses book "Czołgi Świata" by Igor Witkowski as reference.

Yet the wikipedia T-62 article describes the T-62 as an improvement of the T-55. How then is it a new generation - what innovation does it have, and who says so? DMorpheus 13:39, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Yet, the wikipedia T-72 article describes it as a further improvement of the T-62. The T-72 used a completely new technology or armor, changed the sit of the driver to the middle of the front hull like western cold war, and post cold war era MBTs. By these days standards, it is not supposed to make much difference in a modern tank-tank battle weather u are using T-62s, or T-72s, but i think that an M60A1 would find it much easier to fight against a T-62, than to fight against a T-72. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

The site I mentioned earlier (http://www.softland.com.pl/aerojac/aaa/t62/t62.htm) says that T-62 wasn't a development of T-55 but an alternative to T-55. —Preceding unsigned comment added by SuperTank17 (talk • contribs) 18:53, 30 October 2007 (UTC)

Both T-55 and T-62 came out of Kartsev's design bureau, and both were based initially Morozov's T-54. The T-55 was essentially an improved T-54, while the T-62 incorporated more dramatic design changes. One can certainly say that the T-62 was based on and went beyond the T-54/55. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 14:50 z 14:50, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

(This message was removed by me, it's author). - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:31, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Was that supposed to be said to me? One last pharaoh (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Note: In soviet tanks, T54A had vertical stabilisation as standard, T54B had two-axis stabilisation as standard and NBC gear optional. T55 and all of its offshoots had both NBC and stabilisation as standard, with NV equipment optional, yet quite common. Same goes for T62. Therefore, they deserve to be second generation. Actually, this whole page is silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.103.180.29 (talk) 21:15, 3 July 2011 (UTC)

References

didn't learn this from one or two sources but from all of the information I have gathered from many sources I eventually came up with a list of MBTs by generation which uses few facts to make it more reliable. For example every tank before T-62 is a first generation MBT because T-62 is believed to be world's first second generation MBT. Also on Polish Wikipedia there's MBT classification in article about tanks. It doesn't cite any sources and hasn't been deleted for a long time. SuperTank17 12:21, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

SuperTank, I suggest you start adding specific references to justify this list's existence, perhaps including quotations. You are making very specific edits, based on no references at all, and contradicting at least one other reference quoted on this talk page, above. If you don't introduce some verification, this just looks like your own original research project. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 14:25 z

The statement actually comes from http://www.softland.com.pl/aerojac/aaa/t62/t62.htm which uses book "Czołgi Świata" by Igor Witkowski as reference.

Does the mentioned book say that the T-62 is the first 2nd-gen tank or not? Does any other book say that? So far this doesn't constitute a single useful reference. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 14:34 z

The text on the cite is basing it's information on the said book.

The hole list bases itself on this: T-62 is the first second generation MBT and Leopard II is the first third generation MBT.

The first generation MBTs are tanks made immediately after WWII like the T-54 or the M46. The second generation MBTs are improved designs featuring better sights, laser sights and rangefinders and APFSDS rounds like the T-62 and M60. The forth generation is composed of MBTs that are currently in development.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

You don't need to explain this to me.

You need to cite references as the basis for specific information in this list, which will allow readers to see where the information comes from, what inferences have been used in creating this list, and how widely this view is accepted by experts.

If you can't do this sufficiently well, the article will retain an ugly tag or two on top until someone challenges its content. Then it will be deleted. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 15:31 z

Or you will be unable to win revert-wars with anons, regarding where the Zulfiqar and Merkava belong. —Michael Z. 2008-05-29 21:10 z

Agreed. An amusing list. Would love to see the source material for this referenced though I suspect that won't happen. What criteria determine each generation? Many countries are currently developing armor and weapons packages that square with American and Soviet RnD from the 60s and 70s. Others are retrofitting old Pattons and T-Series Tanks with off the shelf technology. Does that place them in the same category as a French LeClerc, a Korean K1A2, or the Japanese Type 90? If a Ramses II were to square off against a Russian T-90, you'd be holding a funeral for the Egyptian tank crew in short order.194ABrg (talk) 18:27, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

As much as i know, the M-60 was in older one year than the T-62 right? if so, how come that the "first 2nd generation MBT is the T-62", while the M-60 is a little bit older, and included in the 2nd generation?

Some tanks are not mentioned any where in the article BTW.

If it's all about electronics, the Merkava II, and the Ramses II should be placed in the latest generation list, as they include equipment like fire control systems that are far better than those in original T-62s, and M-60s for example.

The Ramses II is a gutted T-54 that has been retrofitted with the power plant, suspension, armament, and fire control of the M60. A better tank but nowhere in the same class as the more modern Merkava II. This tank was designed in the 80s as a hybrid of 1950s and 1970s technology. They didn't deploy until 2004. Hardly latest generation or a model of efficient design. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.36.168.184 (talk) 05:24, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

And to the kicker, how in the name of god do any one place the M60 2000 in the 2nd generation, or more likely the same generation where the original M60 is placed, while the main reason officially claimed, was to bring the capabilities of the tank to the latest generation MBTs?! One last pharaoh (talk) 14:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

The M60 entered service a year before T-62 but the T-62 was ready before that. It was just put on hold. If you want to know the details look at T-62 article.

About those other tanks. I'll look into it. - SuperTank17 (talk) 08:38, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

What about the Argentinian "TAM"?

Hi all. Looks that the classification of "MBT" leaves some vehicles out of the associated list. For instance, the argentinian "TAM" seems to be a "medium" tank (hence the "M" in the acronym, from the spanish word "Mediano"), however it's currently Argentine Army's "MBT". How do you think it should be listed? Regards, DPdH (talk) 00:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Where is rest?

ok people, when a not very famous tank to the west like the Ramses II was out of the list, i was not very angry, but where is the T-72?! the ideal soviet tank is not mentioned in the 3rd generation, and that is only one of many drawbacks in the article. I think that starting it all over again is even better than trying to solve it's problems. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:54, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all I don't know who are those "people" you talk to but the T-72 is mentioned in the second generation as this is were it belongs. It is not a tank on a level of US M1 Abrams or German Leopard II (on a side note I also don't agree with the "ideal tank" statement).

I think its better to improve a little problems with the article as it is already in good shape. Starting all over again would be a waste of time.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:00, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

So, u do not know who am i calling people? why do not u tell me who do u think i am talking to, please?

An M1 Abrams is for me in the same generation where the T-72 belongs. An M1A1 Abrams is in the the generation where the T-90 belong. One last pharaoh (talk) 21:34, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

"An M1 Abrams is for me in the same generation [...]" Good thing you mentioned that. It's your --> opinion <--. Also the T-90 has absolutely nothing to do with the subject we're talking about here. The T-90 is a fusion of T-72 and T-80 MBTs which makes it the third generation MBT. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:58, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

A good thing to say here would be discussing that instead of saying that it's my own opinion, and that it's a good think, that i mentioned that. Do u actually know the amount of differences between the M1, and the M1A1 Abrams?

