Talk:FV4401 Contentious

/* Comparable vehicles */

For some reason, Strv 103 is included in the list. Now, both having a gun and hydraulic suspension does NOT make them comparable. The strv 103 was a MBT, while the FV4401 explicitly was not intended for that role but on the other hand was supposed to be air-portable which the 103 has never been accused of. Does anyone have any arguments to keep the strv 103 in the list? BP OMowe (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course it makes them comparable, in that they are two vehicles where a relevant comparison can be made to some useful purpose. This is a technical comparison, about how each addressed the question of being turretless, it implies nothing about their assumed role. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Pardon, but I think you have misunderstood the concept of "comparable vehicles". The technical comparision is already in the article itself along with proper linking, but as a vehicle the FV4401 is no more comparable to the strv 103 than the strv 103 is to the French Char B that inspired the concept. An alternative, if the article text isn't enough,is to follow the example in strv 103, with the FV4401 placed under the heading "See also". BP OMowe (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

You think that they're derived from the Char B?! Go on, let's see you source that! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Here goes: Historien bakom stridsvagn 103 "S"

Med dessa ingångsvärden formerade Sven Berge sina tankar kring nästa generations svenska stridsvagn. Redan 1943 hade han läst i en tysk tidskrift om franska försök 1940 med en vagn som hade en grovkalibrig kanon lagrad i chassit vid sidan av föraren. Försöken, med utgångspunkt i stridsvagnen Char B, visade att riktning av vagnspjäsen i sidled kunde göras hydrostatiskt med hjälp av bandrörelser – överlagringsstyrning.

In short, the designer had read about the Char B's ability to lay the gun horizontally using the tracks through hydraulic steering, and incorporated that with the vertical adjustment from the selfpropelled anti-aircraftgun Luftvärnskanonvagn 42 (lvkv 42, later redesignated lvkv fm/49). Unfortunately I have not been able to locate much about the latter vehicle, as it never entered serial production since the budgetcuts had the army giving other things priority. I can give you some leads though:

• Mentions the lvkv's suspension
• Exerpt from Terry Gander's "The Bofors Gun"
• Other than that, a useful site to read original Swedish documents about armoured vehicles

BP OMowe (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)

With no further replies for almost a year, I'll go ahead and remove the S-tank from the list. BP OMowe (talk) 20:57, 5 May 2017 (UTC)

This is essentially a MOS:SEEALSO section. In my judgement the S-tank is an obvious entry to be included, whether the tanks are developmentally linked or not. Their *apparent* similarity, even if only visual, is enough. Reading each article will allow the reader to decide. I support inclusion. (Hohum ^@) 20:28, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Ditto Cinderella157 (talk) 04:38, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

Add the S-tank. Whatever the designation, the actual operational role would be (or would include) destroying enemy tanks. The design similarities with Jagdpanzern or SUs mean it belongs. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 20:50, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

While I fully support an inclusion under "See also", it seems you misunderstand the term "comparable vehicles". This is a very specific subsection with two criteria which both must be fulfilled: role - what the vehicle is intended for, and era - existing in the same time period as the other vehicles on the list. See for instance the Centurion or T-55 tanks or the articles about combat aircraft from WWII and forwards. I might also add that theMOS:SEEALSO actively discourages from including things already linked from the article to be in the "See Also"-list, and the S-tank is specifically mentioned and linked in the article: "This system had already been demonstrated in the Swedish S-tank".

On the contrary, the only operator of the S-tank (the Swedish army) made no operational separation between the Centurions and the S-tanks above platoon-level, meaning they were both considered able and expected to perform the same tasks in both defence and attack. That destroying enemy tanks was included doesn't make the S-tank a tank destroyer any more than the Centurions were (not), but simply a reality of tank warfare.

None the less, your opinions have been noted, and thus I change the section in a manner I hope will be an acceptable compromise. BP OMowe (talk) 19:12, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 8 September 2024

FV4401 Contentious → Contentious I – Correcting vehicle name JS2412 (talk) 20:55, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Sourcing? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:16, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

This man, Ed Francis from Armoured Archives (links can be found in article). He is a person who researches among others British military vehicles through the military archives. I doubt there are many persons more credible than him alive currently. JS2412 (talk) 22:43, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

So what are his qualifications for this? He has a YouTube channel. What else ? Andy Dingley (talk) 23:19, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

He is someone who reads the primary literature and presents it on youtube or through articles on his own or Bovington’s FB, and is recognized in this field by those who require accurate information about these obscure vehicles.

I do not know why qualifications are even required to simply relay the information already present in archive material, which should be deemed highly credible. I would direct to the relevant archive codes, but I obviously do not have access to them, only Bovington does. JS2412 (talk) 23:57, 8 September 2024 (UTC)

Bovington, the place where they proudly display their FV4401 Contentious, under (last time I looked) that title? Sadly Bovington's old website was a bit of a nightmare, impossible to bookmark, and is offline with no (AFAIK) archive of it.

