Talk:Bison concrete armoured lorry

Contradiction

In one section, the concrete is described as having expanded metal reinforcement, and in another it's described as un-reinforced? Which is correct? One, the other, or perhaps both, depending? This and much of the rest of the article needs sources. (Hohum ^@) 19:09, 7 December 2010 (UTC)

There is a picture of the Bison remains at East Kirby here (scroll down). It clearly shows the expanded metal reinforcement. I will look for a better source. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:20, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

To answer that question it's also necessary to define what "reinforcement" means. Does it mean pre-stressed rebar, rebar, or chicken wire? Chicken wire is commonly used in ad hoc concrete work, but it's not usually reinforcement as such, it's just to stop wet concrete slumping too much until it dries. I wouldn't expect too much of this for Bisons, as they were cast in faiurly good shuttering, but there's a lot of it involved with bunkers. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:17, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Another contradiction

Regarding the Bovington Bison:

"military Tartars only had single rear wheels, not double wheels as the civilian version."

"In period it's unlikely that a relatively modern military lorry would have been sacrificed in this way"

The Bovington Bison has double rear wheels, so it wasn't the military type.(Hohum ^@) 13:51, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

The Bovington example has two axles, with single wheels - i.e. a military chassis. "Double wheels" or "twin wheels" are pairs of wheels, mounted back-to-back on the same hub.

• Civilian, 2nd photo down
• Military

Andy Dingley (talk) 14:13, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Ahh. Would the following be clearer for the easily confused? "military Tartars only had two wheels per rear axle, not four wheels as the civilian version." (Hohum ^@) 14:21, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

"Twin wheel" is a fairly common term in the UK, amongst HGV drivers at least, if not military historians. Obviously it needs some clarification, as it has confused at least one reader, but I'd not want to start wording it as "two vs. four" (i.e. per axle) when the convention is to count per side. How about "military Tartars had one wheel on each side of the axle, civilian models had twin wheels with two wheels on each side". Andy Dingley (talk) 15:31, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Done, with a minor change for clarity. (Hohum ^@) 16:26, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

Final paragraph sense

The final paragraph begins "On 22 March 1991 the remains of the Bison were lifted and taken to The remains of a Bison are kept at the...". Obviously nonsense, so my edit of it tidies it up. 184.41.39.44 (talk) 04:21, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Welcome to wikipedia. You don't need to explain every edit and you were right that this needed a tidy up. However, I don't think it was necessary to remove the date. Gaius Cornelius (talk) 14:28, 11 March 2011 (UTC)

Undid Andy Dingley's incompetence

Dingley apparently doesn't know how to make a valid link, so I undid his hackwork and restored a better version of the article.—chbarts (talk) 21:53, 16 August 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.132.230.206 (talk)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Bison concrete armoured lorry. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121010013833/http://www3.hants.gov.uk/museum/thornycroft/lorries-1/model-range-1927/lorrydata-1927-31.htm to http://www3.hants.gov.uk/museum/thornycroft/lorries-1/model-range-1927/lorrydata-1927-31.htm
• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://www.warwheels.net/ThorneycroftBisonINDEX.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927004831/http://www.warwheels.net/ThorneycroftBisonBovingtonTROWBRIDGE.html to http://www.warwheels.net/ThorneycroftBisonBovingtonTROWBRIDGE.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:14, 21 July 2017 (UTC)