It's true that the M1A1 is more or less, an upgrade for the M1 Abrams, but the T-90 is an upgrade for the T-72 that was given a new name thanks to the reputation of the T-72, regarding it's performance in the gulf war. The original name was T-72BU

BTW, the T-80 is an upgrade of the T-64, not the T-72.

The Abrams M1, and the T-72 were some how equivalent to each other. even if the T-72's gun could not defeat the M1's frontal armor, the 105mm rifled gun used on the M1 was not able to penetrate the front armor of the T-72.

I do not know weather it's a world-wide acceptance that there are only 3 generations of Main Battle Tanks, or not, but i surely assume that the T-72 is one generation ahead over the T-62, and the M60. Until u get a source to disprove that, or u convince me of it's being wrong, it's very far from being no thing more than a personal opinion.

Remember that u still did not tell me who do u think i was calling "people". LOL

Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:44, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

First of all your clinging to typos I make is just laughable (especially when you read some of your texts)

Second: yes I know that T-90 was originally called T-72BU you can now stop desperately looking for arguments around Wikipedia. Even though the T-90 came from the T-72 it doesn't mean that it's in the same generation. For example the T-55 is in the first generation but the significantly upgraded versions (like the Polish T-55AM "Merida") are in the second generation. Also when I'm taking about the M1 Abrams, I'm talking about the M1A1 and the newer versions since they had longer service life than the original M1 and actually took part in real combat.

Third:*sigh* What I said about your little "greeting" was --> sarcasm <-- I really encourage you to read about it.

Oh and stop thanking me. Really, I only do this for the rest of world. Believe me, fighting with you is one of the most unpleasant things I can do right now but the world needs my assistance.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:01, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually the world would probably ask: "what is he talking about?", when it reads ur conscriptions. I told u about the T-90, so that u know the difference, when i talk about the M1 Abrams, and not the M1A1.

Do not take that as an underestimation, but i would not like to be saved by some one who corrects his edit before saying that the comment written about it is laughable.

There are numerous places to find some one who actually have the time, and the will to "fight" with u, but as i said in my talk page responding to u, Wikipedia is not a place for personal disputes, i am trying to be friendly with u, while u are not, and try to use a civil manner.

Please, this is at least the third time i ask u to use civil manner. take it as an advice from a fellow editor.

Thanx in advance - that is just an example of civil manner, if u donot want me to thank u -. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:20, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Look, mate, I have all the rights in the world to edit my own contributions especially on the talk page. Face it, you're not the center of the world. The fact that you said that you think something is wrong/unfair doesn't necessarily make it so.

Your "friendliness" is so overwhelming. You really are generous with words like "friendly", especially when talking about yourself. Here's my opinion about calling people friendly: I don't call someone friendly if all he/she does is trying bring down whatever I say. Even when I add sourced information, you just have to say "It doesn't count because its an Israeli reference" (on a side note I prefer to count Israelis as normal human beings and I judge Israeli things on the same plane on which I judge all the other things in the world, but than again that's only my opinion and of of course I'm "the horrible outsider who doesn't understand etc."). When I edit my contribution and than comment on your contributions you just say "You changed your contribution so you don't have the right to tell me I'm making mistakes etc." (On a side note: You make it seem as if I said that your statement was laughable because it was wrong. No. I was saying that although what you pointed out was true, hearing that from you, a person who makes a dozen of lingual mistakes smaller or bigger makes me laugh. It's like if someone who can't drive (yet) would comment on driving of a person who already has experience in this manner). And please tell how those two matters are connected? I mean my contributions are my business and your contributions are your business. So please explain to me your way of thinking because I just find it confusing. Oh and I believe people can be friendly and don't have to agree with me on everything because those again are separate matters. The point is that if someone is friendly to other people they won't put their "self-importance" over the importance of other people. What you are trying to do here is make it seem as if you are superior because it helps you in developing a feeling that you're important to the world and the I'm sure feels great but a bit of consideration for other people wouldn't hurt. A friendly person wouldn't try to make himself/herself feel more important by pointing out typos and than underlining them. This way you make it seem as if my typos/mistakes are more important than I am as a person. You could just say "BTW you made a typo there" instead of "A good thing to say here would be discussing that instead of saying that it's my own opinion, and that it's a good think, that i mentioned that". As I said those are just my opinions you don't have to agree but I would a least suggest reading them and thinking about them. Look I have nothing against you as a person, I simply pointed out from a most objective point of view possible to men, what is wrong with your behavior. End of the topic.

Now, here's what I think will settle this: the T-72 will remain in second generation but it will be joined there by original M1 Abrams while the M1A1 and M1A2 will take its place in the third generation.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:43, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

U have been warned, mate.

Check the history tab, if u do not remember changing ur conscription after my comment.

I do not remember were exactly did i argue with u about an israeli source, but if i did, i am sure it was a matter where israel was involved directly, and there for wont form a neutral point of view. I have made my point very clear. It's ur own problem if u think that i am better than u, or ur just feeling that i am trying to make it look like that, but i already told u that "no one is another's boss", so i really find it more weird that u insist on that idea than even thinking about it from the very first beginning. I am surprised by the way u describe my edits, but would u please give me an example where i had so much typos?

It's very funny that u refuse the idea that i pointed ur typo, while accepting the idea that u have the right to delete other editors signed conscriptions in talk pages.

Try to over come the idea that u are better than me as a person, or as a wikipedia editor, try to over come the idea that i am missing up with ur edits, because i am actually fixing it, and try to use the civil manner, and of course u should realize that that is at least the 4th warning from me alone until now.

Let me say it one more time; Wikipedia is no one's personal web site, and it is based on constructive, and connective edits by many editors in order to create a good article that is neutral, sourced, and shows all the points of view.

I am not trying to be ur boss, and we are both editors that have the right to edit, and discuss, and i agree to that.

U have been warned for 4 times by me about the matter of civil manner, and in a matter of fact, the fact that i did not report u until now, while taking ur insulates, and charges easily, is an ultimate example of a friendly manner.

Thanx for reading. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:57, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

I think I know hat the problem is here. Its a problem with not understanding the language. Let me explain point by point.

As for removing those two lines which do contribute anything to the discussion: I already explained to you that because cased me to take Michael Z.'s text for yours (because you didn't add you're new contributions to the discussion in the end of it like all other people do). You reverted it and because you said that you didn't wanted that one your sentence removed therefore I decided to remove mine because I don't want to make the discussion more confusing that it already was.

About the Israeli source: let me revive your memory: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=T-54/55&diff=218577744&oldid=218440956

That's not extremely friendly. And I as I said before I don't see anything wrong with using Israeli references.

I didn't say you were wrong I just pointed out that such a comment coming from a person like you causes me to laugh. But don't worry because I learn from my mistakes.

