Talk:M47 Patton

Chile never used this tank

The source implying that the Chilean Army got the M47 in any of its variants and derivatives is simply wrong. The US only supplied the similar looking M41 light tank, which is probably the origin of this wrong assumption. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.78.151.211 (talk) 21:10, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

Philippines removed from list of operators

No sources found except for some people claiming to have seen this in Camp Aguinaldo. Probably similar case to Chile where people have mistaken the M41 Walker Bulldog for the M47 Patton. --Edward Sandstig (talk) 22:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

M47 not a MBT

The M47 is not a main battle tank, as the concept barely existed at the time it was made. This page should call it a medium tank. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:40C7:473D:C203:1799 (talk) 22:28, 16 October 2017 (UTC)

Sounds plausible, but the MBT classification has has a ref (citation to a published source agreeing with the classification). Is there a better ref that supports non-MBT classification? --A D Monroe III^(talk) 01:03, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

A. I'm assuming when you said "has has a ref" you meant "has to have a ref

B. Here are three sources:

http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/coldwar/US/M47_Patton.php https://wiki.warthunder.com/index.php?title=90_mm_Gun_Tank_M47_Patton_II https://www.militaryfactory.com/armor/detail.asp?armor_id=33

• The second one may seem like a weird source, but it's a source none the less — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:40C7:473D:C203:1799 (talk) 20:08, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

I'm discounting the 2nd source; games aren't good verifiable sources.

The other two sources both call the M47 a medium tank and an MBT. The M47 was classified as a medium tank when designed, but was later classified as an MBT, as reported in the current source in the article, and in the two usable sources provided here. Yes, that reclassification doesn't seem to be very "official", but the same could be said of most tank classifications -- classifying systems change with time and place. While I tend to agree that it seems a bit of a stretch to call the M47 an MBT, we have to go by sources, not just our own opinions. Here, the current source consensus is "MBT". --A D Monroe III^(talk) 23:38, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

By the way, do you no how to implement a link into the references? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:40C7:473D:C203:1799 (talk) 20:27, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

It's not hard to learn, and I'm tempted to just show this, but we do have official help pages: Help:Referencing for beginners. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 22:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

What are now considered as the 4 first MBT, even if the name medium tank was still used at the time they were in service are respectively the Panther, the T-44, the M26 Pershing and the Centurion, which already had all the genes of what defines now a MBT, respectively the combination of armor, armament and mobility, compared to the previous generations, and compared to the heavy tanks that became obsolete after them.--Ndiver (talk) 18:20, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Contradiction

The opening paragraph contains the following two statements:

1. and was in turn further developed as the M48 Patton

2. Although the later M48s and M60s were similar in appearance, those were completely new tank designs

These contradict eachother, hence one of the two should be removed. DynCoder (talk) 08:25, 16 December 2024 (UTC)