Last week at OrangeCon I was helping with the placement of AFV's in the various catagories when this "disagreement" occurred. What makes a tank a tank?

One modeler was placing his M-10 in the "tank" catagory and I was asked to define the catagory for him. I feel that since it's an open top armored vehicle it should have gone with the other open tops/mobile artillery etc. The modeler disagreed and rather than arguing I left his model where he thought it should go.

So I put this question to the experts on this site. "What makes a tank a tank?"

The M-10 has a "tank" chassis and a turret, but the turret is open and the M-10 was not designed to fight in the manner of tank vs. tank. Same goes with the M-36.

So does anyone have a good definition out there of a tank? And then where does the US tank destroyers fall?

Thanks - GSP

US WW2 tank destroyers were called "GMC" or Gun Motor Carriage. The were really lightly armored and only looked like a tank. The basic Sherman's armor was fairly thin compared to British, German or Russian tanks, so a US M-10, M-36 or M-18 was basically a metal box on a tank chassis. With considerably thinner armor.

Tanks are normally considered to be fully tracked, enclosed turret (Swedish S-tank is more of a tank destroyer), heavily armed with a direct fire cannon and armored.

So a M-10 is a Gun Motor Carriage and NOT a tank! So I was correct in my determination that it belonged in the open tops and mobile artillery!

So, after the arm twisting and letting the guy enter his model where he wanted, did he win anything? Just curious...

Shaun

No he didn't. But if he placed the model in open tops and mobile artillery he probably would have. So There!

Since you had Open Top AND Arty,thats a good place for it.GMC and TD had open tops(when on a tank chassis.)
I would put it w/Tanks IF there was a seperate Arty group,and no specific TD area.
Because,the TD's were for armor vs armor.But were sometimes "temporary " artillerie
(++) (++) 49 (++) (++)

Rob defined things quite well for the real world. Now, for the purposes of contest, if there was an open top category, it should have gone there, regardless of any other definition. If there were only "tracked armored vehicle" and "Artillery/ordnance" categories, it should have gone in the former. It COULD have fallen in a "self propelled artillery" as well, if that were available.

OK, where does a Sherman 105 go?
I am not convinced that a GMC would fit as artillery, as it was "pressed" into that role out of necessity, but designed and utilized thru doctrine as a self-propelled anti-tank weapon. An M-26 Pershing in Korea could be defined as "artillery" if shown in the indirect fire role.
GSP, you we're correct and the modeller should have listened, as you were "working" the show. But I am glad to see that cooler heads prevailed.

The breakdown is less a matter of function of the prototype as the amount of detail that goes into the model. An open top SP artilery piece would be seen as having a greater chance at an award than a closed top tank all buttoned up, given the same level of construction. At the IPMS Nats, the actual category is "open top AFV and AFV's with interior" . http://www.flagshipmodels.com/nats2003/Military_Vehic.html

So the Sherman 105 would compete against a buttoned up Sherman 75, but with full interiosrs and hatches opened up to display them, they's be up against an M10.

Thanks for the clarification, Al. The nomenclature "AFV" is the key. That should be used as opposed to "tank".

Interestingly enough, the 105mm equipped Sherman was still considered a tank, an up-gunned one, but still a tank. Its purpose was to give tank battalions and tank companies a measure of organic indirect fire support (today we use 120mm mortar platoons). I'm not sure of the mix per battalion off hand, but they few in numbers within the battalion.

The use of a 105mm Sherman instead of a 105mm M7 Priest is that the 105mm Sherman blends in better with the tanks it supports. Also armor units engage in direct fire fights so the Sherman affords more protection than an open topped howitzer. The M7 had better accuracy as an indirect fire weapon since the crew would fire from a prepared site with aiming stakes and rounds registered, etc. The 105mm Sherman would be shot from a short halt using internal gunner's sights and at much closer ranges.

That's great info. Thanks, Rob!

In our club we had a similar discussion some years ago. Because some of our member are in the Belgian Armed Forced, both mobile infantry units, tank units and artillery we came to this definition:

To be a tank a vehicle needs to comply with next standards:
- Firepower: it must have a decent main gun (75mm and up)
- Protection: it must be well armoured, aluminium shells do not count (m113 family, etc)
- It must be a tracked vehicle, NO exceptions made
- It's primary use for the main weapon must be DIRECT fire, no (indirect) fire support

Some examples to clarify:

-M109 variant: considered FIRE SUPPORT vehicle because it lacks armour and it's primary weapon is designed for INDIRECT fire, althougt it is direct fire capable
-Bradley, Warrior and CVR-T families: considered AFV's because it lacks firepower and armour
-M7 Priest, 105mm Sherman etc: primary role is a fire support role, so not considered a tank...

Discussion still is possible about some vehicles, but we noticed when using these standards it gets a lot easier to define categories...

Hope this helps a bit.... #:-)

That's interesting. By your definition (75 mm and up for firepower) most, if not all, of the Renault/Fiat designed WWI tanks would not qualify. The A7V would not qualify having a 57mm main gun. The Panzer I and II would not be tanks, nor would the M3/M5 series. And most telling, the first British armored vehicles which had machine guns, gave tanks their name, would not qualify as tanks by this definition.

Guns all have a time period attached to them.........How many tanks in WWI have 120mm Guns????? you don't see too many tanks with guns under say 75mm Today...........