And if you want to know about your typos and errors than lets take one of the sentences from this very discussion.

It's ur own problem if u think that i am better than u, or ur just feeling that i am trying to make it look like that, but i already told u that "no one is another's boss", so i really find it more weird that u insist on that idea than even thinking about it from the very first beginning.

First of all you seem to use "u" instead of "you" and "ur" instead of "you're". In my opinion it's very disturbing since this place was supposed to be for people who don't make simplifications taken directly from online forums.

Next "or ur just feeling that i am trying to make it look like that" I think a better word here would be "thinking" instead of "feeling".

I would suggest "weirder" rather than "more weird"

"u insist on that idea than even thinking about it from the very first beginning" I apologize but I don't know what you meant in this last bit. You said that "I insist on..." what? "...on that idea..." Oh you mean the idea about you trying to boost your ego? Ok, let's continue. "than even thinking about it from the very first beginning" ??? I'm puzzled really... Wait a second... Oh so what you wanted to say was "rather than thinking about it in the first place" Although I would put more like this: "rather than rethinking it in the first place" And I just have to ask this: what does "first beginning" mean anyway? Beginning is always first no matter what because its the earliest stage of anything in our world.

Your warnings are appreciated but you could be a bit more polite when stating them because, from what I understand, you want to be friendly towards other people.

But lets end this topic in this peaceful manner because we now completely lost track of the primary dispute (location of T-72 and M1 Abrams). So here's my proposition how to settle this: The T-72 will remain in second generation but it will be joined there by the original M1 Abrams while the M1A1 and M1A2 will take its place in the third generation.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:32, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dear, SuperTank17;

Your last contribution contains more grammar errors than the ones u mentioned about me!

It's ur own problem, if u wanna fight, or u just feel that i do.

In a matter of fact, using u instead of you is not considered a typo, it's a simpler way that is used during discussion, and not on official statements.

When i use ur, i usually mean your, not you're, unless u do not know the difference between both.

Now, lets get some fun:

The link that u posted contains a direct, and obvious humiliation by u to me. Does that remind u of some thing i talked to u about? "Let me say it one more time; Wikipedia is no one's personal web site, and it is based on constructive, and connective edits by many editors in order to create a good article that is neutral, sourced, and shows all the points of view." , and "I am not trying to be ur boss, and we are both editors that have the right to edit, and discuss, and i agree to that." .

The link u posted, contains a matter where an israeli source was used by u to source informations about a conflict where israel was a direct competent. Does that remind u of some thing i talked to u about? "I do not remember were exactly did i argue with u about an israeli source, but if i did, i am sure it was a matter where israel was involved directly, and there for wont form a neutral point of view." .

The contribution do not have to be added to the end of the discussion, unless it is a usual reply to the topic in general, and not to a certain piece of it. If u wanted to delete ur own contribution, so as not to make the discussion more confusing, than what it already was according to u, that does not give u the right to even think about deleting other editor's contribution. I think that now u do not find it confusing, do u?

My comment about using the source was about the fact, that i did not go on with u, and heat the situation, but just how could u describe it as not being extremely friendly, while u insulated me, before i comment, and now, when u said that it makes u laugh that "some one like me" says it?

Actually, if i wanted to replace "feeling" with "thinking", i can not, because that's not right in english. maybe it would be "or u just think", since that would represent some thing that u believe in, unlike "or u are just thinking", which would represent that that's some thing that u are actually thinking about it -like future, and so on- by the time u are reading the comment.

I am not trying t boost my ego, and "the idea" was that u think so. maybe if u read the complete statement, and not only a part of it u will understand?

When u say: "what does "first beginning" mean anyway? Beginning is always first no matter what because its the earliest stage of anything in our world", i can say: "Welcome to english expressions.". Thinking about "the very" + some thing that is not supposed to be having degrees, might help.

What do u think that i can do more than saying: (please, Thanx in advance, and take it as an advice from a fellow editor), to be more friendly? Do u think that asking some one to be more polite the way u did is friendly? reread the following, please: "U have been warned for 4 times by me about the matter of civil manner, and in a matter of fact, the fact that i did not report u until now, while taking ur insulates, and charges easily, is an ultimate example of a friendly manner" .

When u reply to my question about weather the classification of Main Battle Tanks in only 3 generations, that entered actual service, is some thing that is so basic that every one accepts, or not, we might be able to continue discussing the positions of tanks.

What i am giving u now is the 5th warning from me -or maybe even more- about being civil while discussing. Please, do not drive me into stopping using the friendly manner with u.

Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 22:28, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

How about you two take a break from editing this article for two days? Then come back and try to discuss changes to the content, while avoiding discussing each other's behaviour and qualities (and avoiding giving anyone an excuse to talk about you).

In the meantime, you could have a look at a book or two in the library, and try to find citations to support putting whatever tank into whichever generation. The article will still be here, ready for more improvement, when you return. Regards. —Michael Z. 2008-07-02 23:26 z

Actually, i am using published sources on the internet, when it comes to weapon systems, since almost no one in egypt cares about giving these informations to the public, and if i could find some thing, i believe that i can find much better sources, and illustrations on the internet.

Some thing i do not know, is weather every one agree - i mean experts all over the world - about that Main Battle Tanks that entered service should be divided into only three generations, or not.

If so, i suggest dividing the 3rd generation into early, and modern, or even creating a new list, and probably calling it 2.5 generation - like in air crafts generations - for tanks that are far better than tanks like the original T-62, and M60/M60A1, and that are far less capable than tanks like the M1A1 Abrams, and the T-90.

If not, i think that it would be very suitable to put tanks like the original T-72, M1 Abrams, Ramses II, Merkava Mk-1/2, and others into the third generation list, and tanks like the T-90, M1A1/A2 Abrams, and other equivalent, and nearly equivalent tanks into a 4th generation list.

Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 15:42, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

"i believe that i can find much better sources, and illustrations on the internet. [...]" [sarcasm mode on]Yes we all know that Internet is the best place to seek reliable and quality information because the Internet never lies.[sarcasm mode off]

Actually there exists the 2.5 generation although it isn't used that often while dividing MBTs into generations. The tanks that I saw included in such a generation are AMX-32, AMX-40, Chieftain 900, OF-40, T-64, T-72, Type 74 and Type 85.

The original T-72 can't be in the third generation because it is not a tank on a level of M1A1 (as shown by the gulf war), Leopard II or T-80.

As of now there's no forth generation MBT that entered production. Those tanks include T-95, Black Eagle, K2 and MBT-X.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 16:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

About the "sarcasm" stuff, i am not willing to continue that with u.

About the generations, that is what i said! That means that the first option i suggested is better? ok, i think that i have made my point clear about which tanks showd be included in the 2.5 generation list, but i hink that i would leave that honor to u since i am really busy these days.

