Talk:Mark IV tank

4 April 2010‎ 92.3.148.109
The Male had two 6-pdrs and four Lewis Guns, not two Lewis Guns. - Wilfrid Miles, Official History of the Great War, Military operations, France and Belgium, Volume III, The Imperial War Museum Department of Printed Books (1948), pp.385

Number of Lewis Guns.
The Mk IV carried four (Male) or six (Female) machine guns but was fitted with mountings for and could deploy only three and five respectively; in the case of the Male, one in the cab and one in each sponson, and one in the cab and two in each sponson for the Female. The extra one was a spare. There was no mounting for another machine gun until the Mk V, which incorporated one in the rear panel. It's a common misunderstanding. To say it "carried" four or six is somewhat misleading.

It could do with changing in the factbox thingy.

Hengistmate (talk) 16:32, 31 August 2011 (UTC)

moved from article
this was placed in the See also, though it is a comment on the survivors section. I moved it here in case anyone else has an opinion.

"The tank at Aberdeen cannot have taken part at Arras as the museum claims as only Mk I and Mk IIs were available. The Mk IV first saw acction some months later at Massines as the main part of this areticle correctly identifies. The Museum also claims that this tank was formerly the Mk IV tank Britannia used to tour the USA and Canada. Unfortunately Britannia had a cab roof hatch (seen in numerous photos) and the tank at Aberdeen does not) There are other differences. The tank at Aberdeen is probably one of a number of MKIVs supplied to the USA at the end of WW1 for training purposes. Britannia was shipped to Camp Colt in 1919."

This text is lifted from a posting I made in the Great War Forum. I have been doing considerable research on Britannia - she would seem to have ended her life as a result of experiments carried out by the 301st tank battalion into the effect of demolition charges on tanks in the early 1920s

Robert Robinson (Centurion) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.6.44.230 (talk) 13:51, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:12, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

Question on Shape
How come it's shaped like a parallelogram? Would it flip over intentionally if it fell into a trench, and then keep moving upside down? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Carnivorousfungi (talk • contribs) 12:08, 31 October 2012 (UTC)


 * The usual term for this tank shape is "rhomboidal" and the vehicle was designed like that to give it excellent trench-crossing ability, as some of the German trenches were much wider than just a simple trench.


 * Unfortunately no, it wouldn't work upside down as there is a conning tower at the top-front of the hull for the commander and driver. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.91 (talk) 17:50, 19 August 2016 (UTC)

Oh Contraire
Why does this page on the Mark IV say it was used by Britain, and not Germany? It was Germany's most numerous tank.,,. O&#39;Contraire (talk) 03:08, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

That is explained in the section entitled "Service". Hengistmate (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)


 * Still worth adding to the info box. Also their service in Estonia, if this is ever sourced and cleared up (IV vs V). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Still worth adding to the info box. Then go ahead, with my full support. Also their service in Estonia, if this is ever sourced and cleared up (IV vs V) I'm afraid I don't really understand this. Is there someone who thinks that Mk IVs might have been used in or by Estonia? Good heavens. Hengistmate (talk) 16:15, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Edits by 187.38.76.30, 24 Sept., 2013.
I'm not sure why this edit has been made. It is rather badly written, and makes points about the Renault FT, a completely different vehicle that has its own, very full Wikipedia article. The grammar of this edit is not of Wikipedia standard. I'm removing it. Hengistmate (talk) 11:18, 1 October 2013 (UTC)
 * Perhaps unusually, I would agree with you. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:37, 1 October 2013 (UTC)

File:MarkIVFemaleTankAshfordKent.jpg to appear as POTD
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:MarkIVFemaleTankAshfordKent.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 27, 2014. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2014-11-27. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 (talk) 01:33, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps time could be better spent improving both the English and the historical accuracy of the article on the Mk IV. Both leave a great deal to be desired. Hengistmate (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Edits 26/11/2017 - Lewis Gun.
The problem with the barrel was that it was bulky, not "thin", and therefore more vulnerable to damage from enemy fire. The overheating was a separate matter - the problem was that the exhaust gases were directed towards the operator's face and drawn into the tank. However, "pan" magazine, rather than "drum" is correct. Hengistmate (talk) 14:26, 28 November 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Mark IV tank. 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/20140327204613/http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/BritishHeavyTanks.html to http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/GreatBritain/BritishHeavyTanks.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329205855/http://www.tank-cambrai.com/pages/indexpag.html to http://www.tank-cambrai.com/pages/indexpag.html

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) 06:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Masthead image?
Which should we use? The original image (contemporary, black & white) or the new image, (photographically perhaps better, but not contemporary). Thoughts? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)

Some 85% of similar Wikipedia articles in regards to tanks and aircraft use up-to-date colored images (eg. M4 Sherman, Supermarine Spitfire etc.) as the lead infobox image when available anyway as it provides higher quality, accurate and authentic representation of the subject in question (eg. The real appearance and design of the original tank is in color and not black and white as suggested by the black-and-white photograph). In addition, multiple similar black-and-white archival photograph of the subject already exist in other areas of this mainspace article, making the archival lead info box image somewhat redundant. Виктор Вихарев Марков (talk) 05:52, 18 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It's a tough one, but I think probably the photograph that shows a Mark IV tank, rather than the one that shows neither Excellent nor any other tank, but a replica. There seems little point in discussing the suitability of a photo that is a case of mistaken identity. Photographically perhaps better, but totally inaccurate. At the risk of being patronising, I enclose a link to a video posted 6 years ago in which the curator of the Tank Museum explains for the benefit of the uninformed how the replica Mark IV came to be there, and that the Museum's policy is not to run its actual Mark IV henceforth.


 * https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cFbYTYt6Ok8


 * Examination of this article reveals a number of inaccuracies that require attention. Is anyone sufficiently public-spirited to undertake the task?


 * Of course, if a coloured image is preferred, there's always the one of the Mark IV in Brussels. https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mark_IV_tank_in_the_Royal_Military_Museum,_Brussels Hengistmate (talk) 19:50, 18 March 2018 (UTC)
 * What are we looking for from an image? Quality, obviously, but this should also be a good illustration of what distinguishes the Mark IV from the others. So which features in particular should we need to make sure are being shown? Andy Dingley (talk) 21:36, 18 March 2018 (UTC)

What are we looking for from an image? Well, call me old-fashioned but I think what we should be looking for is agreement between what is in the picture and what the caption says is in the picture. Is that obvious? I think the particular features we need to make sure are being shown are: a Mark IV tank, rather than a film prop. Hengistmate (talk) 13:10, 20 November 2018 (UTC)