Is there any strict difference between these terms? For example, see this New York Times article - the photo at the top shows a Bradley armoured vehicle, while that at the bottom shows a mobile artillery piece.
To my (admittedly untrained) eye, these look like, well, tanks .
I don’t see any pictures on that page.
I’m sure someone will be along shortly to elaborate, but mobile artillery doesn’t have the armor required to be classed as a tank. In other words, they’re extremely vulnerable, and not to be used in a head-to-head engagement.
As for armoured vehicles, like the Bradley, I’m pretty sure they have the same limitation and even less firepower.
I think this was covered on Mail Call recently, FWIW.
Depends on who is defining what ‘tank’ actually means.
According to the Concise Oxford English Dictionary, a tank is: ‘a heavy armoured fighting vehicle carrying guns and moving on a continuous articulated metal track.’
In which case, you would be correct in thinking of them all as ‘tanks’.
A tank has a main gun that is a Direct Fire weapon (point at what you shoot). Heavily armored.
A Self Propelled Artillery piece has a gun that is an Indirect Fire weapon (Point up in the air, the round will come down on the target). Less armored.
A Bradley Fighting Vehicle has its main weapon inside, the soldiers. It is meant to transport troops and allow them to fight while traveling. Less armored.
There are more differences, but my experience with them is very small compared to an Army veteran’s.
Miltary vehicles have diferent functions and are built specificly to meet those functions:
Tank - Like the M1A1 Abrahms are built to charge in and attack. They are heavily armored, most of it near the front. They bristle with weapons including a main gun designed to fire line o’ sight at other tanks and vehicles.
Self propelled Gun - like the M106 Paladin are basically large mobile artillery pieces. They look like tanks but the armor is much thinner. The gun is much larger and is designed to fire long distances at targets they probably can’t even see.
APCs and Infantry Fighting Vehicles - ie theM2 Bradley are designed to carry infantry around the battlefield and keep up with the tanks. The have less armor, and a much smaller gun to make room for the infantry squad. Maybe some missles to defend itself.
And of course there are also armored vehicles designed for specific things like air defense, laying bridges, clearing minefields, ambulances and so on.
There is, of course, some subjectivity between the terms, somewhat like the difference in car types (how do you objectively distinguish between a mid-size or luxury car? a mini-van or SUV?).
All of them are Armored Fighting Vehicles, which is broad term for, well, pretty much any military ground vehicle with armor on it that participates in fighting. A Hummvee, truck, or a towed artillery piece would not be an AFV.
Tanks are vehicles with all-around armor (generally much heavier in front), tracks, and a direct-fire main gun mounted in a turret (plus at least one machine gun). They are used for direct fighting against enemy forces, and use their speed, firepower, and armor to great effect. In WW2 there were tank destroyers which were basically tanks with either a fixed gun or an open-sided turret, though they’re not used any more.
Self-Propelled Artillery are vehicles with some armor (though much less than a tank) and an indirect-fire main gun. They’re generally tracked, but it’s not a requirement. They function as artillery that can move more quickly and survive counter-battery fire better than their non-SP counterparts. In WW2 there were assault guns that had a non-turreted direct-fire gun geared towards high explosive (instead of anti-tank) rounds, they could arguably be called self-propelled artillery. “Mobile Artillery” is more of a general term, it could include artillery that’s set up to move quickly despite being towed, and in the past it included horse-drawn artillery.
Armored Personnel Carriers are armored vehicles that are made to carry infantry and support them, they will generally have enough armor to repel small arms fire, some kind of light gun to assist the infantry, and possibly some kind of anti-tank-guided-missile. Generally they are sort of a van on wheels or tracks with a small (compared to a tank or artillery piece) gun above the driver’s compartment. APCs carry the troops to the front, protect them from artillery and some ambushes, and provide support as sort of a light tank once combat begins. For a while the US military experimented with troops fighting from inside of APCs, but this didn’t work too well.
Should point out the diference between an APC and an Infantry Fighting Vehicle like the Bradley. The APC is essentially a battlefield taxi decended from the open half-tracks of WWII.
The IFV is like an APC on steroids. The M2 Bradleys were designed to fight along side the tanks so they can support each other. It has a bigger gun than an APC (25mm IIRC compared to a .50 cal machinegun) as well as TOW missles. In fact, the M2 is comparible in firepower to a light tank of WWII. Ironicly, all this extra armor and weapons means that it can’t hold that many infantry.
There’s actually a pretty funny movie satarizing the development of the M2 caled 'The Pentagon Wars" staring Kelsey Grammer and Cary Elwes.