Thanx in advance. One last pharaoh (talk) 17:47, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Validate or delete

I guess trying to cool off the dispute was optimistic of me. This appears to be a waste of energy. All I see here is a lot of arguing over two editors' original research.

Please add some specific references which meet Wikipedia's requirements of verifiability and reliability, or I will find it necessary to list this article for deletion as an article “that cannot possibly be attributed to reliable sources” and “for which all attempts to find reliable sources to verify them have failed.” —Michael Z. 2008-07-03 18:00 z

I recently added a few references for the article to be acceptable. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 18:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

A hobby website by an anonymous author not meet the criteria. —Michael Z. 2008-07-03 19:26 z

I actually find that website quite good apart from a few minor errors. Also most sources used on Wikipedia come from websites of which more than 90% are made by anonymous authors. Therefore those references can't be discarded just because they're websites made by anonymous authors. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I am afraid I have to agree with Michael here, we really need some good authoritative sources. Without quality sources the list really is just a mix of Wikipedia editor's and the author of some website's opinion. Are there any sources from military history literature that discuss this break down of tanks by generations? --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 19:44, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

agree with Leivick, and Michael, but why do not we discuss the matter, and even if we couldnot find realable sources, a tag that indicates that would be enough, and the article do not have to be deleted.

Who agrees with creating a 2.5 generation list, who agrees with creating a 4th generation list, and who agrees with not creating any more lists, but dividing the 3rd generation so that it is divivded into early, and modern?

BTW, Michael, i tried to show him that we are fellow editors, and that i am friendly with him, but it went useless, so that i do not want to continue discussing with him about that any more. One last pharaoh (talk) 19:54, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Ok first let me get this out of the way. The personal conflicts between pharaoh and supertank must stop. Please try not to mention eachother in your posts and just discuss the article. As for pharoah's question regarding 2.5 generation and 4th, I think this is a perfect example of where quality sourcing is needed. How many generations do experts say exist? We really don't to list our own opinions on the matter as none of us are experts in the Wiki sense and if one of us is it would be best for them to point to something they have written elsewhere and use it as a reliable source. --Daniel J. Leivick (talk) 20:03, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I find this list dubious, and I don't think such an article should remain in Wikipedia without any verifiable basis. Ten months has been too long already. —Michael Z. 2008-07-03 20:10 z

I agree with Michael on this. Delete this article. Debating the finer points of armored vehicles is one thing, but the lack of references and citations undermines the stability and credibility of any information listed in this article. Clearly we have two editors who are well versed in the backgrounds of a variety of tanks who could put their talents to work in improving articles on individual tanks. Wikipedia is better than this pettiness.194ABrg (talk)

Can we give it one more month, please :D ? maybe some one would find a reliable source now that the article is requested for deletion -informally- by u. let's just give it a try. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Agree, but i think u also agree with me that i did not want to start "the personal conflict", i tried to stop it, and now i said that i do not want to talk about it any more, so for me, it did not even start. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Actually the forth generation was added by me months ago when I created this article. Also from what I know there are four generations of MBTs (five if we count the 2.5 generation which is sometimes used). Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:12, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

The point here is that no reliable source supports that until now. i am asking u to find one if u want the article to stay like me, please. One last pharaoh (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

I don't have any other sources at the moment. If I'll find one, I'll let you know by adding it to this article or creating it allover again. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:32, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Through my search, i found out that putting tanks in generations was based mainly on their armor. when i search for "4th generation MBT", i find many links mentioning a tank, and stating that it has a 4th generation sloped armor for example.

In another ward, main battle tanks classification is based on the type of armor used. we can say that that is the way it is starting from the 3rd generation, or we can also assume that almost every single 2nd generation MBT had a rounded, or sloped turret -needlenose in case of the M60A3-, main armament caliber exceeding 100mm, or exceeding it's fire power, and using the same caliber with better ammunition.

Ballistics computers also come in generations, we can see that clearly from advanced MBTs articles.

I think that all MBT types that were ready to serve before the T-62 was, are 1st generation MBTs -since, that is the only sourced claim we have-. All MBTs that use a single layer armor, are not supposed to pass the 2nd generation list. That would leave us with many Main Battle Tanks that use multi-layered armor, or other types of advanced armor, and would probably make the T-64 the first 3rd generation MBT. to differentiate between 3rd, and 4th generation western, and western-based MBTs, armor, and main gun caliber are the key. for the eastern MBTs, electronics are the key ;the original T-72 did not have laser range finders, while the original T-80UK had an electro-optical countermeasures system. The only western tanks that currently use an active protection system are those of the US marines, who also got their tanks upgraded recently.

Thanx for reading. One last pharaoh (talk) 18:25, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

Dear colleagues, IMHO this is a useful list which deserves to be kept, and for that it needs to be properly sourced/referenced as per Wikipedia guidelines/policies. Maybe the discussion could be settled temporarily if those editors who contributed to the content of the article mention the sources for each contribution, and if the article is adequately tagged so any reader that's not knowledgeable in the topic is aware of the dispute.
I'm still searching for a good reference (book) where the "MBT generations" are clearly defined, but unsuccessful yet.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 07:49, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

These sources are not allowed

There are specific problems with the cited sources, which contravene the official policy on Verifiability.

WP:NONENG says “where editors use a non-English source to support material that others are likely to challenge, or translate any direct quote, they need to quote the relevant portion of the original text in a footnote or in the article, so readers can check that it agrees with the article content. Translations published by reliable sources are preferred over translations made by Wikipedia editors.”

Please add footnotes quoting and translating the cited foreign-language sources, or I will remove them immediately.

WP:SPS says “self-published books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, forum postings, and similar sources are largely not acceptable.”

Please provide some evidence that the cited sources are “produced by an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications,” or I will remove them immediately. —Michael Z. 2008-07-23 16:43 z

Translations:

czołgi I generacji - I generation tanks,

czołgi II generacji - II generation tanks,

czołgi III generacji - III generation tanks.

Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 17:39, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

This doesn't fulfil either requirement above. I'll remove the citations from the article shortly. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 17:49 z

Note: This debate has been included in the list of Military-related deletion discussions. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 17:39 z

You wanted translations of the critical areas, you got them. As for proving that the author "has been published by reliable third-party publications" I can't do that since its simply not the case. I do believe however that the author is knowledgeable in the field we're discussing here. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, do you think translating three terms in isolation will allow us to check that this article agrees with the source? —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 21:29 z

The translation of detailed description of each generation is available at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force#List of main battle tanks by generation since 17 July 2008. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:47, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

I can't tell what is the translation, and what is being translated. Please put it into a suitably referenced article footnote, as required by the policy. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:05 z

Withdrawing my deletion request

I'm withdrawing my deletion request, as with the prompting of User:MickMacNee I was at last able to find a single source which appears respectable. I suggest that it be added to the references and the hobby sites removed.

