Danbooru

BTR-80 implications

Posted under Tags

The bulk update request #13936 has been rejected.

create implication btr-80 -> armored_personnel_carrier
create implication btr-80 -> armored_vehicle
create implication btr-80 -> motor_vehicle

Брони́рованный транспортёр — 80 моде́ль (literally "Armoured Transporter - Model 80")

A 8×8 wheeled amphibious armored personnel carrier (APC) designed in the USSR. It was adopted in 1985 and replaced the previous vehicles, BTR-60 and BTR-70, in the Soviet Army. It was first deployed during the Soviet–Afghan War. The APC was introduced into service in 1986.

nonamethanks said:

What's armored vehicle for? Why is 1/3rd of that tag tagged with tank? If those are included, then the tag would have a 99% overlap with tank, making it impossible to search for things like post #5916284.

Thank you for your criticism and feedback. The tag armored vehicle should describe any a armored vehicle which are not just tanks. Sorry, but some images that feature a BTR also have tanks on it, you are correct about it. For instance, post #3240988
As what I requested to imply, images of BTR-80, M113 or M3 Half-Track should be tagged armored personnel transporter instead of tank

Nevertheless, I removed tank from posts that only feature the BTR, like on post #1871139. Time to do extent amount of tag gardening.

  • post #2989315, there are no tanks. BMPs, and UAZ-469 are not tanks. The BMP-1 and 2 are infantry fighting vehicles (IFV) - an intersection between APC and battle tanks. IFVs are designed to be more mobile than tanks and are equipped with a rapid-firing autocannon/machine gun or a large conventional gun while still maintaining function of transporting troops, as well as lighter armor compared to main battle tanks in order to preserve mobility. Avoid using tank or armored personnel carrier to tag images of IFVs.
  • post #3132157, no tanks. Only the BTR is visible.

I am not going to request implication for BTR-80 with military vehicle. Because in real life, APCs are also used by police departments (see post #3221587), even as ambulance (post #1085064).
Didn't they realized that battle tanks always have caterpillar tracks, not tyres?

Updated

tank in proper usage tends to be a doctrinal term defined by the intended usage, as there are tracked, turreted vehicles that combat tanks & hold positions that are considered IFVs, tank destroyers, or self-propelled guns. In other words: all tanks are armored vehicles, but not all armored vehicles are tanks.

That being said, Tank's wiki page has the following, which rather muddies the water for armored_vehicle's place:

For tagging purposes this tag may also be used on any tank-like vehicle, whether real or fictional. This may include things such as tank destroyers (ex: Sturmgeschutz III), self-propelled artillery (ex: M109 Howitzer), rocket artillery, and the like.

nonamethanks said:
The bulk update request #14452 has been approved by @nonamethanks.

create alias btr-80 -> armored_personnel_carrier
Only doing this, because armored personnel carrier implies armored vehicle.

Why was the tag BTR-80 aliased instead? I don't get it. Why should we remove a tag that specifies something? We did not move the tag Kita high school uniform into school uniform for the similar reason, right? Please do not alias M113 and more into a single armored personnel carrier. The alias looks really disappointing while there are more than 15 posts depicting vehicles that do look like BTR-80 in real life. By this logic, this is like aliasing AK-74, [StG44]] or M16 into a single assault rifle.

Updated

World_Funeral said:

The bulk update request #14459 has been rejected.

create implication armored_personnel_carrier -> ground_vehicle
create implication armored_personnel_carrier -> motor_vehicle

Thank you for correcting it! ^_^
Also, if you don't mind I'd request more. Because all APCs are ground vehicles. Not going to request implication with military vehicle because the police also operate it.

Motor vehicle already implies ground vehicle so the second part of this is unnecessary.
Im annoyed by this since there are various flying and hoover vehicles. But I couldnt stop truck from implying ground vehicle despite post #2946105 so I guess this is fine.

The bulk update request #14484 has been approved by @evazion.

remove implication motor_vehicle -> ground_vehicle

ion288 said:

Motor vehicle already implies ground vehicle so the second part of this is unnecessary.
Im annoyed by this since there are various flying and hoover vehicles. But I couldnt stop truck from implying ground vehicle despite post #2946105 so I guess this is fine.

You made a point. Airplane, helicopters, as well as battleship are not ground vehicles.

1 2