Talk:History of the tank
this page is terrific. the writing, images and chart are top notch. that chart must have taken forever, and yet, i still have a request. can you include horse power in the chart? Kingturtle 10:04 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
- The chart seems to be exactly the same as the one on this page.. [1] -- Jniemenmaa
I think horsepower is already here. I wonder how to make this start whith a whole sentence to comply to Wikipedia standards. Ericd 11:08 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
It is OK to start with just the heading when there isn't really a way to do the title in first sentence thing, Eric. Tannin
Hmm, I'am a bit confused by this page. The term "main battle tank" is not usually used on pre-korean war tanks, but the article is mostly about WW1 and WW2 tanks. Notice that the term "main battle tank" is not used at all in the article, not even in the first sentence! The first tanks I've seen it applied on were the T-64 and the Centurion. -- Jniemenmaa 11:44 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
It might very well be wrong to use the term MBT, as you say. I simply moved the text from the Main Battle Tank page, and came up with what I thought was an apropriate name. europrobe 12:01 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
Apr 18, 2003 N 14:32 Main battle tank history (cur; hist) . . Patrick (Talk) (moved to "Tank_history")
There is also the article Tank, I guess there is little confusion with other meanings. - Patrick 12:35 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)
Some mention of Chobham armour might be appropriate
- What is it ?
- Ericd 17:51 Apr 18, 2003 (UTC)