The Canadian Directorate of Land Strategic Concept defines three generations of Main Battle Tanks. The first generation of post World War II Main Battle Tanks includes the U.S. M48/M60, the German Leopard 1 and the British Centurion and Chieftain. The second generation includes most of the 120mm Main Battle Tanks such as the American M1A1, the German Leopard 2 and the British Challenger. As for the third generation Main Battle Tank, they include the latest ‘digital’ tank such as the French Leclerc and perhaps the American M1A2 and the German Leopard 2A5.[1]

This passage in this masters paper further cites the following. I suggest someone try to find it in a library, if it is a public document, and cite the relevant.

Department of National Defence, DLSC Report Armour Combat Vehicle Concept Paper (Kingston, On, 1998), B-3/3.

I also suggest that User:MickMacNee deserves some thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:13 z

At last we can end this dispute thanks to some commonsense from MickMacNee. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 23:26, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Please incorporate the source into this article. Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-07-28 23:56 z

I've cited it, but I haven't adjusted the article's content. I still think the Polish-language websites don't belong here. —Michael Z. 2008-07-30 00:07 z

I included the translation of the basics of MBT generation system in the reference section between "" marks. If you're having an issue with it just because it's Polish than you have some personal problems. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

I've listed the reasons Wikipedia doesn't allow these references above, at #These sources are not allowed. If you're just going to resort to personal attacks, then I guess you've given up trying to find justification for these sources. I'll just proceed in removing them. (Fortunately, Wikipedia doesn't dictate what sort of personalities we should have to contribute, eh Supertank?)

I found the translation, and removed the comments which were hiding it. Would you please add a link to the source page, so we can tell what is being translated? —Michael Z. 2008-08-01 17:24 z

I'm not resorting to personal attacks. I simply use logic and say what I think might be the problem. You said that you needed translation of critical areas and you got it right there. The translation covers the definition of what makes the tank, a first, second or third generation MBT. It refers to both pancerni websites in the references section. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 20:52, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Silly article

This is a rather silly article. In the first place it does not provide a definition of a generation in respect to the "tank". Secondly, clearly the first generation was the original designs of tanks that appeared during the First World War.

Why did the Soviet historiographers begun with 1920? Because there were no Soviet tanks built before 1920s.

What makes one generation different enough from the next to be so defined? This would probably require writing an introduction to the generation section, making it an encyclopaedic article rather than a list!--60.229.48.79 (talk) 09:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

This isn't a "List of tanks by generation" but a list of MAIN BATTLE TANKS by generation

The characteristics which define each generation of main battle tanks are available at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force#List of main battle tanks by generation. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 10:36, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

The concept of a 'main' battle tank is a US Army one when the Patton series was reclassified from 'medium' to main since the US designers failed to build anything that was 'medium' comparable to the Soviet T-55. The Soviets did not follow this classification until the PT-76 light tank ended production. However, the engineers keep everyone accountable due to their logistic weight classifications that clearly identifies the M-48 'main' tank as a heavy tank (in 1950s).120.18.90.94 (talk) 04:37, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

This list should be in a diffrent article.

Some changes have been made to this article in the last few hours. Because of those changes the article changed from "List of main battle tanks by generation" to "List of tanks by generation". Thus the info currently displayed in this article doesn't belong here and should be made into an entirely different article. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 19:10, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I reverted the changes. Although obviously made in good faith, they did not fit within this articles scope. This article covers MBT generations as defined by a source. This alternative generations system appears to be original research. --Leivick (talk) 05:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Defining technological generations here

1. Firstly As of means from, and there have been no new tank generations, or indeed tanks since January 2010. So, the statement - As of 2010 there have been three generations of main battle tanks. - is highly wrong.
2. In reality the story of the 'main battle tank' begins with the First World War since at Cambrai all 374 tanks of the British Army's Tank Corps were Mark IVs, i.e. literally the main tank to go into battle! At Amiens the vast majority of British tanks were Mark Vs, which were along with Mark IVs, versions of the Mark I 'tank'. These were 'heavy' tanks and so 'medium' tanks were also produced to complement them. What is termed the first generation 'main' battle tank in this article is in fact referring to the 'heavy' Allied tanks of the Second World War redesignated 'main' when the much lighter 'medium' M4 Shermans were retired. In this sense apples are being compared to oranges since the Soviet designers retained the medium tank design as the main tank, and were therefore severely constrained compared to the NATO vehicles.
3. "while Canadian strategists organize main battle tanks into three generations." - how can strategists define what is clearly either a tactical or an engineering, or both, concept? Moreover, while Canada is a NATO member, it's army is hardly an authority on tanks, or free from bias.
4. How is a generation defined? Usually a military system is considered to be obsolescent at about 20-25 years. Design on the replacement begins at half-life, i.e. 10 years into the field service of the system. From 1944 to 1993 the Soviet designers produced seven medium tank designs that can be termed 'main' in 49 years: T-44, T-54/55, T-62, T-72, T-64, T-80, and T-90. This is a new design every seven years. The United states in the same time had five tank models as its 'main' tank: the M26 Pershing, M46 Patton was an improved M26, M47 Patton, M48 Patton, M60 Patton, and the M1 Abrams, i.e. two new designs. One can claim that the T-90 is really a version of T-72, and that the M60 was very different from M26, but that still means that the Soviet designers produced one new design every 9 years or so (allowing for integration issues), while the US designers did so every 17 years! And, when Abrahms entered service, it did so with a British 1959 gun, a 27 year old design (regardless of its success). During this time the Soviets introduced three different main tank guns, including an automatic loader for the last and gun-fired ATGW for the last two.

So I'd like to ask, what is this list about, or what should it be about? Is it informing the reader without bias?120.18.218.180 (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

1 - as of means "up to" not "from" (or "since") - see Wikipedia:As of.
3 - that is what the source states. That it is attributed means any bias is duly noted, same for the statement about the Soviets. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:10, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Latest Edits

My latest edit includes following changes:

Removed Magach -> It's only a variant of the M48 (sometimes even without modifications
Removed Sho't -> Same as Magach, a variant of the Centurion
Removed Tiran-4/5 -> Not a new tank, just updated/other designated T-54/55
Removed Al-Zarrar -> An updated Type 59. Wether it is in another generation than it's "basic model" is debatable.
Removed Lion of Babylon tank -> Another designation for a modified T-72
Removed M-84 -> Largely a T-72
Removed Po'kpung-Ho -> Too less information is known
Removed Ramses II MBT -> A modified T-54, wether it is a new generation is debatable.
Removed T-55AM "Merida" -> Upgraded T-55AM
Removed TR-85 -> Modified licence-production of the T-55
Removed Tiran 6 -> Same reason as stated for Magach and Sho't
Removed Vijayanta -> Just a different designation for the Vickers MK.1
Removed Zulfiqar tank -> Too less information is available
Removed M-60 2000 -> Just a hybrid tank between a 2^nd and a 3^rd generation MBT with HHS-applique armour
Removed M60T Sabra -> Upgraded M60
Removed M-84AS -> Upgraded M-84, which itself is a modified production of a T-72
Removed TR-85M1 "Bizonul -> An upgraded version of a modified 1^st generation MBT
Added Tables
Added some more references (i.e. Rolf Hilmes book)
Added AMX-50
Added Panzer 61
Declared "Pancerni.net" a unreliable source: Everbody can become an editor (self-published source might also match), no refernces are given.
Declared "softland" a dead link : Error 404.
Declared "Vademecum" a dead link : Error 404. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:EndlessUnknown (renamed) 17:27, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

