Talk:Tank/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Tank Commander redirects here

I've been searching around the thread for the rank a tank commander would have, and what the tank crew would come to be (I know there is a driver, but it would be nice to know what rank he has. I'm not sure if this thread would be the best to write about this, but it would be far more easy to search "tank crew" and be redirected here than to have to search through all kinds of seargents or other officers to see which one is given command of a tank, or is able to drive one. If someone knows about this it would be nice to have it put here. What do you think? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uberflaven (talk • contribs) 20:20, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, if tank commander redirects here then something needs to be done. Unfortunately, different armies have different command structures so that a US tank commander A. has a higher official rank than a UK tank commander B. has less experience and responsibility because his orders are more detailed and explicit. Also, I assume you know that there are officers and NCOs (non-commissioned officers). Tankers tend to be NCOs, unless they are section / platoon leaders, or they're green. Also, men of different ranks can occupy the same position in the same army depending on individual skill / experience. To answer your question, this is the best I can glean from a quick search around:

• Commander - US Staff Sergeant or 2nd lieutenant, UK Corporal or Sergeant
• Driver - US Sergeant, UK Private / Lance-corporal
• Gunner - US Sergeant / Corporal / Specialist, UK Private / Lance-corporal
• Assistant - US Private / Specialist, UK Private
• Loader/mechanic - Private / Specialist, UK Private

This is a rough first guess from online (read untrustworthy) sources. I would be delighted if someone corrects me. Dhatfield (talk) 20:21, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Note*-During the Vietnam War; US Army, Armor Battalions: the new crewman, a PFC (Private First Class/E-3) was normally slotted into the drivers or loaders position aboard the M48A3 Patton tanks (diesel powered). A tank platoon of 5 Pattons was led by a 2nd or 1st Lieutenant, his Platoon Sgt was an (E-7) SFC (Sgt First Class). The platoon leader (LT) TC'd one tank, his Plt Sgt TC'd one tank, the remaining platoon of 3 Pattons were TC'd by E-5's or E-6's. The gunner's position on the M48 was an authorized E-5 (Buck Sgt/three strips) or E-6 (SSG/Staff Sgt) position (the gunner was slotted as second in command of the tank). But in Vietnam, tanks SELDOM operated with a gunner (they almost always operated with 3 man crews); the TC fired the 90mm main gun from the "TC over-ride" (fired from the hip). In Vietnam, tank platoons consisted of 5 Pattons each, 3 platoons per company, plus 2 Pattons in HQ's platoon (Captain's and XO's tank); 17 Pattons per tank company. One tank crew might consist of 2 enlisted men (E-3/E-4) and a SGT as TC. A tank company was supposed to be led by 3 Second Lieutenants, 1 First Lieutenant as an XO (Executive Officer), and 1 Captain (Company Commander). But in the war, usually everyone got promoted a grade, consequently; 3 platoons each led by 1st LT's, a 1st LT for XO...E-5 SGT TC's were often E-6 SSG TC's. Tank drivers and tank gun loader's were always E-1, E-2, E-3, E-4's (Private, Private, Private First Class, SP4/Specialist 4th Class). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.114.15.192 (talk) 04:01, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

To give you a rough idea of what those ranks mean in real terms, a US tank commander is 25 or so and a UK tank commander would be around 27 years old. Privates are recruits who have passed basic and some tank specific training. Dhatfield (talk) 20:23, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Correction. A UK Sergeant would probably be 27. A UK tank commander would be around 25 (Cpl.) - lots of guessing going on here. Dhatfield (talk) 20:35, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

In the U.S. Army a tank commander can be anything E-5 and above. It depends on the position he's in in the platoon. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:24, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

From United States Army enlisted rank insignia, that would be a Sergeant, yes? Dhatfield (talk) 20:29, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

Yes, although you might be right that it's Staff Sergeant (E-6) and above. I could always ask on Tank-Net. JonCatalán^(Talk) 20:54, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

A UK tank commander can be a Corporal upwards (missing Sgt Major) all officers up to and including Brigadier. Brigadier Patrick Cordingley 7th Armoured Brigade commanded the brigade from his Challenger 1 during the Gulf War --Jim Sweeney (talk) 17:12, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

The long process to FA

After I get the article TAM through FAC, I want to start working on this article. I don't think any tank article is more important than this one, and getting this one to FA will open to road to various FA articles dealing with "subtopics" (i.e. history of the tank). It's going to be a long process, and I will mostly rewrite large portions of the text and add in various different sources and references. What I want to do before I start is take the time to get some type of support "movement"—in other words, a dedicated number of editors (especially from the military land vehicles task force) to help copyedit my prose (an important issue) and make sure I don't make any mistakes, or what I write should not be in the text. I will probably open a peer review as I start to edit the article, so that we can peer review the article on section at a time. Then, when I finish the main part of the rewrite I will probably list this for GA, and simultaneously for A-class—while the peer review remains open. When these two different criteria are passed, and everything in the peer review is dealt with, I will then nominate this article for FA class. I suspect this process will take over a month, depending on how motivated I feel to rewrite the text—this is a long article. What do you all think? JonCatalán^(Talk) 02:20, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I'm here! —Michael Z. 2008-10-02 05:44 z

Sorry for the long absense: work is wreaking havoc with my WP contributions. I would very much like to see what you do with the article. Unfortunately I cannot offer 'real-time' support but if a major rewrite gets under way I will make a point of dropping by more often. I agree 100% that this article (ranked 3167th in traffic on WP[1]) is our most important article. I wish we could get rid of all the vandals to pick up on the important edits. Perhaps a rewrite in a sandbox would be easier? Dhatfield (talk) 17:37, 6 January 2009 (UTC)

Lead image

Changing the lead image is becoming ridiculous. In my opinion, the answer lies within avoiding images of tanks currently in use; that avoids any nationalism. Perhaps we should just have an image of one of the first tanks? But, we need to agree on some sort of image for the lead, and avoid these random image changes (what value does the Arjun provide over than of the Al-Khalid?). JonCatalán^(Talk) 06:10, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Agree, edit-warring ridiculous and those involved should be ashamed. Would support putting a picture of a Mk I Male/Female as the lead pic as example of the first tank - or perhaps some form of montage. Skinny87 (talk) 10:29, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Given that the first generation of tanks looked very different from all subsequent generations, I think that a montage would work best. I agree that the nationalist edit warring is silly, and the current photo of an Arjun is unsuitable given that it's a fairly obscure and unsuccessful design (the Indian Army has recently canceled further development and will cease production after about 150 tanks) and the photo isn't even very clear. Nick-D (talk) 10:44, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I'd prefer a typical modern tank, or at least something with the stereotyped turret and gun, to a Mark I. I'm not wild about a focus-grouped montage designed to please everybody, but I'll accept it if that's what it takes.

What about a selection of good tank photos, which rotate at intervals, or appear at random? —Michael Z. 2009-01-20 15:22 z

Causes problems with the idea that wikipedia is meant to work just as well offline.Geni 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Well, no one says that it's the same offline. As long as each one of the photos is acceptable, then rotating them prevents a single one from hogging the majority of page views. Anyone producing an offline version can decide to choose one, if they want to. —Michael Z. 2009-01-20 18:55 z

For the lead image I would suggest either one of the more signifcant tanks from WW2 (the most significant war in which tanks played a centeral part). Probably either the T-34 or the panther. Otherwise a t-54/55 as the most produced tanks series. In adition the image should probably be in colour.Geni 18:07, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Not bad, but these may suffer from some of the same controversies. For example, in my opinion, while the Panther is a favourite of all the WWII German tank fans, that's because it's the only good tank design of the bunch. On the other hand, the T-34 is historically significant because it originated the “universal tank” concept which led to MBTs.

We also have a small selection of featured photos here, at the tank portal, and at Commons. Maybe it's time to pick some tank photos to nominate for WP:FP. —Michael Z. 2009-01-20 18:50 z

• 
• 
• 
• 

The only image that really shows the subject well is the .svg. Otherwise, I'd support an image of the T-55. It's more or less neutral, since it gained its fame through production, as opposed through nationalism. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:09, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

As for getting more images for FP (which I need; I need at least another 6 for the portal), very few images are good enough quality to pass. JonCatalán^(Talk) 19:12, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Only two of feautured pics show an complete tank. I'm not sure how well File:M1 Abrams-TUSK.svg would scale down and while File:AlfredPalmerM3tank1942b.jpg is a good pic about the only thing the M3 has going for it is as a transition from the pre-war to WW2 proper tanks.Geni 19:13, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I know they're not really suitable, but we should aspire to a building park of featured tank pictures to choose from in the future.

