Talk:List of main battle tanks by generation

Al zarrar MBT is 3rd generation

Its not 2nd gen it's a 3rd generation main battle tank. It's written in it's articles. 203.175.72.22 (talk) 21:27, 8 June 2022 (UTC)

T-14 Armata

In 4th generation: shouldn't the Armata go from "planned" to "prototype"? Or is planned better than prototype? Planned sounds more like "we plan to build something, but we do not have anything yet", but, - as far as I know - 14 Armata's have already been build.

• If* planned is the better category, I would like to suggest that that is made clear...

(The one German tank "planned for 2035" suggest's not, bc they do not even have a prototype, as far as I know.) 90.186.21.101 (talk) 15:40, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

K2 & Type 10 Fourth Generation

Why would the K2 and Type 10 be in the fourth generation? There is nothing that meaningfully sets them apart in technology or capability from any upgraded third generation tank and they look completely out of place compared to all the other fourth generation tanks that are still in their prototype phase. I know the definition is pretty vague but that's just silly. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:908:425:120:BD66:D543:9AB:5B53 (talk) 02:54, 23 March 2023 (UTC)

Incorrect tanks in 4th generation

While the K2, Leclerc XLR, Altay, Challenger 3 and Type 10 are advanced tanks they do not have the same characteristics as other 4th generations tanks like the T-14 or KF-51. They all Lack APS systems except for the C3 and K2, still have fire control systems and thermals on par with the Leo2A7+ and are essentially just advanced Gen3 tanks. The challenger 3 has the same engine as the Challenger 2 even. Coobadge1 (talk) 20:28, 23 May 2023 (UTC)

First 1st Gen tank?

If you consider the criteria of the first 1st gen tanks to be the product of the WW2 era. Then the T-44 should clearly be first. As it was a series production tank. That was envisioned and designed on it's own with experience of the WW2 era. And on top of that it didn't see any action of the WW2. So if we go by that criteria, then it clearly should be the first 1st gen tank and not the Centurion tank. IMO. 2404:440C:170E:9400:1DA1:A969:3EF2:BB1 (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

We rely on what WP:RELIABLE sources say. (Hohum ^@) 16:24, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

You are asking me for a source that will state that it's the first MBT in the world? Then I don't think you will find it. But not because it wasn't the first MBT, but because people couldn't be bothered stating the obvious, and also those terms of tank Gen's were quite loose in the first place, but by what I understood. It is precisely the true 1st tank of the first gen. 2404:440C:170E:9400:1DA1:A969:3EF2:BB1 (talk) 16:32, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

That attempted source: www.varzilov.com appears to be scale model making site, not a reliable military history source specialising in tanks. Please abide by WP:BRD and do not edit war on disputed content.

Wikipedia uses reliable sourcing, not editor opinion. (Hohum ^@) 16:33, 1 July 2023 (UTC)

The T44 is typically listed as a Medium tank, MBT refers to a tank's role (and diversity of it). 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:6144:BB0B:7B61:5FF8 (talk) 18:57, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Merkava 4 Barak He belongs to the new generation

Why is the new Israeli Barak Markeva 4 tank not listed in the new generation while older tanks such as the Japanese which according to some researchers were considered weak compared to the Israeli in the previous generation or the new British which many of its capabilities are based on capabilities that were already in the old Israeli tank. I think it should be on the new list. It also has technology that is not found in the competitors and it meets the requirements of most of the competitors' new generation rifles. 2A02:6680:1103:92BD:5E55:C946:1FB7:218E (talk) 12:54, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

"Year in Service"

I've changed this to "Year Entered Service" as for most entries this seems to be what is being listed but for ones which only existed as prototypes both of these labels are inaccurate, but giving an indication of year would be preferable I imagine, so some tweaking of the column name or addition of an extra column might be good? 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:6144:BB0B:7B61:5FF8 (talk) 18:54, 9 September 2023 (UTC)

Removal of A1/A2/A3/... variants?

I think including variants is useful, especially now we have semi-merged entries, in particular for variants specific to different countries, however one thing I noticed is a tendency to include, for instance, the M60, M60A2, and M60A3. Likewise the M1, M1A1, M1A2.

I'd contend that's both not useful, not applied comparable to most other entries, and is somewhat misleading.

- For instance, the M60 and M1 Abrams have quite a few other variants, if you set aside the specialised ones there are still various variants unlisted like the AOS and RISE variants for M1, so listing A1/A2/A3 isn't remotely comprehensive.

- The UK's Chieftain as a counter example has variants Mk.1 through to Mk.13, which are relatively comparable to the US "A1/A2/A3" system. Should we list all of those? The Leopard 2 is another counterexample, while we list the variants specific to other nations (ie Leopard 2PL), we don't separately list Leopard 2/2A1/2A2/2A3/2A4/2A5/2A6/2A7/2A8?

- What does listing those actually tell us? Sure the M1A2 SEPv3/SEPv4 is a useful listing as it shows a version which has crossed into the next 'generation' of MBTs, but the M1, M1A1 and M1A2 occupy the same generation and are largely similar, so why not list it as "M1 Abrams" and be done with it?

I'm gonna leave this discussion up here for a bit before I change it, to see if anything else comes to mind and see what other people's thoughts are, but if someone wants to go ahead before me and be bold I welcome it. I think it'd just be a sensible change to make the table a bit more consistent while being easy to read. 2A02:C7C:C4CD:A500:E119:57FB:E7A8:1259 (talk) 23:39, 16 October 2023 (UTC)