The Lemon Fool

It's been bugging me for some while. This is just one small incidental example:

ICYMI: Sunken tanks and 'special' graffiti

BBC News

But when exactly (and why?) did the media lose their grip on the actual meaning of the work 'tank', in the military context?

The word 'tank' has, it seems to me, to have moved progressively over the years from meaning well, a Tank!, to pretty well any military vehicle. APCs, SPGs, rocket launchers, jeeps(?) are all now 'tanks'. The media version almost appears to go: "If it moves and it's military, its a 'tank'".

Am I just 'Old Fashioned'? Well, yes! But...

Worse still when applied to railway engines. It's 'Thomas the tank ENGINE", not "Thomas the tank". Tank engine vs tender engine. An engine that carries its own supply of water and coal in onboard tanks, rather than in a separate tender pulled behind. The Fat Controller needs to put people right.

It's the peace dividend, innit? A whole generation that's never had to worry about Moscow rolling out to the Rhine in four hours. (From East Berlin, obviously.) On the bright side, history is none the worse for that.

lyndhurst25 wrote:Worse still when applied to railway engines. It's 'Thomas the tank ENGINE", not "Thomas the tank".

Not forgetting Edward the blue, Henry the green, Gordon the big and Percy the small. All together now. Aaaaaaaahhhhhhh.