One place to look is some of the PD photos from the US military. Yeah, I don't want “tank” to become stereotyped as “M1 Abrams”, but this is one government that has got it right in making public information accessible to the public. Some candidates, credits to Uncle Sam. —Michael Z. 2009-01-20 22:09 z

• 
• 
• 
• 
• 
• 

Why not File:T-55 skos RB.jpg? A Polish T-55; a very uncontroversial image, IMO. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:30, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

I like that one, although I'd prefer a tank in service to a museum exhibit. Certainly is representative, as the most common tank ever built. —Michael Z. 2009-01-20 22:48 z

Obviously, we all would... which is why we currently have edit wars between someone putting an image of the M1, another an image of the Arjun, et cetera. I think it's best to avoid tanks currently in service. JonCatalán^(Talk) 22:56, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• 

We have a number of T54/55 in action shots and a few better museam shots.Geni 23:04, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• File:T-55 Iraq.jpg
• 
• 
• 

I prefer an action shot. The lead I put in is defensible on the grounds that it has historical significance and it's a derivative of a featured picture. I have no preference for US tanks, but let's face it, they're the best pics in PD. I hope we put quality first. The T-55 images I have seen do not make we want to read the article. Also made significant changes to other images trying to get a bit more of a diverse spread of image types relevant to the text, rather than a parade of tanks. Hope you like them. Dhatfield (talk) 20:31, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I support File:T-55 skos RB.jpg because it's a steroetypical tank. The M3 Lee has rather unique characteristics not shared by any other tank and is a poor example.--Patton^t/c 22:07, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm no fan of museum shots and I'm not convinced it's representative of current tank designs, but I'm happy to see we have consensus. We could really benefit from more images of something other than the M1 in action - and even those we have aren't great. Change implemented. Dhatfield (talk) 01:54, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

Almost forgot: please review the caption. I think it's a bit dire but I have no other information to draw on here. Dhatfield (talk) 02:00, 14 April 2009 (UTC)

On large numbers of T-34 and Russian Winter.

IF you do not know about Eastern front and weapons used ther, then please do not mention it and let someone else, hopefullly more knowledgable write on the issue. Statement that soviets responded to heavier german tanks with building larger numbers of T-34??? As I said, let someone else handle the question if you do not know the facts. T-34's were upgunned, but were not in any way a response to german heavier tanks. I changed the article appropriately, noting IS-2 and self-propelled tank destroyers. Regarding russian winter, how did it stop german blitzkrieg? Wouldn't any winter stop blitzkrieg? If it was winter that stopped the blitzkrieg, why is it that it did not continue after winter was gone? I will give you a hint: "Russian Winter" an article on wikipedia itself is very informative on the issue of russian winter stopping anybody, with famous quotes from german high command. Feel free to check this out and not make such silly claims, it is not encyclopedic. Wikipedia please do not embarass yourself like that. :) Sincerely yours99.231.50.118 (talk) 02:12, 25 February 2009 (UTC)Pavel Golikov.

Wikipedia is not an editor. Constructive criticism is always welcome; please take other forms of criticism elsewhere. Dhatfield (talk) 04:02, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

I am reviewing your edit. You state "In the meantime, soviets responded with their own heavier designs, superior to german Tiger and Panther, namely, IS-2, also, self-propelled anti-tank guns were built to counter german newer tanks." We will overlook the fact that this sentence is grammatically incorrect. More importantly, you statement contains uncited opinion and as such violates Wikipedia policy. Since the (albeit cited) sentence "In the meantime, the Soviets increased T-34 production for a huge quantitative advantage." is disputed I have removed it, as well the reference to the Russian Winter, although I believe that freezing of the overlapping roadwheels of the German tanks was a significant issue for them. I cannot cite it, so it is gone. In future, please meet Wikipedia's standards for inline citation and a neutral point of view (NPOV). Dhatfield (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

In light of the need for mention of the Soviet developments I have replaced the above biased and highly controversial statement with "Soviet developments following the invasion included upgunning the T-34, development of self-propelled anti-tank guns such as the SU-152 and deployment of the IS-2 in the closing stages of the war." Note that this is not cited, but at least meets Wikipedia's standards for NPOV, grammar and linking. Dhatfield (talk) 17:38, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Tank Shop Ref

Great article - have added a reference to the naming of Tanks - this is from a book about the North British Locomotive works in Glasgow. Someone may want to tweak the ref to sit with other materials. the books ISBN is1871980100 Sulzer55 (talk) 01:29, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

New Lead Picture

Username 1 (talk) 20:33, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

While it is a clear picture of a tank, it is rather bland and diagram-like. It's also may cause some counter chest beating for being too American centric for a generic article. My preference would be a clear shot of an important historical tank in its "natural surroundings". Like, but not limited to: Mark I, Pz IV, T-34, T-55, Centurion, T-72, M1 etc. Of course the debate on which to use is likely to cause a significant amount of chest beating too. Perhaps a collage of several important tanks though the generations? Hohum (talk) 23:59, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

I like this picture because it illustrates both reactive and composite armor and will soon show cage armor. Username 1 (talk) 15:24, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

You might also notice (I only just did; look up a couple of entries) that the T-55 image was chosen just a few weeks ago, by consensus of several prodigious military editors. Hohum (talk) 19:20, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

but this picture was made a week or so ex post facto. Username 1 (talk) 19:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Ex post facto? You swallowed a legal thesaurus? ;)

I think the normal protocol when consensus has been reached, is to build new consensus when you find new resources... but then again, doing things boldly is also the wiki way. So confusing ;) Still, there don't appear to be any complaints - your choice of picture doesn't seem to have been as contentious as I thought it might be. Hohum (talk) 23:38, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

I think this single type of tank is too restrictive. Atleast 2 pictures should be shown; one of a vehicle with the caterpillar threads under the crew cabin and one with the caterpillar threads moving over entire vehicle (such as with the (fictional) corporate alliance tank droid See this site 91.176.6.252 (talk) 08:40, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

i'd like to see an S-tank (tank with no turret) picture too.username 1 (talk) 18:40, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

i'd also like to see a light tank such as the FV107 Scimitar.username 1 (talk) 15:55, 15 September 2009 (UTC)

Reverted to T-55 per April consensus until we have consensus on a collage. Dhatfield (talk) 23:05, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

What kind/vintage of tank is this?

I took this picture yesterday on the Cornwallis Street side of the Halifax Armoury (see new pic there). I'm unfamiliar with military gear so am posting this here, as I'll gladly add it to whichever article it belongs on....

. No doubt this particular tank has a history to it, but I haven't asked the armoury (yet).Skookum1 (talk) 16:50, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an M4 Sherman, and the barrel looks long enough that it might even be a Sherman Firefly. Hope that helps. Skinny87 (talk) 17:11, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know of your reply....I'll ask at the armoury for the details of this tank's battle history; it probably has one; by its name "Hellfire" I'm guessing you're probably right about it being a Firefly, so I'll wait before adding it to one of the two pages in question. Thanks for the info.Skookum1 (talk) 19:22, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

It's a Sherman with the US 76mm gun, so it's not a Firefly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.40.251.230 (talk) 20:31, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

A couple of questions

The introduction currently states " Tanks were first introduced by the French and also used by the British during World War I as a means to break the deadlock of trench warfare." I'm not much of a WWI buff, can someone please check the accuracy of this statement.

Secondly, I see that we do not meet B-class criteria on the grounds of insufficient referencing and citation. In my opinion, this is setting the bar for B-class a little high. What are your thoughts? Dhatfield (talk) 22:43, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

If we are to fail a B-class criterion, I would say it should be on the grounds of our dismal coverage of the 21st century. Dhatfield (talk) 22:46, 16 September 2009 (UTC)

There are large portions without references, that is insufficient for B class. Hohum (talk) 23:50, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Re intro: good to go. Brits get the credit, but both Fr & Br developed tanks independently. The idea was to restore mobility to the trench stalemate by giving infantry something like mobile cover (IIRC; I don't have Mackesey at hand), which Ger arty had made next to impossible. (MGs get most of the credit for that, mistakenly.) TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:52, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

Section relocation

Should we move the Research and development section to the bottom of the history section? I say yes. username 1 (talk) 21:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

WP:Be bold. Post a nationale here if you think it's likely to be contested. Dhatfield (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

Images again

Thanks for the contribution, but I don't believe the Lavavassuer diagram meets our standards for quality and/or technical illustrative value and/or historical significance. The image does not have an adequate description of what it is or where it is from (own work doesn't really say enough) to judge historical significance or potential copyright issues. On a technical note, diagrams are best in SVG (Inkscape rocks), .png is second prize, jpg is out. Dhatfield (talk) 01:31, 25 October 2009 (UTC)

The Vezdekhod: A "Monotank"?

Because the Vezdekhod has only One Track, it can be considered "the very first Monotank".