Removed source "Vademecum" -> was a dead link, nobody cared about fixing it
Removed source "Softland" -> same reason as aboce
Removed Lion Of Babylon (Asad Babil) -> T-72, not even modified
Removed T-72M4CZ -> No source was given, only modified T-72
Didn't remove the PT-91, as some of them are new built vehicles, not just upgraded old ones. Good/false decision? --EndlessUnknown (talk) 16:20, 2 January 2012 (UTC)

Following your reasoning you should remove the T-90 as is a HEAVILY modified T-72 ( prototypes were even called T72BU! Is better to keep all this tanks! Dannyguns (talk) 11:24, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

4th generation

Some users have added the Type 10 MBT as 4th generation tank citing Japanese sources. It seems very probable, especially since the Japanese Type 10 tank includes only features which can at least partially be found on tanks of former generations, that this Japanese source(s) uses another definition of tank generations than the current main source (the only source cited dealing with tank generations per se) - there the author names some features which he expect to be found in a 4th generation MBT and names some examples of tank projects. The Japanese source might see it another way: the Type 10 is the fourth tank model developed in Japan post-W2 (following the Type 61, Type 74 and Type 90), which would be similar to [[Rheinmetall]'s definition of tank rounds generation (DM53 = 5th generation, DM43 = 4th generation etc.). Therefore I assume that there shouldn't be opened a "4th generation"-category in the list page, since they probably use another definiton (which has not be posted by anyone in the list page or here in the disscussion). Else the latest Soviet/Russian/Ukranian tanks also would belong in the fourth generation (based on their definition of generations). --User:EndlessUnknown (talk) 09:38, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

If there is a Tank which would qualify for the 4th generation it would be Turkey's Altay. It is the only tank in the world to eventually feature an electric engine. This is a quantum leap from Diesel engined MBT's. The Altay also features a digitally controlled stabalization system similar to fly by wire in aircraft and has other additional state of the art technologies such as laser warning and designation system incorporated in its active protection system. The Altay can also engage rotary aircraft and has Link-14. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.241.130.229 (talk) 15:45, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

I think the Type 10 is a 4th generation MBT. It has new type of armor Nano-crystal steel, better engine with a continuously variable transmission, one of a kind hydropneumatic suspension, better autoloader, and a C4I system. It could be a 3/4th generation in-between type of tank or a early very 4th. This tank's features were designed with the latest Technology than having a upgraded variant of past tanks with newer systems. Also, it is the only new tank that was built 8 years later from the last new tank. Rasseru (talk) 05:15, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Just because you THINK it is better doesn't mean there IS a 4th generation. Wikipedia operates on sources, not on personal opinion.TheFuzzyOne (talk) 13:29, 25 September 2013 (UTC)

Do you THINK I was stating personal opinion than the facts? Then I THINK you don't want to chat about the subject and not be a little open minded. Rasseru (talk) 10:13, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

The page is based on the 1983 Rolf Hilmes generational definitions as it's the most accepted worldwide and the most commonly known. Being "open minded" isn't the issue, it's about matching to the defined elements the page is designed after. Wikipedia is not about changing things based on 'thinking outside the box' for the sake of anything. It's based on sources alone and until there is a new globally recognised generational division for the new age then it doesn't change. It might be a very good 3rd gen, but that doesn't mean it gets to make up its own section for no reason. TheFuzzyOne (talk) 18:12, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This issues has be mostly solve because sources been found and added to a new section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_generation#Advanced_Third_Generation_and_Next_Generation That states there is a "Advanced" and "Next Generation". But, argumentative between nations in it's concepts of technologies and the purpose to keep it neutral. Please review section before opinions are consistently abused by all parties. You may talk about future updates in the section below. Thank you. Rasseru (talk) 20:38, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

Vijoyanth Tank of India

Hi,I cant find Vijoyanth tank of India.Please add this 2nd generation tank list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.227.228.167 (talk) 17:06, 24 January 2013 (UTC)

Under development?

I noticed that there is an "Under development" section. When these MBTs enter service, will they be considered part of the third or fourth generation of MBTs? Thanks! Illegitimate Barrister (talk) 05:26, 13 April 2013 (UTC)

Some of under development tanks may be placed in this section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_generation#Advanced_Third_Generation_and_Next_Generation ONLY if there is sources to back it up. Rasseru (talk) 20:41, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

On the subject of generations

The change to put the "Advanced 3rd" and "4th" generations in has been removed. There are NO sources that there is any such thing considered by any military in the world. The Japanese source for the Type 10 is not saying it is a 4th Generation tank, it says that it is the 4th generation OF main battle tank that the Japanese have made (Type 61 -> Type 74 -> Type 90 -> Type 10) and this source is NOT justifiable citation for having a separate generational element on this page.

Wikipedia operates off of clarified information, not internet rumourmill and mythology to put it in "to make way for people to start calling it that." Until there are sources or citations we cannot simply add things that we want to try and make certain elements look "better" than others in some cheap element of country boosting. The same goes for "advanced 3rd generation", how advanced any vehicle is would be an entirely subjective term, especially as we know nothing of these. The only official military stance is that they are all 3rd generations and that is as far as it has gone. Defining them deeper than that is entirely unsourced and thus cannot be worked with wikipedia. We are NOT a list of tanks by strength or ability. We are a factual documentation.

Until sources appear to state that they have a higher "generation" that are clear and accepted by militaries worldwide, there can be no change.

