Talk:Lorraine 37L

Period indication needed?
It has been argued that a period indication is unnecessary, apparently because it is implied by the development year of 1937. However, as the lead section must in its first sentence give some sort of general definition of its subject, a rough explicit indication of the period of its origination seems the least one can expect. Besides, it has to be feared that many, if not most, readers would be hard-pressed to tell whether the year 1937 was before, during or after the Second World War. I agree though, that the latter war had best be added :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:00, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * A succint timeframe ref would be good. I found the phrase antebellum distracting, a phrase I would associate more with the American Civil War and its immediate preview, historically. I think other users may also find the original phrase slightly inappropriate. I suggest a simple during the early/mid 1930s, or a similar short sentence.Irondome (talk) 07:19, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I have frontloaded the april 36 spec detail to the intro. I think it covers timeframe ok for new readers. Irondome (talk) 07:29, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, within (at least) an European context, "Interbellum" is the technical historical term. Of course, the word itself might not be known, so we can add, "just before the Second World War". People then are informed of the correct terminology and get some rough impression of when events actually happened.--MWAK (talk) 08:11, 17 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest " in the mid 1930s" Still unsure about intebellum. It may cause some confusion among the many U.S and non Euro users. Just to make the article more user friendly while maintaining strict accuracy. I feel the present edit is accurate and precise, however. Irondome (talk) 08:16, 17 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Some period indication should be given. "1930s" is then inferior as it doesn't provide an interpretative time frame: is it before, during or after the war? Should "Interbellum" truly be alienating some readers, it allows them to experience a profound learning moment ;o).--MWAK (talk) 07:21, 18 September 2012 (UTC)
 * I still think the Interbellum usage is unwarranted within the info given in the intro. I have seen no other usage of the term on wiki, in terms of military equipment. The wikilinked article to the term has no citations to back its recognised usage whatever. It could be challenged or removed on those grounds, as could the entire article based on what I understand to be Wiki guidelines. Suggest its removal, as it is actually a weak source as presented at this time. Just removing the term does not in any sense detract from the accuracy and acceptability of the info given in that section. Irondome (talk) 06:37, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Well, "Interbellum" is simply the technical historical term for this period. Probably its "recognised usage" wasn't sourced because this was assumed to be unnecessary. Obviously anything can be challenged on Wikipedia but in this case that would be rather unproductive as simply consulting a English dictionary mentioning it would decide the matter. E.g. our own Wiktionary has it: http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/interbellum. In fact it is quite often used in relation with military equipment. However, I have to admit that I was surprised to find that outside of a military context its usage is apparently rare. The Concise Oxford English Dictionary doesn't even give it as a lemma. In view of this, the term, indeed redundant in relation to the subject, had best be avoided in a lead section. My cultural background — I live in a country where the concept is part of the typical secondary school curriculum — led me to assume it was no different in the anglophone nations...--MWAK (talk) 17:03, 19 September 2012 (UTC)


 * On further consideration, the added informative value of mentioning both terms in the first sentence should outweigh any distraction :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:42, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

General Note and Specific Error in Variants
Generally, the article presents very specific information, without providing any sources. Given the long-suffering discourse over a single word of relatively no importance to the subject, the lack of inline attribution is startling. There is a lot of really useful information in here, but some of it is suspect, and some of it is incorrect. Inline attribution would help users have faith in the details presented, and help Wiki contributors straighten out errors.

The most glaring error I found was indicative to me of the francophile tone of the article, which is contrary to Wiki's guidelines, but also done by every other "fan" of Germany, Poland, the Dutch, and so on. Tone is one thing, facts are another:

In "Variants, the author asserts that the Lorraine troop carrier made the French Armée de l'Terre "Of all participants in the Battle of France, the French army would thus be the only to employ a fully tracked APC."

The British Expeditionary Force fielded a fully-tracked carrier designed specifically to carry troops, which has its own Wiki entry: The Bren Carrier. Ranya (talk) 20:02, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the article does give sources, just no in-line citations. These were not so common when it was written and would have offered little added value, given the low number of relevant publications. The presence of the Bren Carrier on the 1940 theatre is an interesting point. Wasn't it primarily or even solely, used as a weapon carrier by the BEF?--MWAK (talk) 20:26, 22 November 2015 (UTC)


 * I've added a dozen in-line citations from a more recent source.--MWAK (talk) 10:16, 23 November 2015 (UTC)
 * I added some more and also checked on the status of the Bren Carrier (not to be confused with the later Universal Carrier). It seems they each operated with a total crew of only three, among which the driver-mechanic and a sergeant who commanded a single rifleman. The vehicle could provide fire support with its machine-gun or, alternatively, the crew of three could dismount, detach the Bren and set up a machine-gun position. The vehicle was not intended to carry an infantry squad under armour, for which it simply was too small, although apparently an inordinate number of men sitting on its upper surfaces might in practice be transported by it. It was thus not an APC in the usual sense of the word.--MWAK (talk) 18:52, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Lorraine 37L. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110912063827/http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1481 to http://www.chars-francais.net/new/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=1481

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:40, 6 January 2018 (UTC)

Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:23, 28 June 2020 (UTC)
 * 10.5 cm leFH18 Lorraine.jpg
 * Beobachtungspanzer auf Lorraine Schlepper(f).2.jpg

Just had an idea of how to get a better picture of the Lorraine 37L in this article. I was looking at the Marder I article and realised that the majority of Marder I's use the Lorraine 37L as a chassis. The article also has an image of a Marder I in which the Lorraine 37L is clearly visible as the vehicles chassis. So I have decided to put the Marder I image in this article as it clearly shows the Lorraine 37L on its bottom half in a complete state better than the current wreck image.If anybody thinks this is a bad idea and wants it removed posts your reasons here so I know why you removed it please Anonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 10:02, 15 November 2020 (UTC).