Talk:Char D1

The FT sections don't need to take up so much space.

While the D1's lineage comes from the FT, why so much info about the FT variants? Shouldn't that all be in with the FT and just referenced by this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.226.163 (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Well, these are in fact direct precursors of the Char D1. Their importance mainly resides in forming the developmental path, in the postwar period, leading to it. So, a more detailed description of these vehicles is more appropriate here than in the FT article — from which it would have to be split off under the "Summary Style" policy, had it been part of it. This is also the way this information tends to be presented in the secondary literature. And, strictly speaking, only the "FT Kegrèsse", treated in a short paragraph, is a real FT variant. The Char D1 simply had a rather complicated design history. It can't be helped so it is best to embrace it :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)

Why would the French Army keep a large stable for mad horses?

In the "Final Fights" subsection, last sentence of the first paragraph, it says

When the Italian armistice control commission visited, these tanks were successfully hidden behind the stable for mad horses.

These seems odd, because:

1. ) What the heck.
2. ) "Mad" means "rabid" in this context, does it not? Unless they are referring to "Mad Horse Disease", which apparently is very rare and was not diagnosed at this time (I think). I doubt that "angry" or "insane" is meant.
3. ) In which case, why would you keep them in a stable? Rabid animals are put down right away I think. Mad Horse Disease is unpleasant and incurable I believe.
4. ) And not only that, but have enough of these rabid (or whatever) animals that you need a stable big enough to hide twenty light tanks behind.

So, I just marked this as dubious and here is thread for this to be explained. Herostratus (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)