[Retric]

The real issue is half of the original Mark 1 tanks only had machine guns and they where all lightly armored. It’s primary role was fighting infantry as a mobile machine gun platform, and so the AFV is just another tank. If anything an M1 Abrams is further from the initial definition than an AFV.

People want to fit their idea of a “tank” based on a small subset of them while ignore things like flame tanks which spits on the narrow definitions.

[dogma1138]

AFV encompasses everything from armored combat engineering vehicles to tanks.

[Retric]

And? The Mark IX, was ‘carrier’ tank Aka an APC. One was even considered an amphibious tank via flotation tanks and bilge pumps.

Various examples of radio tanks existed who’s job was communication a role which any modern AFV with a two way radio can fulfill.

The Renault FT was considered a French tank and looks closer to modern designs though with a machine gun rather than anything heavier. Except again a huge number of variants was created to fit a range of roles including laying cable.

[dogma1138]

Again an AFV is an umbrella term that covers any type of armored combat vehicle.

This would be probably the most correct term to use to describe a wide range of armored vehicles that is being shipped to Ukraine.

But I also don’t particularly have a problem with the media just using the term “Tank” as a catch all term.

[Retric]

I agree, sorry if that wasn’t clear my point was tank as a term showed up early enough that roles weren’t clear. In other words it wasn’t descriptive or prescriptive.

People essentially defined the roles after the term was in use and then used those roles to redefine Tank. Which is fine, but hardly grounds for getting upset over slightly older and more ambiguous definition of the same word.