Many of the tanks in World War One only had machine guns rather than any cannon-sized weapons. The very first tank, for example, did not have a fully rotating turret, but instead a pair of sponson half-turrets, one on each side. Not helping matters, of course, is that the lines between "tank" and "not a tank" have become blurred to varying degrees at varying times, even as far back as World War One. Of course, this makes tanks rather expensive to make and maintain compared to other armoured vehicles, which is why we're seeing fewer actual tanks portrayed by the media these days. Despite the common logic of "if it looks like a tank, acts like a tank, smells like a tank, it's a tank", many AFVs that look like tanks don't fit the definition, as tanks are usually characterized by being more of a product of old warfare, therefore way more heavily armoured and generally built to take the brunt of enemy fire than their AFV cousins, which usually possess lighter armour and rely more on indirect combat. In real life all of these vehicle types and more are commonly lumped together under the catch-all term "Armored Fighting Vehicles" which is usually contracted to just "armor" or, if you want to be all snooty about it, AFV (no relation). Armored cars, self-propelled guns, armored personnel carriers and several other types of armored fighting vehicles can be and frequently are misidentified as tanks, just as every warship is a "battleship" to most civilians. One of the most common mistakes is to treat all armored vehicles as tanks. This applies to armored vehicles as much as anything else, either getting details wrong or using stand-ins.
They are usually Just Plane Wrong, and use artistic license when it comes to ships. Writers often play fast and loose when it comes to vehicles.
0 kommentar(er)