Furthermore, K2 is still in development and thus has been kept to the "in development" section. Thats what its there for. Instead of simply undoing, please discuss it here before anything else is done to avoid this becoming an edit war. Everything must be cited on wikipedia or it risks becoming a country arguement. If this goes further, wikipedia will be brought in to resolve the issue until proper citations are found. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne (talk • contribs) 13:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)

UPDATE:

Deleting a user's talk from the talk page is not due process. Article has been redone to original specification. The only cites of "4th gen" are overly vague and not corresponding to the generational requirements and historical specifics of this article, two are simply from hobby sites and third is a dead link. This is not proper sourcing, until a "4th generation" description and globally recognised source is found as per the same requirements as of those on the top of the page, there can be no further generations added. A tank may be a new and extremely good one, but that is subjective to a tank by tank basis, personal opinion is not a factor in whether it is new or not, which is all the sources given are based on. TankNutDave for example, is a hobby site akin to a very fancy blog, not a mainstream defence source such as Janes or NATO. The same goes for "advanced 3rd generation", that is simply a push for trying to sound bigger and is based on no element. This is not a list of what tanks are advanced or not advanced. This is a list of where tanks fill into the generations fulfilled as per the article's description in the Rolf Hilmes source. I quote:

"In 1983 Rolf Hilmes saw three tank generations and three "intermediate generations", which consisted mainly of upgraded vehicles.[3] The first generation of main battle tanks were based on or influenced by designs of World War II, most notably the T-34 and the Panther tank.[4] The second generation was equipped with NBC protection (only sometimes), IR night vision devices, a stabilized main gun and at least a mechanical fire control system.[4] The third generation is determined by the usage of thermal imagers, digital fire control systems and special (composite) armour.[4]"

That is the one that is used for this page as the defining one that it has been organised by. The Soviets 4 generations is totally different, referring to even the original Challenger as a "4th gen".

Until such a source is found, no generations can be added. Please stop adding your own personal opinions as fact. Now, please discuss here before just editing on the fly.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by TheFuzzyOne (talk • contribs) 00:39, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

4th gen, as I've seen it used, are tanks that are networked together so that targeted fire of a force of tanks is not wasted with double and triple tank shots targeting the same target, and shared information space, with data coming in from all friendlies to all other friendlies to improve environment awareness and selective targeting. -- 70.50.151.11 (talk) 07:12, 27 February 2014 (UTC)

Is there a globally recognised source from NATO or somesuch that defines that grading then? This is still the 1983 Rolf Hilmes one for the page, where is this other standard located and what does it classify for each tank around? TheFuzzyOne (talk) 18:13, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

This issues has be mostly solve because sources been found and added to a new section. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_main_battle_tanks_by_generation#Advanced_Third_Generation_and_Next_Generation That states there is a "Advanced" and "Next Generation". But, argumentative between nations in it's concepts of technologies and the purpose to keep it neutral. Please review section before opinions are consistently abused by all parties. You may talk about future updates to this section. Thank you. Rasseru (talk) 20:35, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

What happened to the K2 Black Panther? It was moved from the Advanced and Third Generation MBTs section to the Third Generation Table. If anything, there are numerous references to the K2 being one of the most recently developed tanks around with the DAPA of SK explicitly referring to it as a "Next Gen Tank". Also, why is the AMX Leclerc of all things and the Merkava IV in the section too? While the APS systems of the Merkava may give credence to its classification here, the AMX Leclerc of all thing should not be there, a design dating to the early '90s, latest upgrades notwithstanding. Clarification? Thanks. 60.229.146.141 (talk) 11:01, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

The moving and changing the list for Adv. 3rd/ Next Gen been reverted.... I don't know why it was change. No sources was given on the subject of changing it. More likely a prank and false information. Rasseru (talk) 00:22, 26 November 2014 (UTC)

Blacklisted Links Found on the Main Page

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

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

http://www.army-technology.com/features/feature-the-worlds-top-10-main-battle-tanks/
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.army-technology.com
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist
http://www.army-technology.com/projects/k2-black-panther-main-battle-tank/
Triggered by \barmy-technology\.com\b on the local blacklist

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

From your friendly hard working bot.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 13:40, 3 April 2014 (UTC)

Resolved This issue has been resolved, and I have therefore removed the tag, if not already done. No further action is necessary.—cyberbot II ^Notify_Online 21:22, 9 April 2014 (UTC)

M84

This tank belongs to the 3rd generation of tanks. It has all the criteria needed for it.

It has an advanced SUV with a dual-axis meteosensor (first 55 examples had A20XMBL, later ones had A10XMBL), advanced day-night sight (DNNS-2), laser rangefinder, allowing fire on the move.

Most important difference is a 735 kW (1000 horse powers) engine, significantly more powerful than any T72 offshoot in current use.

Armor on ALL M84s is composite. Turret has a non-metallic inlet with corundum spheres and silica sand. Frontal hull armor is made of multiple layers of steel, ceramics and non-metals. A series have an additional 16 mm of steel plate on the front. Total thickness of frontal armor of the A series is 247 mm, while its RHA equivalent is still secret. — Preceding unsigned comment added by HrcAk47 (talk • contribs) 13:04, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Naming and titles of 4th plus generations

Please do not use 4th generation or any other generations above. There is no 4th, 5th, 6th and etc. listed for worldwide sources. If by nation source, please call these new tanks "Next Generation". Upgraded tanks should be known as 3th generation or Advanced 3rd depending on their upgrades. Newly built tanks are not always the next generation. Rasseru (talk) 17:05, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

Why not call something a 4th or 5th generation MBT? Just because the occidental world has not published something recently about new generations of MBTs, does not mean that they do not exist. When the US made a 5th generation fighter, people accepted this. They did not need the rest of the world's permission to call it what they wanted to call it. I will revert T-14 Armata back to 5th generation, because that is what the designer claims. Brovich 18 May 2015 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brovich (talk • contribs) 23:46, 18 May 2015 (UTC)

The point is, there no publish research or books on the topic of any thing above 3rd generation. There may by newspapers source and blogs saying that they are a higher generation. But, this is not a worldwide view to be a higher generation and not creditable. Also aircraft generation is different from Main Battle Tank and shouldn't be used as calling something higher generation. USA's 5th generation fighter is only accepted because it has something new in technology or design that not used before. Again don't compare aircraft to Main Battle Tank. The T-14 Armata is using nothing new that make it a 5th generation worldwide and many next generation Main Battle Tank has the same technology. Russian only call it 5th generation because it is the "5th Line" of Main Battle Tank that is are entering service. There is many nations saying that their tank is a 4th generation but really a Advanced 3rd generation. I wouldn't call T-14 Armata a 5th generation till other tanks from other nations are called the same thing. But, you can't skip the worldwide view of 4th generation tank.... That we are calling "Next Generation" till source of official research has catch up today MBTs. Rasseru (talk) 23:11, 22 May 2015 (UTC)

"The point is, there no publish research or books on the topic of any thing above 3rd generation." Because you can't write a book about something that does not exist. When the thing appears in to existence, that is when you write about it.

"USA's 5th generation fighter is only accepted because it has something new in technology or design that not used before. Again don't compare aircraft to Main Battle Tank. The T-14 Armata is using nothing new that make it a 5th generation worldwide and many next generation Main Battle Tank has the same technology." Wrong Wrong and Wrong. The T-14 has an unmanned turret, completely separate and walled of crew capsule and a radar to name a few things other new tanks do not have. Not to mention the modularity between the T-15, Bumerang and Kurganets which use the same turret. 4 new things and I'm just scratching the surface. Your pretty much proved my point for me.