Unfortunately, Wikipedia doesn't seem to have any information in reference to other vehicles of its type. --Arima (talk) 07:12, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

I found something called the "Objective Interim Lightweight Marmoset Monotank": [2] --Arima (talk) 07:27, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Since steering would be a major issues with such a design I doubt there have been any others built.©Geni 03:02, 20 December 2009 (UTC)

Future?

Can anyone tell me if the tank has a future at all?

Here's why I ask. Tanks are costly, heavy, slow, and impossible to hide. They are easily destroyed by modern weaponry, notably from attack helicopters but also with hand-held weapons. In this sense they are analagous to battleships, long since rendered obsolete. Battleships were deleted because of slowness, ease of detection, vulnerability to modern (at the time) weapons, cost, and short offensive range. Doesn't the same apply to tanks?

I put this question to an army officer and he couldn't answer it! Any thoughts gratefully received. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Vvmodel (talk • contribs) 12:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The following section was lifted from another article. This has since been deleted. You might also be interested in the canceled Future Combat Systems manned ground vehicles and the ongoing replacement for this, the BCT Ground Combat Vehicle Program. username 1 (talk) 15:09, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Obsolence

On several occasions the tank has been declared obsolete, and expected to be replaced by cheaper, faster, lighter amoured cars. This has been either to increases in the perceived vulnerability of tanks to other battlefield weapons or in the transfer of tank qualities (mobility, fire-power) to other battlefield components.

The first such declaration came about because of the introduction of wire-guided missile in the 1960s, which allowed a small team, typically two men, to defeat any tank on the battlefield at fairly long ranges. Tank designers responded with increased armour, composite armour, and reactive armour systems, which while they do not entirely defeat this threat, require the size and weight of a missile needed to defeat a modern MBT to be much larger and less portable.

This declaration was made again in the 1970s with the widespread introduction of larger missiles, this time mounted on helicopter gunships. "Fighting tanks can't survive under hostile skies, and under friendly skies they have no purpose."

In more modern times the ending of the Cold War has once again led to a discussion of the role of the tank on the modern unconventional warfare "battlefield." Rapid deployment and mobility when fighting light forces appears to be much more important than capabilities against other tanks. Belgium has recently re-equipped its two tank battalions with 8×8 wheeled vehicles. In the first decade of the 21st century, Canada had begun to liquidate its park of 30-year-old Leopard tanks in favour of the eight-wheeled Mobile Gun System—but after finding the need to send Leopards to Afghanistan the decision was reversed, and new, more heavily armoured Leopard 2A6Ms have been acquired and sent into action. Denmark has deployed tanks to Afghanistan as well, and the US Army found tanks to be extremely useful in the ongoing conflict in Iraq.

To accommodate for the changing role the manufacturer Krauss Maffei Wegmann has designed a concept-Leopard 2 called the PSO (peace support operation) that is supposed to be more fitted for tasks in peace-keeping operations and in urban areas (not normally a favorite area of deployment for MBTs).

This isn't a forum, so I'll assume that this conversation is really suggesting that we should expand the article with this topic. ;)

Tanks were vulnerable in WWII as well, and were destroyed in the tens of thousands, but they were still of great importance. It seems now that if Western tanks prove unsuitable for counter insurgency, or any tank unsuitable for urban combat, they're deemed obsolete.. yet they were never any good at those roles. They still excel at others.

My personal opinion is that, like aircraft, western tank replacements will increasingly become unmanned as human casualties become less bearable.. if Infantry arms could do without personnel as well, they would.

But for the article, we need some decent sources... Hohum (talk) 19:57, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Some very good points - thanks. This is indeed not a forum, and I think that a section on the future (if any) of tanks is necessary.

About better armour, and again pursuing the battleship analogy, battleships did not become obsolete simply because of vulnerability - navies could have protected them from air attack had it been worth it. Battleships became obsolete because their hitting range was vastly exceeded by carriers. The same now seems to apply to tanks - helo-launched missiles have a far greater range than tank guns. Since a ground attack helo could now wipe out an entire squadron of tanks, one has to wonder if army air units will lobby for funds to be spent on helos rather than tanks. I suspect that this will happen (though, as Col. Mitchell found out, it will take much longer than logic might suggest).--Vvmodel (talk) 15:13, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Helicopters have proved vulnerable to even low tech ballistic AA even when enjoying complete air superiority, let alone facing advanced systems in contested airspace. Hohum 19:01, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Chobham armour

This article says "Almost every advanced Main Battle Tank is fitted with the British 'Chobham Armour' design; with two examples being the American 'M1 Abrams' and the German 'Leopard II", but the Chobham armour articles says "Though it is often claimed to be otherwise, the Leopard 2 in fact does not use Chobham armour, but pure perforated armour, avoiding the very large procurement, maintenance and replacement costs of those ceramic armour systems not based on the cheap but rather ineffective alumina." and also has a reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.134.118.22 (talk) 12:58, 5 February 2010 (UTC)

RPG29

I've removed the RPG-29 can pierce the frontal armor of a challenger tank sentance, simply because one incident does not mean anything. There are intances where abrams and challengers have shrugged off rpg 29 hits with ease, so it is just plain idiotic to draw conclusions based on one incident. If someone want to rewrite the sentance to state tanks' armor has been compromised by rpg's in certain circumstances rather that the generalised statement I removed, feel free.--85.108.81.79 (talk) 17:31, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for staying vigilant. Dhatfield (talk) 05:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

It seems that sentence was added back on to the Countermeasures sentence. Also, I would like to see your reference to the M1 Abrams shrugging off hits from the RPG-29. Victory in Germany (talk) 19:29, 27 July 2010 (UTC)

Infobox

Hohum and Bahamut0013 have both removed infoboxes I set up on Light tank and super-heavy tank even though it's stated on Template:Infobox weapon that using infoboxes for general types of weapons is okay if only the general characteristics are used. I also note that this page has an infobox and no one has an issue with that. Editors are invited to edit my drafts of Medium tank and Heavy tank. Marcus Aurelius Antoninus (talk) 19:29, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

I don't think the infobox adds any utility to this article (either). Caterpillar track isn't a suspension type, the rest of the information should be in the lead anyway, and is so generic as to be pointless to include in an infobox. A tank has a gun and armour... Infoboxes are useful as a quick way to show a significant amount of data about a subject, not so great for a tiny amount of very generic information. (Hohum ^@) 20:16, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

The date of make of the the T-55 tank and the origin on the introduction page

Hello, I wish to state that the information for the T-55 on the introduction for the page "Tank" does not link in with the page "T-55". The page "Tank" states that the origin is the United Kingdom and France while the page "T-55" refers to the origin as the Soviet Union. Also I wish to address that the date for when the T-55 tank was made states it was made in 1915 when in fact the first tanks did not appear till late 1917. The page "T-55" states the date as 1950.

Thankyou, Sam Walker, United Kingdom —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.137.78.104 (talk) 20:36, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

The image in the infobox is of a T-55 because it is an archetypal tank, the infobox information is about tanks in general. (Hohum ^@) 21:34, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

Lead image

Having noted some ho-ha and to-and-fro over the introductory image, I thought I'd advance an idea. Why not use a montage shot (see World War II for an example) to illustrate a few tanks. Further to that idea I would suggest one from each of these categories: First World War, Second World War, Cold War and Modern.GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:58, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

Hi Graeme, I remember having an edit war with you over the DUKW..heh heh XD. On a serious note, great Idea. But There should be a British tank as the first picture, as that would suit the origin far better.

Willdasmiffking (talk) 19:10, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm against the multiple image. A single tank obviously gives an image that's clearer over the range of screen sizes we have to work with. As "tank" is rather narrower scope than "WWII", we don't have the same need to show this time-lapse evolution. Even for WWII, I think it would be improved if the collage was replaced by the single Stuka image - I find that collage pretty confused at typical sizes and I have to stare hard to discern what I'm looking at.

