Talk:M103 heavy tank

Surviving examples

There is (or was) an M103A2 version (Reg No. 233026, MFG 2-65) located in the vehicle extrication training area at Ft. Sam Houston, TX. Rakkasan (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

References

M103 Nickname

Please stop reverting the changes done to remove the nickname of the M103. It was never called the "Longstreet", either officially or unofficially. Thanks muchly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.125.11.1 (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If R.P. Hunnicutt and Kenneth Estes cannot find anything about the M103 being called the "Longstreet", it never was called the "Longstreet". Please stop reverting the changes

131.125.11.1 (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The assertions you make are based on Original research which violates Wikipedia's policies on research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharoahjared (talk • contribs) 03:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? You're the one who's adding a name to the M103 of which it never received, with no proof whatsoever. How is that not violating Wiki's OR policy?

131.125.11.1 (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you check my original edit you will see that I added a citation unlike you. Pharoahjared (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC) What citation? There's only been two, both of Hunnicutt's A History of the American Heavy Tank and this is even with your original edit 131.125.11.1 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's my source, in fact here is the page in question. Pharoahjared (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And that is a load of bollocks. Same page, same book: [1]. There is no mention of Longstreet anywhere in that page or pages near it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.125.11.1 (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your copy does not the relevant sentence, perhaps a scanning error? Also both of our pages have Combat as part of the name so let's agree to keep that no matter what Pharoahjared (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's no scanning error. That's called blatant photoshop in your case. Again, there is no evidence for the 120mm Gun Tank M103 being called "Longstreet" either officially or unofficially. 131.125.11.1 (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

How rude. Actually it would be easier remove the relevant text then it would be to add it in. According to Occam's Razor you're the one doing the photo-editing. Pharoahjared (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's just as easy to add text (especially if you know the typeface) as it is to remove it. Source: I have done both many times. 131.125.11.1 (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't play people for fools; anyone can see the mention of Longstreet is a photoshop addition. And if you want to get anal about the 'combat' part, then the full designation is correctly "Tank, Combat, Full Tracked, 120mm Gun, M103" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.146.185.97 (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you are so eager of accusing people of Photoshop I must assume your the one using Photoshop and in fact have removed the sentence from your picture. Pharoahjared (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am responding on a mobile device, so I fail to see how it would be possible for me to photoshop out a line of text especially as the device I am on does not support photo editing like that or a PDF reader. Ergo, the only logical conclusion is that you added in that line of text in a desperate measure to prove your horribly wrong point, one that has no basis in fact or has any actual evidence to support it. 131.125.11.1 (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the scan provided looks like it has been "doctored" and bears no resemblance to the contents of the actual book. Nothing supports the "Longstreet" nickname claim. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. In the doctored image with the added sentence there are 4 major errors that stand out:

1. The type face is smaller/thinner/shorter than the rest type in the document
2. There is no space between the period and the beginning of the added sentence
3. the sentence lacks the fading of the rest of the page and type-writer font peculiarity of the letters used elsewhere on the page.
4. the sentence extends into the margin beyond the rest of the column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuanil (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

lmfao this kid was seriously trying to pass this off as a scan, like absolutely nobody was going to notice the total lack of jpeg artifacts around the added text? one should never underestimate the audacity of a tween, I guess – 162.197.231.118 (talk) 14:50, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

I have the book too and it on page 124 says nothing about it be named Longstreet by the troops...Brian D Gray

References

Allegedly it's gun was the same one as in Conquerer

The M58 is just a L1A1 with different ammo 68.117.198.47 (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Hm, the Conqueror article says about the L1A1 gun: "'The new, larger-calibre gun design was American, the same as used on the US M103 heavy tank;[5] with separate charge and projectile, as would also be the case in the Chieftain that followed.". And since that is sourced, we should stick with it. Alexpl (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Museum exhibit

According to the article, there was an M103 at the Military Vehicle Technology Foundation. That museum is now closed and many of the vehicles that were there have been moved to another museum. Did the M103 move to the new museum? DMarti (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)