Talk:FV4401 Contentious

/* Comparable vehicles */
For some reason, Strv 103 is included in the list. Now, both having a gun and hydraulic suspension does NOT make them comparable. The strv 103 was a MBT, while the FV4401 explicitly was not intended for that role but on the other hand was supposed to be air-portable which the 103 has never been accused of. Does anyone have any arguments to keep the strv 103 in the list? BP OMowe (talk) 02:30, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course it makes them comparable, in that they are two vehicles where a relevant comparison can be made to some useful purpose. This is a technical comparison, about how each addressed the question of being turretless, it implies nothing about their assumed role. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:15, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Pardon, but I think you have misunderstood the concept of "comparable vehicles". The technical comparision is already in the article itself along with proper linking, but as a vehicle the FV4401 is no more comparable to the strv 103 than the strv 103 is to the French Char B that inspired the concept. An alternative, if the article text isn't enough,is to follow the example in strv 103, with the FV4401 placed under the heading "See also". BP OMowe (talk) 21:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * You think that they're derived from the Char B?! Go on, let's see you source that! Andy Dingley (talk) 23:18, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Here goes: Historien bakom stridsvagn 103 "S"

Med dessa ingångsvärden formerade Sven Berge sina tankar kring nästa generations svenska stridsvagn. Redan 1943 hade han läst i en tysk tidskrift om franska försök 1940 med en vagn som hade en grovkalibrig kanon lagrad i chassit vid sidan av föraren. Försöken, med utgångspunkt i stridsvagnen Char B, visade att riktning av vagnspjäsen i sidled kunde göras hydrostatiskt med hjälp av bandrörelser – överlagringsstyrning. In short, the designer had read about the Char B's ability to lay the gun horizontally using the tracks through hydraulic steering, and incorporated that with the vertical adjustment from the selfpropelled anti-aircraftgun Luftvärnskanonvagn 42 (lvkv 42, later redesignated lvkv fm/49). Unfortunately I have not been able to locate much about the latter vehicle, as it never entered serial production since the budgetcuts had the army giving other things priority. I can give you some leads though: BP OMowe (talk) 23:26, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
 * Mentions the lvkv's suspension
 * Exerpt from Terry Gander's "The Bofors Gun"
 * Other than that, a useful site to read original Swedish documents about armoured vehicles

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


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


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


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


 * While I fully support an inclusion under "See also", it seems you misunderstand the term "comparable vehicles". This is a very specific subsection with two criteria which both must be fulfilled: role - what the vehicle is intended for, and era - existing in the same time period as the other vehicles on the list. See for instance the Centurion or T-55 tanks or the articles about combat aircraft from WWII and forwards. I might also add that theMOS:SEEALSO actively discourages from including things already linked from the article to be in the "See Also"-list, and the S-tank is specifically mentioned and linked in the article: "This system had already been demonstrated in the Swedish S-tank".
 * On the contrary, the only operator of the S-tank (the Swedish army) made no operational separation between the Centurions and the S-tanks above platoon-level, meaning they were both considered able and expected to perform the same tasks in both defence and attack. That destroying enemy tanks was included doesn't make the S-tank a tank destroyer any more than the Centurions were (not), but simply a reality of tank warfare.

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