One simple image of a tank should suffice. This should be a 3/4 view of the "developed" form of the tank, i.e. anything from WW2 onwards, and should distinctly show the main features of tracks, turret and main gun. One without side skirts would be preferable, showing roadwheels or suspension. Other than that, I wouldn't mind if it was a T55, a Sherman or a Panther. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:13, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

If it was a multiple image I would have suggested the British "Heavy" for the First World War as being one of the iconic images of a tank. Most modern tanks look very similar - slabby sides with skirts and a big gun. For the Second World War and Cold War there are several tanks that can be considered iconic. There are one two images that are iconic for tanks and illustrative but not free - eg Soviet tanks rolling into Hungary in 1956. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:29, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

One image at a time is probably best. If we go with a British image now, we should probably go with one frome another country and era next time, probably a German tank. - BilCat (talk) 19:40, 7 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm not sure if this has been suggested before, but why not an image of a tank museum? Not of the museum itself, but perhaps of different tanks lined up. There is an image, for example, of several tanks lined up for trials in Greece or Turkey (can't remember), including both Russian and Western tanks. It is a bit different from a montage in that the entire image is shot to clearly show all the tanks lined up. JonCatalán^(Talk) 18:39, 8 October 2010 (UTC)

I'm honored you selected my upload as the interim lead image. I tried to find images of multiple tanks in the same frame on flickr but couldn't find any good ones. Marcus Qwertyus 23:24, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

I actually like the idea of a museum display, if one can be found. That does raise a question of which era should be emphasised; by what I've seen on other pages, where the model has changed but remained in service, the current is favored. (I'm not entirely convinced by that, but...) Also, if it's to be done, do we deem it necessary to include U.S. & Sov? & Brit? & PRC? & German? TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:57, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

The reason for the use of the T55 is that it is the most produced tank ever and it appears about halfway through the history of the tank. If we wanted to use a modern western tank the US army has produced plently of abramss pics.©Geni 10:02, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

Following Catalan's suggestion, I've searched high and low, and this is the best I can find: File:Tanks at Aalborg Defence and Garrison Museum.jpg. (Hohum ^@) 11:17, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

I used to have a picture of, I believe, the Leopard 2, T-84, T-80, Abrams, and Challenger 2, lined up for the Greek tank trials, but I have since lost all of those images since my computer crashed about two years ago. It was probably copyrighted, but I knew the author and could have asked him for permission. I have been trying to look around for it. JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:09, 17 October 2010 (UTC)

What About Future Tanks?

In this article, there happens to be nothing about future tanks and models, which seems to be a little peculiar.69.209.218.233 (talk) 22:16, 25 October 2010 (UTC) 5:15PM 25 October 2010

Simple - no references. Doug (talk) 19:41, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

NBC systems

I can see its not a very complete article, but could someone add that tanks have had NBC systems fitted to them since the 1960s?Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:07, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Design vs design criteria

"The three traditional factors determining a tank's effectiveness in battle are its firepower, protection, and mobility." - these are tactical design criteria, not design itself which is an engineering task and not a doctrinal one.

Design includes:

Mobility of Tanks

Tank Engines

Tank Transmissions

Suspensions and Running Gear

Soil-Vehicle Mechanics

Tank Guns and Ammunition

Ballistics and Mechanics of Tank Guns

Vision and Sighting Systems

Illuminating and Night Vision Systems

Fire Control Systems

Gun Control Systems

Guided Weapons

Armour Protection

Configuration of Tanks

Taken from contents, Technology of Tanks, Richard M Ogorkiewicz, Jane's Information Group, 1991

You will note that I have changed the order of the criteria to suit manoeuver-oriented design ;)Koakhtzvigad (talk) 11:25, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

T-90's 'three-tiered' protection?

Surely its actual armoured shell counts for something also?!Koakhtzvigad (talk) 13:32, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

Countermeasures

It seems to me this section name is wrong. The tanks is the measure that anti-tank technologies are used against as countermeasures. Originally the tank was a countermeasure to machinegun fire and shrapnel, but this article doesn't really deal with WW1 tanks. In this case I would suggest the appropriate section title would be the American term Survivability which it seems is also used by the Russians and Israelis.Koakhtzvigad (talk) 12:57, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

World War One

I have taken the liberty of making a number of corrections to this section. Tank#World_War_I

It was the Landships Committee, not Landship. Eustace d'Eyncourt was the only naval architect on the Committee; the others were mostly officers in the R.N.A.S. Armoured Car Squadron. D'Eyncourt's name was not hyphenated. "Mother" was the final prototype and did not go into action. Germany produced 20 A7V tanks, not 15. Colonel Estienne's forenames were not hyphenated; he was Jean Baptiste Eugène. Renault's tank was the FT, not the FT-17. The initial tank deployments were piecemeal; as the war progressed tanks were used in their hundreds on several occasions (Berry-au-Bac, Cambrai, Amiens, Soissons, St. Mihiel, Argonne, Champagne, Bapaume, etc). It was principally low speed and mechanical unreliability that limited the tanks' usefulness.

Sources are too numerous to mention. Albert Stern, Ernest Swinton, David Fletcher, J.E.E. Estienne, A.J. Smithers, John Glanfield, Max Hundleby, Trevor Pidgeon, Winston Churchill, William Tritton, Bryn Hammond, Charles Messenger, J.F.C. Fuller, E.G. Ramspacher, A. Estienne Mondet, Rodolphe Ernst-Metzmaier, David J. Childs - in fact, 30 years of studying and writing about the subject. Where possible I have adjusted the sense to resemble more closely waht the cited sources actually say. I have to confess that I am puzzled as to how some of the statements previously made were deduced from the sources cited. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengistmate (talk • contribs) 20:38, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

The Oxford Dictionary of National Biography disagrees with you on the hyphenation. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:53, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your additional tidying up, Mr. Leggett. With respect, I would suggest that the sentence "The Royal Navy was involved through the activities of Royal Navy Air service officers who had been operating armoured cars on the Western Front and as the envisaged "landships" were similar to naval construction," is a little ambiguous. Might I suggest, "The Royal Navy was involved through the activities of Royal Naval Air Service officers who had been operating armoured cars on the Western Front and now approached Churchill with their ideas for more effective armoured vehicles. As it seemed probable that the project would require engineering of the type already in use in the Royal Navy, Churchill appointed the Director of Naval Construction, Eustace Tennyson d'Eyncourt, to head the mixed group of Naval officers and engineers that formed the Landships Committee." What say you?

Also, since the development of the tank in France took place independently and contemporaneously, would it not be more accurate to name both Great Britain and France as joint places of origin?

BTW, I observe that, after the refurbishment, Bovington have now labelled their Renault Light Tank the "Renault FT."

Which hyphenation, sir? D'Eyncourt or Estienne?

Hengistmate (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

As another famous inhabitant of Norfolk once said, "Come on. Let's be 'avin' you." Hengistmate (talk) 18:59, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

D'Eyncourt, Estienne does not appear in the ONDB. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:09, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Then Wikipedia must, naturally, represent both points of view. Do you have any thoughts on the other points that I raise above? Hengistmate (talk) 15:50, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

I note with interest that a first edition of d'Eyncourt's autobiography, A Shipbuilder's Yarn, carries his name on the cover, spine, and title page without the hyphen. It occurs to me that he would have been unlikely to fail to correct this if it were incorrect. Hengistmate (talk) 14:52, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Speed/Mobility/Penny Packets

Mobility - "The ability to move physically."

Speed - "1. The act or quality of acting or moving fast; rapidity. 2.The rate at which something moves, is done, or acts."

Except when broken down (through mechanical unreliability) or ditched, the early tanks had mobility. What they did not have was speed.

It is true that the early tank advocates, both British and French, were opposed to the use of tanks in "penny packets." However, they later agreed that the limits of the tanks' performance, especially the speed, made such deployment inevitable. As the war progressed tanks were used both en masse and also in small numbers, as the situation demanded. Their use in small actions, from St. Julien onwards, was extremely valuable and saved many lives. Piecemeal deployment did not limit the military significance of the tank. The mass deployment at Cambrai was still a stalemate, for reasons that obviously had nothing to do with penny packets. Albert Stern and others admitted after the War that the mass offensives they urged in 1916 were, in the light of the tanks' performance in battle conditions, not practical and that using small numbers in limited, local operations was a sensible practice. See "In Search of a Tactical Doctrine," from "A Peripheral Weapon?" by David J. Childs; and many more.

It might be possible to convey all of the above by some method.

It is heartening to see such attention to detail in this matter, however recent. Hengistmate (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You could put a large number of tanks en masse in groups of four across a wide front and find you're committing them in "penny packets", or put only a dozen onto a small objective action and that would be both a large number and "piecemeal". Take time to explain the situation and avoid ambiguous phrases unless quoting a commentator. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:41, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

♠"What they did not have was speed." What they also did not have was the ability to avoid the shellholes & torn up, soggy ground, which was as much a problem as speed. Tactically, as used, they didn't need high speed at the time. Here, the dictionary definition is unhelpful.

♠I do agree, mention of the complexities is worthwhile. As a rule, however, the usual criticism of use I've heard is, they were used in numbers too small at any point to achieve the intended result, in part because of unreliability, but also in part because senior commanders didn't understand the limitations on reliability & mobility. Whence the "penny packets" by default. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Please be polite, Mr. Leggett. The explanation and commentator are clearly displayed above. I am quoting Mr. Trekphiler in the use of the expression "penny packets," and I know what he means. Your hypothetical possibilities are not really relevant here. What we're discussing is what actually was done with them. And, of course, this is merely a discussion. Nothing that requires verification has yet appeared in the article itself. I am most concerned with precision, as, for example, in the case of the Renault FT.