"There is many nations saying that their tank is a 4th generation but really a Advanced 3rd generation. I wouldn't call T-14 Armata a 5th generation till other tanks from other nations are called the same thing." I really don't care about 5th gen fighter aircraft, but what remains is the designers calling something a 5th generation fighter aircraft, and the world excepting it. The designers called the T-14 5th generation, and it should be called such until proven other wise NOT until its proven again. They have a logical basis to their claims, as the T-95 was 4th generation, the T-14 will be the 5th.

"Russian only call it 5th generation because it is the "5th Line"" The source clearly states 5th generation, not fifth line. 5th generation will be used, no matter what your opinions are on what it should be called, the designers call it 5th generation. Until proven otherwise. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brovich (talk • contribs) 20:21, 26 May 2015 (UTC)

I can't take you seriously on the argument if you do not source in detail and calmly share the of the issues on matter. Wiki has rules about sourcing and research on a topic... If these has flaws then the topic would be change to be agreeable to the group than one person. Also willing to compromise on your stance to a world view than by nation view only. You seemed to be confused on the overall goal than just causing arguments to about generations. Rasseru (talk) 13:36, 1 June 2015 (UTC)

As already established in the lead, there IS no world wide source for generations, only different opinions by different people that happen (or not) coincide more (or less). To arbitrarily select an author and let his views determine the contents of the article is undue weight, which Wikipedia also have rules about. BP OMowe (talk) 23:51, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

T-80

What Rolf Hilmes wrote in his 1987 book is this; "If the Soviet Union was to maintain its 7 to 10 year cycle for the introduction of new tanks, the tank speculatively named "T80" could be expected to enter service in or after 1983. At the time of writing it remains to be seen whether this move to a new model will be an evolutionary one...(skip)...According to one source, a new tank with a welded turret employing spaced or compact array armor, and with large skirt plates, has been in service for some years." In reality, T-80 didn't have evolutionary features compared to previous T-64, nor it was equipped with a welded turret. The main difference was just an engine; the new SG-1000 gas turbine. T-80B in equipped with a new fire control system, but it has no big difference with the one installed on T-64B. So early model T-80 can't really categorized as a 3rd generation main battle tank.14.33.19.154 (talk) 13:03, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Halp.

I tried adding "Challenger 2" with its corresponding colour to the image displaying MBT exporters, as the picture showed the UK and Oman as exporting it, but the key didn't. Everything looked fine on the edit page:

But when I looked at the page after, it wasn't there. I looked at "recent changes" and saw my edit, but the actual page was still the same.

Due to Wikipedia being remarkably un-user-friendly, I have no idea what all the technical stuff means (everything has random punctuation and things, even inserting the picture to the right has, like, 4 brackets and a bunch of nonsense instead of a simple preview on the edit page, ugh). Someone who knows how to Wikipedia, please make the edit. The colour for the Challenger 2 on the legend is #90b2fc. Widgetdog (talk) 22:44, 5 November 2015 (UTC)

Challenging strv 74 as a first generation MBT

First of all, stridsvagn 74 was a light tank, secondly it also was an early WWII-construction with a new turret. BP OMowe (talk) 00:00, 12 July 2016 (UTC)

1 or 2 flags?

The Al-Khalid tank is the Pakistani built variant of the tank which differs from the other models produced in China.

I can see many examples on the list which only have one flag despite being based on/upgraded models of other tanks from different countries:

The STR-122 tank despite being based on the Leopard 2 only has a Swedish flag next to it and not a german one too.

The T-72M4 CZ only has a Czech flag next to it despite being an upgraded variant of the T-72. There is no Soviet flag here.

The Centurion Olifant Mk 2 only has a South African flag despite being an upgraded variant of the Olifant Mk 1 Tank. No British flag is next to the South African one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.37.131.208 (talk) 16:57, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Your edits have been reverted because of multiple reasons: First, there is no reference that there is a third generation version of this tank in MKII. This should not be added. Second, Al-Khalid is of Chinese origin and thus the flag. This is also the case on the Al-Khalid page. If other tanks do not have flags of their origin countries then feel free to add them. 2 wrongs do not make a right. All military equipment which has significant origins from other countries have/should have flags or that country mentioned explicitly. Third, we need independent sources to verify the claims in these cases. Lastly, reach consensus here before reverting edits. You are already in violation of 3RR and have received a final warning for disruptive editing. If you revert again, you will be reported for edit warring and blocked. Please try to reach consensus. Adamgerber80 (talk) 20:20, 10 May 2017 (UTC)

Karrar 3rd gen advanced

Source to confirm the Karrar tank is a 3rd generation advanced tank and on par with others mentioned in the category?

Here is a source which places it at-least 3rd generation [2]. Perhaps it is only 3rd generation and not 3rd generation advanced. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:11, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

It can't be confirmed by a source since nobody knows about its capabilities except its manufacturer. Sources usually compare it with T90-MS (at least this is what its manufacturer claims), and T90-MS is TGA, so it may be a bad idea to include Karrar into another category. -- 46.225.116.215 (talk) 00:55, 18 May 2017 (UTC)

But sources also compare it to the T-72 or an upgrade of the T-72. And T-72 is Third gen.

can you please provide some of these references. Here we talk with references, rather then sources. Adamgerber80 (talk) 01:55, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

See the claimed features of the tank, it's not comparable with T-72. 46.167.139.182 (talk) 16:28, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

Al-Khalid 2

Sources: http://quwa.org/2016/11/27/overview-al-khalid-2-main-battle-tank-program/ http://www.defenseworld.net/news/17749/Ukraine_To_Provide_New_Engines_For_Pakistan_s_Al_Khalid_II_Tanks#.WSMLVRN95fQ http://www.armyrecognition.com/ideas_2016_official_online_show_daily_news/taxila_heavy_industries_from_pakistan_announced_the_development_of_al_khalid_2_main_battle_tank_12911165.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.178.183.66 (talk) 16:08, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

None of these references mention 3rd generation or advanced. I strongly suggest discussing this on the Al-Khalid Talk page and resolving it there before this can be resolved here. Please refrain from updating page or removing China as a manufacturer until it is resolved there. Thanks. Adamgerber80 (talk) 18:38, 23 May 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2017

This edit request to List of main battle tanks by generation has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

‹ The template Edit semi-protected is being considered for merging. ›

Muz20152 (talk) 15:43, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

I need to edit this page there is something wrong please also add Pakistan in al-khalid MBT2000 with china

Not done:. Please have a look at the Al-Khalid Tank page and the corresponding talk page. As per the discussion there, it was decided that the origin country for this tank is China only. Adamgerber80 (talk) 17:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

What about M1A2 SEP, SEPv2, M1A2C, M1A2D tanks?

If M1A2 is 3rd gen., so these tanks are clear third gen. advanced, but this is not on the page. Just did not write or is there a good reason? KiL92 (talk) 23:22, 23 December 2018 (UTC)