What is a "TANK"?

[franknbeans4761]

Interesting video and I do understand what you are saying, but are you completely ruling out the terms IFV & APC and just grouping them into the category of a "tank?"

Or just sub-categories?

It seems like you really looked at the meaning of the original tank, but maybe not so much as how it truly evolved over time. Just my two cents though.

[dynmicpara]

@franknbeans4761 IFV and APC would be sub-sets of types of TANKS. Get the cart and the horse in the proper order and you've got it.

[dynmicpara]

@specom YES, tanks with bulldozers

[specom]

So the armored bulldozers the Israelis use are "tanks"?

[Gammaclipper]

@ 0:42 you show a tank with small cannons mounted in limited traverse turrets on the sides of the vehicle and claim that the tank has no turrets. The Elefant had no turret and as a result was easy prey for anti-tank infantry and more smaller, faster vehicles.

[dynmicpara]

The German turretless STUGs were THE MOST SUCCESSFUL TANKS of WW2. FACT.

[jakejake771]

Respond to this video... the defintion of a tank is... when one of the first www1 tanks came out ( first one on the video) the british and americans called them "tanks" to trick the germans into thinking they were tanks of water and supplies for the ( very brave may i add) front line fighters , thus, the germans were supprised as the "TANKS" opend hell and slaughterd millions of people

[Falls101]

Would you call a tank destroyer a tank?

[dynmicpara]

@Falls101 YES, its a TYPE of tank.

[dynmicpara]

DarkSoldierX96 writes:

"What a great video! You should make a series!

1. What is a "VEHICLE"?

2. What is a "GUN"?

3. What is a "MILITARY"?

remember to tell them, SNIPER NO SNIPING!"

[BlacktailDefense]

The definition of a weapon is important, because it confirms what it can do. There's a lot that Tanks can do, and little that they can't.

That's why Whoppertanktards hate it so much when the word "Tank" is correctly defined; they don't want versatility, because versatility is bad for a static, insular mindset.

Light Armor IS ultra-mobile, and Heavy Armor CAN bust jungle, but Whoppertanktards don't want to go close to those "scary" trees, and don't want Light Armor getting ahead of them.

[bahhv2]

i can see the advantages of having a turretless vehicle in defensive purposes, but how bout an offensive assault? how would they fair without the mobility and effeciency of a turret to aim, fire then quickly switch targets?

[dynmicpara]

First, by SURVIVING they can participate in the fight in the first place. My intention in this video is to wake us all up to start seeing ALL tanks for what they are.

[DemonHide]

Good video on what a "Tank" is. Are you planning on doing the next one on what a "Truck" is?

[dynmicpara]

Yes, I am. Good insight on all of this!

[ihateforigners]

What ever happened to BlacktailFA?

[dynmicpara]

Every time he posts his videos his ENTIRE YOUTUBE channel gets removed for no reason or warning. I don't even think his videos are even possibly that despised even if you are a wheeled trucktard. Weird, huh?

[DemonHide]

The entire goddamn channel? That's absurd! We can all probably guess at a few reasons... None of them any damn good! Those were some good-ass videos, some of the best out there on the subject. Where the hell's the YT contact page? They'll have to explain themselves.

[dynmicpara]

ENTIRE CHANNEL...DELETED...TWICE.

If you try to contact an actual human being at YT its nearly impossible. So I told BlacktailFA to hold off starting another channel until we find out who at YT is violating their own rules and singling him out.

[ihateforigners]

yes it is.

[Jimderkaisser]

The LAV-III for example is a good vehicle for what we use them for but not for what we should use them for. The LAV-III was designed for canadian force mentality after the cold war with peacekeeping mission and fast deployment around the world and across Canada..but this vehicle is a piece of shit in Afghanistan and with the recent up-armoured LAV-III make some problem with the centre of gravity increase the roll over.

[dynmicpara]

You mean if no one is shooting or trying to blow LAV-III/Strykers up, they are good? We can use ice cream trucks instead in those situations and better impress the locals. Smaller and lighter M113 Gavins can be flown faster and in more aircraft than LAV-III/Strykers. And Gavins can be better armored and are more x-country mobile. We don't need LAV-III/Strykers.

[Jimderkaisser]

Well the LAV-III should stay in the Canadian Forces but only for reserve unit to replace the current Armoured vehicle general purpose (AVGP). The TH-495 was the most likely candidate in 1980s but Jean-Chretien broke the contract in 1994 and swap the TH-495 by the LAV-III in 1996...and we just receive our last vehicle in 2007. The Canadian Forces currently looking into a tracked infantry fighting vehicle. The most likely candidate are the CV9035 Mark III and the ASCOD.

[dynmicpara]

EXCELLENT! The Canadians at least will admit to mistakes and try to correct them. We narcissism-afflicted Americans can't even do this as of yet. If you want a medium-weight infantry-carrying tank the double-hulled German Puma looks effective. Are you considering it?

[Jimderkaisser]

The LAV-III fleet will stay in the Canadian Forces at least until 2035. The PUMA have also been promoted as contender. I know they're currently looking for a 30 to 45 tonnes vehicle (between medium to heavy) with armament between 30 to 40mm or greater and should transport 8 soldiers (two assault group, alpha and bravo). If you want further information go on google and search for the Close Combat Vehicle project.