Mr. Trekphiler; thank you for taking the time to consider this matter. I would suggest that the first tanks did have the ability to avoid the shellholes & torn up, soggy ground, and were provided with a steering mechanism for that purpose. They could not avoid them if they were ordered to drive into them, which was all too often the case. They needed as high a speed as possible, hence the constant search for faster types of tank. The Oxford English Dictionary will be most disappointed to learn that they have spent so many years publishing something that is unhelpful.

It rather depends on what you consider "the intended result" to have been. The military initially didn't have a very clear picture; the tanks' proponents envisaged sweeping the Germans from the battlefield. The first British tanks were used in what I shall have to refer to a "penny packets" because Douglas Haig was in need of something that might salvage the Somme offensive. As you say, their role was, at first, ill defined. The tank designers later conceded that the tanks' limitations, demonstrated in this action that they had opposed, precluded their vision of a breakthrough by a large tank force. In fact, despite the dismay of both the British and French tank pioneers they acknowledged that it was a blessing in disguise. An operation in which huge numbers of tanks performed as badly as they did on the Somme would probably have resulted in the idea being abandoned. Subsequent limited actions (Thiepval, Messines, Hamel, etc) showed that the tanks available at the time were suited to small actions, and this fitted well with Gen. Rawlinson's more realistic "bite and hold" tactics. The large tank offensives did not produce spectacular results. At Berry-au-Bac the French used 132 tanks on, just for Mr. Leggett's information, too narrow a front and suffered 50% losses, almost entirely to German artillery. I've got the various figures on density of tanks per mile of front, somewhere. Cambrai fizzled out because the tanks lacked the speed to capitalize on the initial success. Amiens was noted for the success of armoured cars behind the German lines, but they were, of course, restricted to roads. It was later agreed that Amiens would have been an even greater success if the Medium Mk A in particular had been able to keep pace with the cavalry. So the "penny packet" question is not so straightforward, and speed was a shortcoming. On the occasions when they were truly immobile, it was not an inherent characteristic; it was an intermittent condition brought about by circumstances.

I apologise for the length of this apologia, but I was anxious to avoid any suspicion of ambiguity.

Now, I note that Mr. Trekphiler has reversed in their entirety the adjustments I made to the opening section of this article. I was quite happy to correct the manifold errors in the World War One section, and note that there is no objection to them worthy of the name. I do not expect any thanks. I have also explained the etymology, complete with sources. Same again. "Too much detail" is, if I might say so, a rather subjective statement, and to say that "the 'Brits' are normally given priority" does not seem to me to be an argument of a very high standard. It is indisputable that the French and British conceived, designed, produced, and deployed tanks quite independently of each other and in mutual ignorance. No other country did so. When Haig contacted Joffre to inform him that GB had ordered 150 tanks on February 12th 1916, Joffre was able to reply that on February 25th he had ordered 400. In my view, that makes France a very strong contender for joint place of origin. The French are most assuredly not amongst those who generaly give priority to the 'Brits' in this matter. I had also been under the impression that Wikipedia does not exist to go along with what is normally done. I would respectfully suggest that Mr. Trekphiler reconsider the opening section rather than reverse my suggestions in what might be seen as a peremptory manner.

BTW, gents, the article on the Saint-Chamond needs a good looking at. Any volunteers? Or should I do it?Hengistmate (talk) 02:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

♠"the first tanks did have the ability to avoid the shellholes & torn up, soggy ground, and were provided with a steering mechanism for that purpose." You appear to believe I was unaware tanks were steerable. I assure you, I was. The problem wasn't the ability, the problem was the nature of the battlefield, which tended to make avoidance difficult at best. Whence the need for something besides speed.

♠"They needed as high a speed as possible, hence the constant search for faster types of tank." Later, yes. At this time, the tactical deployment was with infantry at a walk, so high speed was not only not needed, it was counterproductive. (As witness the dichotomy between "infantry" & "cruiser" tanks in the '30s.)

♠"The Oxford English Dictionary will be most disappointed" I doubt it. The ordinary definition is frequently not a helpful guide to the specialized usage. (Notice chopped & compare.)

"It rather depends on what you consider 'the intended result'" I'm presuming it was a breakthrough that put paid to the local trench stalemate, or at least allowed the front to actually move. Again, in context of WW1, fluid operations were improbable at best, whatever the tankers dreamed.

♠"It was later agreed that Amiens would have been an even greater success if the Medium Mk A in particular had been able to keep pace with the cavalry." That's a valid criticism & reason for arguing for speed. It also IMO requires an explanation of the tactical doctrine in place, & would IMO require a change in doctrine to argue speed was too low, because it was adquate for the doctrine in place at the time.

♠In ref the numbers & application, I daresay it's possible to argue either side. We're not in a position to rewrite the record, however, & the historiographic consensus AFAIK is, piecemeal use in penny packets was a problem. Nor do I object to that characterizaion, since I'm borrowing from Macksey's Tank Warfare, which says as much. Neither is Macksey the only commentator I've seen to hold that view.

♠"Trekphiler has reversed in their entirety the adjustments I made to the opening section of this article." Which was because the lead is for a brief summary, not a detailed listing of introductions with dates. Moreover, while I agree there were concurrent French efforts, every source I've seen credits the invention to the Brits, & the page has had that as a stable state for quite awhile now. To change that IMO requires consensus. It also requires overcoming the arguments for keeping it as it is, which previous efforts failed to. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 04:24, 25 August 2011 (UTC) (P.S. FYI Hengistmate, I don't require the "Mr." I'll answer to the username, or "Trek" to my friends here {& I do have one or two ;p }, just fine. ;p )

Dear Trekphiler,

Thank you for your reply. The many points you make require considerable analysis, perhaps longer than Wkipedia encourages, but I shall attempt to address them when time permits. However, in the matter of the Tank's place of origins I can offer the following:

"France began developing primitive tanks about the same time as the British." (S. Zaloga; French Tanks of World War I)

" 'British in conception, design, and manufacture . . .' These words, written by Lloyd George . . . contained truths and half truths. The Tank as used in the First World War was not an entirely British invention, for the French had also developed their own version . . ." (AFVs of the World, Volume I. Cannon Books, 1998)

In another of his works Kenneth Macksey states, "Quite independently of the British, the French Army set about devising tanks of their own." (Macksey & Batchelor, Tank: A History of the Armoured Fighting Vehicle, 1970)

French accounts are inclined to be even-handed. Jeudy says, " . . les chars en tant qu'engins mécaniques, blindés, et armées sont créés par les les Français et les Anglais au cours du premier conflit mondial." (Chars de France, 1997)

General Estienne's granddaughter writes in his biography, "à qui attribuer le primeur du concept de la construction d'un char d'assaut, aux Anglais ou aux Français? On s'accorde au Musée des Blindés de Saumur pour dire que cela fut simultané. La belle brochure qui a été editée, consacré aux chars français affirme "qu'il est impossible aujourd'hui d'en désigner l'inventeur." (Le général J.B.E. Estienne, l'Harmattan, 2010)

These three statements would also seem to support the multifocality of the Tank:

"Parallel to the British development, France designed its own tanks."

"The Allied French and British developments of the tank were largely parallel and coincided in time."

"France started studying caterpillar continuous tracks from January 1915, and actual tests started in May 1915, two months earlier than the Little Willie experiments. At the Souain experiment, France tested an armoured tracked tank prototype, the same month Little Willie was completed."

They are from Wikipedia.

If you will forgive me, I shall return to the other aspects in the near future. Meanwhile, I shall be pleased to read your comments on the above.

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 21:23, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

On the tank's place of origin, I don't dispute there were parallel developments (nor, AFAIK, is it in question by historiography). I do think (& I'm by no means expert on it) the consensus is, Britain gets priority, for having used them first. (Developments which don't reach the battlefiled, in effect, don't count.) And it has been a settled issue on the page for a considerable period (after much this debate about it; consult the archive). Arguing parellelism, therefore, is needless with me, & ultimately moot in regards the page. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:45, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Trekphiler,

When Haig contacted Joffre on June 21st, 1916 to inform him that Britain was manufacturing 150 tracked, armoured, and armed fighting vehicles, Joffre replied that France was in the process of manufacturing eight hundred. They had been ordered, and construction was under way. The evidence strongly suggests that at that time Louis Renault had already begun designing the Renault FT, a far more advanced design than the British Mk I. Neither country knew of the other's activities. That is simultaneous development, as at least three other Wiki articles acknowledge. If we are counting articles on Wikipedia then the consensus is not that Great Britain is the sole country of origin of the Tank. The fact that Britain used them first does not affect that, althought it is manifestly true. The French developments did reach the battlefield, and therefore, by that criterion, do count.I have provided five other references above that illustrate the dual nature of the origins. It is possible to provide a list of other sources that make the same point, but it would be as long as my arm. The question of who started first is a conundrum that has not been answered in almost 100 years. It depends on which event one takes as the starting point. France was testing Holt tractors while Britain was still contemplating giant tricycles and single-track Pedrail machines. Events in the two countries tended to leapfrog each other, but many sources give it to the French by a nose or even a neck, and I am under the impression that it is a requirement to indicate all verifiable points of view, however marginal they might be (as, for example, in the Etymology section). This article is the usual formulaic account, with ritual mention of Da Vinci, Wells, etc, and the World War One section takes an Anglocentric point of view. I believe that to be contrary to Wikipedia policy.