Now maybe they've changed that. Last time I see they posted about it they weren't using either qualifier on the name, but they were (which is definitely wrong) describing it as a 'tank'.

Obviously this all comes down to 2015, and the release of WO 194/1351. This article has needed an update since then, although this article is about the vehicle in Bovington, not either of the broader projects.

There are several questions here:

* What was Project Contentious? "A Possible Future Main Battle Tank" as the 1959 WO 194/1351 puts it. And yet here we are looking at air portability, which would seem to rule that out owing to weight. So the original goal is already sliding around.

* Which came first? The two-crew tank destroyer or the single-crew tank concept?

* Which was allocated the FV4401 number? The physical built chassis, or the paper concept?

* Was UXM127 ever a prototype for an air-portable tank destroyer, or was it merely a small and cheap chassis for something entirely different? It was used for testing the optical ranging system.

* How does Chobham armour fit into this, and is Contentious really much more influential long-term than it was ever widely thought to be? (That's something that would be usefully added to the Chobham article)

I've little idea between FV4401 Contentious and Contentious I. Everything I've seen supports FV4401 being attached to the UXM127, I've seen no clear sourcing to contradict this. But then I've not looked in Kew or Bovington's archives. But this is a very minor aspect anyway, it's just the label attached. Despite the flurry of editing last night, nothing substantive changes. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:20, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Nope, Bovington proudly displays their Contentious under the name “Contentious”. Any added FV designation is always added by internet people simply copying the designation, erroneously.

The only changes I’ve made are regarding the name of the vehicle, so most of your question are not relevant to me, though Ed’s work does shed some light on it. IIRC, the contentious I was a testbed for the Contentious’s hydropneumatic suspension system, and was never intended to become a prototype, let alone be used in service. The square blocky thing the gun is mounted in appears to have been added some time later, as it is not present on the original Contentious I testbed, and appears to have been added to test a new sight system similar to the US’s OPTAR system.

The steel mockups that can be found in a field somewhere appear a lot closer to what the final vehicle would have become, though these mockups themselves were nothing more than tests to test the air drop-ability of tanks, of which the knowledge gained would later be used in the development of the Sheridan. There were also tests for the armor, which may have aided in the development of Chobham armor, but I do not remember. These tests would then culminate in a “Contentious prototype”, which never happened.

Regarding the FV4401 designation, this was only for the concept (or concepts, this may have been a project involving multiple designs) with the twin externally mounted guns, not the testbed present at Bovington. IIRC, there was around a decade between these projects, and the lessons learned from the earlier FV4401 project would be used in later projects, of which an example is that one-man crews were deemed inferior, and therefore vehicles were now to have at least a two-man crew.

The Contentious projects sharing a name is nothing special either. There were three “Chimera” projects, a TD, a heavy tank, and a light TD, all unrelated, except for their name, with decades in between.

Either way, the burden of proof falls on those saying the FV4401 designation should be added to Bovington’s vehicle, since proving a negative is nigh-impossible. I have yet to see anyone use it who isn’t from reddit or online fora. Unless you or anyone for that matter is able to provide legitimate sourcing for the FV4401 designation being used for specifically the Bovington testbed vehicle, the FV4401 designation should be removed.

And yes, the naming should be accurate. Attributing the wrong name to this vehicle undermines this entire article’s legitimacy. I’m honestly surprised how hard it is to fight misinformation, so I don’t think I’ll be engaging in any more Wikipedia editing after this, but I definitely have more respect for those who do.

PS: Why can I not make paragraphs here, is this text field just restricted like that? JS2412 (talk) 13:13, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

• So what dates do you think apply to the single-crew description, and to UXM127 ? Or anything. Which came first?

What vehicle was the Contentious slatted armour intended for? Would this have been air-portable? Because armour of that bulk seems more like the original Contentious MBT project scope, not either the two-crew tank destroyer nor the single crew tank. So is that a piece of work under Contentious that went nowhere, because neither vehicle plan could really make use of it?

Formatting here is a little awkward, because the indent used on talk pages doesn't work quite the same way. MediaWiki isn't great on consistency. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:03, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

I will remain somewhat vague here, as I do not feel qualified to go into much depth about this at all. I am simply repeating what Ed has presented to us, and therefore am an additional link in the chain who is vulnerable to inaccuracies. If you want more accurate information, look at Ed’s work yourself or better yet, ask him directly. I think he is still active on his Facebook. Of course, Ed is likely not the only person who has information relevant to project Prodigal and its sub-projects. I just simply only know of Ed due to him publishing his work online.

One thing I do know (again, from Ed’s research), is that the FV4401 Contentious concept is the earlier project, as stated in a previous reply, where the single-crew configuration was explored. The Contentious vehicles as part of project Prodigal came years after, of which the Contentious I testbed is a part of. As for dates, I think the FV4401 was an early 50s project and the Contentious I as part of a late 50s project. But really, you should not take my word for it. I am only advocating for the name change, which I am confident about. JS2412 (talk) 14:43, 9 September 2024 (UTC)