I would respectfully suggest that incumbency is no reason for declining to consider revising articles. I should have thought that that is not at all one of Wikipedia's principles. You point out that you are not an expert in this field, which is gracious. At the risk of immodesty, I believe that I am something approaching one, and I know several people to whom I am happy to attach that term. The view in the outside world is that the Tank as defined in thie introduction originated in both Great Britain and France. I feel it is Wikipedia's duty not to rewrite the record but to reflect it, and hope you will reconsider. I am afraid that I don't quite understand the last sentence of your reply above.

I look forward to your further thoughts.

Hengistmate (talk) 02:12, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

You don't have to persuade me because a) I know this (if not in so much detail, I confess) & b) I agree with you. To get it changed, however, you do need persuasive reasons. Incumbency may not be an ideal one, but this matter has been hashed out before, & settled. That's how it goes here. Reopen it if you want, but don't count on it going any differently, if only because the historiography on this is also pretty much in agreement the Brits got in action first, &, as noted, being first gives them priority of invention. (Same goes for who got there first on inventing calculus, frex.) And to be clear, I'm pretty agnostic on changing it, so expect comment but not opposition from me (depending on what mood I'm in :) ). TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 06:41, 30 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Trekphiler,

I believe that I have provided persuasive reasons in that I have stated the historical facts. To whom do I have to present them for consideration? That part is not clear to me, and I should appreciate your assistance. With great respect, I am struggling with the logic of some of your statements. You say that incumbency is not an ideal reason for maintaining the status quo, but it seems to form the cornerstone of your argument. I do not deny, obviously, that the first Tanks in action were British, and it would be foolish to do so. But that does not give them priority of invention, merely of deployment. If you invent something and someone invents a similar thing at the same time but elsewhere, you have still invented it. I am not sure that the development of calculus is an exact parallel. I would suggest that a comparison between Charles Darwin and Alfred Russell Wallace is more appropriate. The two men produced very similar theories, independently and in different locations. Darwin was the first to publish, but Wallace's work is, quite corrrectly, acknowledged by historians. The British got Tanks on the battlefield first, but they did not "get there" first or exclusively. To say that this is settled denies the evidence.

I do not count on success, but believe it is worth the struggle. Perhaps the necessary consensus will be arrived at on this occasion. It seems to exist elsewhere on Wikipedia. If it were up to me I should rewrite the sections on Conception and World War One from an even-handed perspective. (And Joseph Hawker would be the first to go.)

So what happens next?

BTW, the reason I prefixed the line "Firepower is normally provided by a large-calibre main gun in a rotating turret" with the phrase "In modern tanks" is that the first (probably) seven models of Tank deployed in battle did not have a rotating turret. Neither did the ninth.

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 23:42, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

Dear Trekphiler,

I note that you have not responded to my above enquiry. I should be most grateful if you would do so, since I am anxious to settle this matter and several others. The references to the early Tanks are shot through with inaccuracies and I should very much like to ensure that those sections are corrected. As things stand, I am tempted to go ahead and remedy things (with the necessary citations and verifications, and in accordance with Wikipedia policy). However, I fear that you have rather set your face against such improvements and that you will simply revert any corrections that I make. After a little further reading of Wikipedia's rules, I note that it is pointed out that consensus may change, and that flexibility in the assessment of sources is permitted. The path down which we are heading at the moment seems to be leading towards what Wikipedia describes as an "Edit War," something I am naturally, keen to avoid. I wonder if you have any proposals.

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 21:55, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

♠Apologies for the delay. Somehow, this response got overlooked.

♠"seems to form the cornerstone of your argument" Not exactly my argument. It's the way the process works here. As for how you change it, I'd say, propose a change (separate section below) & see what responses you get. You can just change the page, of course, but that's liable to be promptly rv'd because the page has been stable as it is. As noted, I'm not the one opposing, nor the one who decides. You're making a good case for a dual invention IMO; whether you can persuade enough people to change the page remains to be seen.

♠On the turrets issue, I'd agree. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 22:06, 5 September 2011 (UTC)

Dear Trekphiler,

Thank you for your reply. It is I who must apologise for the belated reply. I have given this matter much thought, although with limited success.

I am somewhat confused. It seems to me that what you suggest as regards reaching a consensus is what I have already done; set out an argument and supported it with reliable references. Is it your recommendation that I should do it again, elsewhere? That seems to be rather labour-intensive. As far as I can tell, there has been no avalanche of challenges on this page. Indeed, the only opposition has come from yourself (and a little from Mr. Leggett). As I have already mentioned, you reverted my alterations but now seem to be in, or close to, agreement with two of the principal ones. Does the process require that one states one's views here and then waits to see what happens? Our discussions have been available for anyone to read for quite some time, yet no one has intervened to any significant degree. The same applies to my observations (below) about the fanciful claim for Joseph Hawker's parentage of the Tank. No one seems to have any strong feelings on the matter. How long does one wait? It is some time since I corrected the claim that "Mother" went into action on the Western Front, which I assume had been "stable" for some time, and it seems to have passed off without arousing any outcry.

I accept that my information might be challenged, just as I am now challenging the existing article. As I understand it, a central part of the Wikipedia process is the addressing of challenges, not the avoidance of them. I dare say that there will be those who are marginally informed on the subject and who will challenge. The test is to present the sources that support the challenged assertions. The other Wikipedia articles that touch on this subject seem to have achieved that task.

So what do I do now? Put all this down again in another section and stand by? I imagine it to be rather like the process whereby new parking restrictions and the like are introduced; one hangs a notice describing the proposals in a conspicuous place, perhaps on a lamppost, and if no objections are received by a certain date, goes ahead. The trouble is that, as far as I can tell, the period for objecting on Wikipedia is infinite. That does seem to conflict with the idea that a stable article can no longer be challenged, which is tantamount to declaring the discussion closed. I am not aware that the authority to do so rests with any individual.

Perhaps you could spare the time to advise on the next move.

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 23:59, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

You appear to be right on it being less controversial than I might have expected. You're also right, the usual process is akin to posting a notice. The discussion period isn't infinite, but it is a good idea to give it a reasonable period (a month or two on a high-interest page like this one). If you want a better response, post a notice on the Project page, directing attention here. You need not reiterate, or even copy, what you've said, just point to it in your new section. If you're feeling really impatient, just make the change. You will get the attention of any opposed. ;p TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 02:45, 13 September 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Trekphiler. Many thanks for your reply. I must confess to being a little impatient now, since time that could have been better spent has passed since I made my original observations. Now that you seem to be broadly in agreement with the general view, perhaps after studying some of the sources I have pointed out, and no other objections of any importance have been raised, I propose to go ahead. I trust this meets with your approval. I might as well point out at this point that a strong case can also be made for parallel development in the Russian Empire, but perhaps we should not try to run before we have walked.

My initial proposal is to remove the reference to country of origin altogether and set out the facts in the text.

Regards, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengistmate (talk • contribs) 20:41, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Joseph Hawker

"Joseph Hawker is attributed as being the father of the modern tank." By whom? According to the citation, by the Camborne and Redruth Packet, a local newspaper with a circulation of 27,000, quoting the Press Officer of the museum in Hawker's home town of Chard. I do not feel that this source meets Wikipedia's criteria for authority. No other scholarly work makes mention of Hawker. If the details of his invention are correct, he was one of several 19th century engineers who came up with a tracklaying system. Nor is there any mention of any of the attributes of a tank. The Press Officer would naturally wish to magnify Hawker's achievements, but Hawker was no more the father of the modern tank than Blinov, Dinsmoor, Lombard, Edgeworth, Batter, or Minnis. I move that this be stricken from the record.

Hengistmate (talk) 15:35, 29 August 2011 (UTC)

The original source for this claim is the Chard and Ilminster News of February 16th, 2007. The Museum Press Officer says, "Joseph's work probably ranks alongside that of his contemporary John Stringfellow, for if John was the father of powered flight then Joseph could certainly claim paternity for the tank."

Designs and patents for similar devices predate whatever Hawker patented; some go back to the 18th century. Although the reference to Hawker has now been reproduced all over the Internet I would maintain that this source does not meet Wikipedia's criteria, and propose to remove it.

Hengistmate (talk) 11:28, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

The patent for Hawker's device shows a tricycle arrangement with a single front wheel. It has two much larger rear wheels also in contact with the ground, connected to drive wheels above the boiler by a chain to which are attached load-spreading wooden shoes not unlike those eventually designed by William Tritton for "Little Willie. " However, the vehicle did not move on tracks. It merely had load-spreading rear wheels and no trench-crossing capability. It is predated by John Heathcoat's patent of 1837 for a steam ploughing machine, which did run on a true caterpillar track. It was, incidentally, 32 feet long and 10 feet high, and weighed 30 tons, all about the same as the British Tank Mk. I of 1916. It differed in being wider, at 22 feet as opposed to 13' 9".

All of the above is most enjoyable. One could argue that even though Hawker might have had no military intent behind his plans the machine could be seen as being unintentionally important in the development of the tank and therefore worthy of a place in its history. But I have learnt that we must confine ourselves to Wikipedia criteria. The statement, "Joseph Hawker is attributed as being the father of the modern tank" is apparently supported by a citation, as required. However, this citation is not worth the paper it is printed on and does not justify the sweeping statement quoted above. Despite what some people claim, we are both allowed and required to evaluate sources. This one doesn't hold water.

Hengistmate (talk) 11:59, 26 September 2011 (UTC)

Da Vinci & Wells

The problem with the mention of Da Vinci and Wells (without which, it would seem, no account of the Tank is complete) is as follows:

Da Vinci's design was for a muscle-powered, wheeled vehicle. It encapsulated the three principles (protection, armament, and mobility) but no more than did any number of designs dating from Biblical times. It did not incorporate tracks of any kind, and was simply a blockhouse on wheels. The significance claimed for it is undeserved.

Wells's Ironclads at least incorporate an internal combustion engine, armour plating, and machine-guns, all pre-existing but comparatively new technologies. (It was a feature of Wells's writings that he incorporated contemporary technologies in order to lend plausibilty) It is true that his Ironclads can cross trenches (a 20th century consideration not foreseen by Da Vinci) and that some aspects of the tactics he describes are highly prescient, but the vehicles do not move on tracks. Wells describes them as moving on pedrail wheels; he even goes to the trouble, in another deliberate reference to a new technology, of mentioning Bramah Diplock, the inventor. Pedrails were within Wells's experience, but the caterpillar track was not, even though recognisable forms of it pre-dated the pedrail by decades. These imaginary vehicles were a step closer to the Tank, but IMO not close enough for Wells to be credited with its invention, nor to meet Wikipedia's definition - "a tracked, armoured fighting vehicle."

Since references to these two designs are ubiquitous, it is very probably worth mentioning them, but, I would suggest, with some qualification of their true significance.

Hengistmate (talk) 14:46, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

Common as the refs are, they do need debunking. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 18:34, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

I've no problem with mentioning Da Vinci and Wells in passing as they are well known. They illustrate the concept - of a mobile fortress that can break through the enemy though they might not be direct technical precursors to the tank. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:13, 18 September 2011 (UTC)

In 1917, after having seen tanks in France, Wells specifically denied having "invented" them: "Yet let me state at once that I was not their prime originator. I took up an idea, manipulated it slightly, and handed it on" - War and the Future. (He changed his mind in 1941, but was a crotchety old man by then and was annoyed by Swinton, who could be extremely annoying.)

The passage about the steam chariot is interesting, but the concept of the tank is implicit in countless ideas throughout the centuries. The communication from Bombay is not a pivotal event. This one just happens to have a steam engine involved, rather than man- or horse-power.

Major Davidson's contribution was to arm and partially armour some automobiles. That was an early precursor of the armoured car. Davidson played a significant role in the development of American armoured cars, but this episode needs to be put in its proper context.

I know that several of these statements are "cited" and therefore unassailable according to some interpretations of the rules of Wikipedia. However, some of the extrapolations go far beyond what is implied by the sources (as in the case of Hawker's machine).

I'm prepared to overhaul this section, pro bono publico, but not if it involves a string of knee-jerk objections and peremptory "reversions." Life's too short.

Hengistmate (talk) 10:13, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Thinking on this matter some more - what we are trying to achieve is acknowledgement of the concept of tank-like vehicles prior to their actual birth in WWI without implying that they had any material influence on the actual design of tanks (being an engineering solution to a problem). Partly because the problem of trench-warfare-machine-gun-stalemate didn't exist prior. To that end I suggest trimming down sufficiently so that mention of a couple of well-known examples is maintained while not letting it be implied that these are the ancestors of the first tanks. (I note also in passing that Wells "land ironclad" phrase is but a hair-splitting away from "landship" - the RN's committee.) At the same time these early concepts fit well with a history of the armoured fighting vehicle where exact mode of traction is not important and could possiblly be used there.

I think this comes under the heading of managing people's expectations. The da Vinci tank etc are in the popular imagination - eliminate it entirely and someone will want to add it in (suspecting its omission is because it has been overlooked). Include it in context and education results. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

This common purpose is a most welcome development. We might as well simply remove this section and substitute a few pars from here [[3]], since it tells the story far better than does this article.Hengistmate (talk) 15:42, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

In the case of Tanks in World War I I would say that, once its referencing and its lede had been improved, its lede could substitute for (or be blended with) the appropiate section in this article (and possibly History of the tank). GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:59, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Correcting WWI Section

We seem to have a lot of suggestions here but no volunteers. I shall make a start, on the assumption that any objections will be from people who know something about the subject and based on sound reasoning or, if that fails, Wikipedia's rules. Hengistmate (talk) 12:36, 3 October 2011 (UTC)

OK. The new section on "Conception" is in place. It still needs "citations" and bibliography, but Rome wasn't built in a day. Bear with me. I'm happy to discuss appropriate and necessary adjustments. Now that light seems to have shone into some dark places, I do hope there will be no peremptory "reversions." This section should now be in line with similar articles on Wikipedia, if not an improvement on some. These are the facts. If people who aren't in possession of them start mucking about with it, you can sort yourselves out.

Hengistmate (talk) 15:20, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Your edit seems fair enough to me. As an aside, taking offense at people making a reversion, and then giving up is rather unworkable on wikipedia. Don't take it personally, gain consensus on the talk page, and sensible edits tend to stay. I expect this page is on the watchlist of several WPMILHIST members who would be pleased and supportive of an overhaul. (Hohum ^@) 15:40, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you, Mr. Hohum. I am not offended, just somewhat despondent. Your communication is a great comfort. On the evidence of recent forays into the world of Wikipedia, it strikes me as a little on the optimistic side, but we shall see.

Thank you once again.

Hengistmate (talk) 22:50, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

Let me second Hohum on this one. It's occasionally frustrating, & you will at times encounter people who you will think are utter nitwits, but mostly, WP's editors are sensible people interested in making it the best it can be. (The passion aroused may also, at times, create conflicts... ;p ) It can be a slow process getting things changed, but it does get done, & once it's done well, the same people who fought so hard to get their way will keep it good. Just like you are now. (Also, FYI, I think you've gotten it right.) TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 23:28, 10 October 2011 (UTC)

It would be less than honest of me to say that the word "nitwit" had not crossed my mind recently. However, now that all, or at least some, have consented to gather beneath the palaver tree, rather smoother progress appears likely.

Hengistmate (talk) 07:00, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

"the word 'nitwit' had not crossed my mind recently" Then I suggest it will. :) Or you have more patience with ignorance than I do. (Which is not unlikely at all. ;p ) Pass the calumet. :D TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 09:36, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Country of Origin.

Despite the recent reversions, the "Country of Origin" is correct. It is not claimed that the Tank originated in France. It is stated that it originated in both Great Britain and France, which was the case. Any reasonably informed history will confirm that. The A7V should not be included because work on it began as a response to the use of tanks by the British in September 1916. However, as is explained in the article, the French began developing tracked AFVs at the same time as the British without any knowledge of British activity. Orders were placed for 400 Schneider Tanks two weeks after the British ordered 150 Mk I Tanks, in February 1916. Paul Painlevé informed David Lloyd George of the French Tank programme on May 2nd, 1916, by which time the French had ordered 400 Schneiders and 400 Saint-Chamonds. The British order still stood at 150.

In fact, the case for France is, depending how you look at it, stronger than that for Britain. Captain Levavasseur's design for a tracked AFV dates from 1903. If you wish to adhere strictly to the article's definition of a Tank, then the country of origin is France alone, since only the French fielded a Tank with a turret in WWI, the Renault FT, and no WWI British Tanks had a turret. That's if you don't count Gunther Burstyn's design of a Tank with a turret, which he prepared in 1911.

Many people are misled by the fact that it was the British who first used Tanks in action. But the Tank originated in both Britain and France. The Wikipedia articles on the Schneider and the Saint-Chamond, and at least three other articles on WWI Tanks support that view. If you wish, I can provide a lengthy bibliography to establish the above. Those who disagree do not appear to provide any sources to support their assertions.

Hengistmate (talk) 18:56, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

France had conceptual tank ideas around 1903. So did everyone. No-one built anything credible.

The British built The Lincoln Machine (which had at least a dummy of a central turret, pre-dating the Renault FT) in 1915, Little Willie, Mother and then the Mark Is. They fielded tanks before anyone else did. The French were early developers of tanks too, with the Schneider. Yet the French lagged the British here. The Schneider, with its Holt tractor chassis and Holt track plates, was roughly comparable as a vehicle when it was finally fielded in 1917 to the Lincoln Machine two years earlier. French has primacy for neither invention, for its effective development, nor for its first use. There is some claim for innovation with the Renault FT, but by this time the Germans were building tanks too. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:45, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Dear Mr. Dingley,

You make a number of points, several of which are true, but they do not constitute a supportable argument.

Firstly, let us agree that the Schneider was not on a Holt chassis and did not incorporate Holt track plates. Nor does it matter how it compared to the Lincoln Machine, since it incorporated the three essentials.

As I point out above, the first use of tanks is a separate matter from their place of origin. No one is attempting to claim first use for the French. That point is freely admitted in the opening paragraph. When the French first used them is similarly irrelevant. The point under discussion is where the idea arose in a practical form.

Whether the French lagged behind or not (and that is a contentious idea, depending on at which point and in what form we decide the tank came into existence) the fact remains that they went through a similar development programme to the British quite independently, without any outside influence and without copying anyone else's idea. No other nation can make that claim. No one is arguing that France was the sole country of origin, but that the tank emerged spontaneously in two separate countries.

It is, of course, not true that "everyone" had conceptual tank ideas around 1903, but I understand that that is merely a rhetorical device.

A further problem is that of the tanks employed in WWI, none except the FT matches the definition of a tank as laid down in the article's opening paragraph. The Schneider and Saint-Chamond were, by today's definition, self-propelled guns, and the British Marks I to V* something that is rather harder to define. But for popular consumption, I think we can go along with most reputable works on the subject and describe them all as "tanks."

On a matter of Wikipedia policy (and I know Mr. Leggatt will approve of this, since he is very keen on it), in the lengthy correspondence with Trekphiler (above) I furnish a number of souces, both French and British, that support the argument for dual focality. I understand that Wikipedia requires such citation. I have invited you to supply citations of your own, but have not yet had the opportunity to study any. What we have at the moment is your reasoning, which in Wikipedia terms is Original Research and therefore not acceptable to Wikipedia.

It is possible to argue that the first tank as it is defined in the opening paragraph, is, indeed, Great Britain, since the No.1 Lincoln Machine had a turret. However, several authors (who can be cited) are of the opinion that Louis Renault began work on the FT as early as December 20th, 1915, after the first approch by Colonel Estienne, before work began on the Schneider and before Estienne and Renault were aware of the existence of the British experiments.

If we confine ourselves to the contemporary definition, it has serious implications for the whole article since neither the French nor the British tanks can logically be included, on the grounds that they are not tanks. And several other Wikipedia article would require rewriting.

Trekphiler, like yourself, was initially inflexible, but you will see that he eventally emerged into the light. Perhaps we are making a rod for our own backs in attempting to state the country of origin in the first place. Perhaps we should simply omit it, state the facts, and allow the reader to decide for him/herself.

I look forward to reading your views on the above.

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 23:33, 31 October 2011 (UTC)

Patronising tosser. "You make a number of points, several of which are true" Well pardon me. As to references, yours are hardly impressive, being the sort of coffee table "Big Boy's Book of WAR!!!" that are the bane of Wikipedia.

This isn't an issue of references. The relevant dates are quite well known. Try Fletcher's Landships, Pullen's Landships of Lincoln or Fletcher's British Tanks 1915-1919. The real question is of defining the terms for which we interpret "origin".

In late 1914, the British were making serious, albeit slow, evaluations of Holt tractors. This is around six months before comparable French progress. By Christmas, some of the main 'landships' players are assembled and Swinton is in communication with Churchill, via Hankey (another of those figures whose influence is largely forgotten today). By February 1915, Churchill has pushed the manual Pedrail barrow around Horse Guards Parade and a few days later D'Eyncourt was now involved. Ignoring the Trench Crosser and the Big Wheel as dead-ends, we then meet the Killen-Strait tractor that was demonstrated (unarmoured) and famously photographed (still with the scalloped canvas canopy) at the Talbot works in March. When this was fitted with a S/H armoured car body and trialled at Wormwood Scrubs, this (and not Mother or Little Willie) was the world's first tracked AFV. It was demonstrated again, without the body, cutting barbed wire (with the infamous super-secret submarine net cutter) back at the Talbot works in June.

The Foster's story begins in earnest on the 11 August 1915, when construction begins with the Lincoln Machine. On the 17th August, Wilson explained to Tritton his idea of rhomboid tracks (Lincoln & Willie aren't even built yet). Lincoln first runs on 9th September.

What had the French been up to? Well AFAIK, the Schneider was the first French machine to deliver any results, before any of their others. Work on the program (not the vehicle) began in May 1915, as a study of commercial Holt equipment, behind the British. In July, this combined with another program to build a wire-cutting vehicle - a month after the Killen-Strait demonstration. In September the day after the Lincoln Machine runs, the first Schneider of its eventual design runs.

AIUI, the Schneider ran on a version of the Holt track system. Much as the British had tested in late 1914, then had already rejected in favour of the slightly improved Bullock track system used for Lincoln. Neither of these were successful, and the better track system used for Willie required two innovations from Tritton: the fish-bellied lower track rail that aided steering and also the improved track plates that didn't derail when they sagged whilst crossing the gap of a trench. These were then followed by Wilson's earlier suggestion of the all-encompassing rhomboid track.

Yes, the French developed tanks independently of the British, but so did the Italians and even the Germans with the A7V. None (unlike the A7VU) borrowed their design from the British. True, the German tank only began after they had encountered the Mark I in combat, so it could be said to be inspired by it, but then so were the French designs inspired by the same trench stalemate that the British saw in 1914. As all three began by ordering chassis from the Holt company, you might as well claim the tank to be a US invention!

How close were the French behind the British? Well they made rapid progress in 1915 - they went from being around six months behind to perhaps a day behind in September, yet they then let their design stagnate. While the British have been accused of wasting a year between Lincoln and Flers-Courcelette, they did at least evolve through three generations of design. Despite the Schneider being a finished design by the Souain demonstration in December they didn't then deliver production examples until around the same time as the British were seeing combat. These were so far behind that the newer Renault FT overtook it.

So in what way were the French sharing the laurels for the origin of the tank? For demonstrating their "production" tank in September 1915, alongside the Lincoln Machine? That says more about the low sophistication of their production design than it does about their speed in achieving it. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:03, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

OK, Mr. Dingley. That's it. I don't know what your problem is. Did you pick fights at school and then run to teacher? Next thing, you'll be scouring Wikipedia for things that I've written, trying to find fault with them, and making them up when you can't. Oh! You already do that. This is my answer: It's not worth the bother. Toodle-oo.Hengistmate (talk) 22:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Easy on the WP:BAITing there, Hengistmate... he answered your questions with lots of in depth detail. Your response is completely out of line, and borders on WP:CIVIL. Your subsequent response on his talk page also doesn't make any sense as he did exactly that. Srobak (talk) 23:18, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

WWI Section

It seems to me that it would be more appropriate to move the French up the page in this section, since their tank programme was contemporaneous with the British, they were the second nation to field tanks in battle, they produced three distinct models, and they built and employed more tanks during the War than all the other combatants combined. I think that merits mention before Germany, whose contribution was minor and whose tank programme was not autogenetic. Hengistmate (talk) 02:18, 26 November 2011 (UTC)

OK. I'll do that then.Hengistmate (talk) 11:54, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

Conception and apostrophes.

I am a little surprised that this fairly fundamental question of punctuation is a matter for discussion. Mr. Srobat kindly directed me here but has, I'm afraid, drawn the wrong conclusions. Dickens's novels; Wells's novels. Fortunately, both were novelists, so the example is very clear. As can be seen, the exceptions mentioned do not apply in this instance. I have corrected the article. Hengistmate (talk) 13:15, 29 November 2011 (UTC)