Talk:Mark V tank

Combat History.
It has not been confirmed that the Mk Vs in Berlin were involved in any fighting, only that they were present. See discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mark_I_tank#Combat_history

No Mk V tanks were used in Palestine/Gaza, only Mk I and Mk IV.Hengistmate (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Amendments Feb 28th, 2012
Made multiple amendments to this. Mk V did not carry Vickers guns. Corrected details of rear cupola. Mk V* was not a purpose-built APC; that was the Mk IX. The room for troops was "a bonus" (Glanfield). Expanded lead section. Clarified tale of Mk Vs in Berlin, 1945. Etc. Hengistmate (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration on Epicyclic System
I notice that the link to the Walter Wilson section of the Preselector Gearbox article has been removed. There was, of course, no claim that the Mark V had a preselector gearbox; it was a link to a potted history of Wilson's involvement with the principle. Bit of a "straw man" argument, really, but never mind. On the other hand, it does raise an interesting point. There isn't a satisfactory description of Wilson's epicyclic system (as used for the Mk V onwards) on Wikipedia. Since it was (and remains) such a significant development, this would seem to be a regrettable omission. It would be excellent if there were an authoritative yet accessible article that could be linked with the numerous WWI tank articles and, doubtless, many others.

I've been gradually improving the WWI articles, but much remains to be done, and it is very time-consuming, what with one thing and another. I'm not trying to build an encyclopaedia, just trying to weed out some of the more obvious misinformation. It strikes me that someone with a consuming interest in little-known technologies would be the ideal person to produce the article required, and the name of Andy Dingley, a respected and valuable contributor, springs to mind. How about it? Something that explains in understandable terms how the system worked, and how it did the job previously done by the two gearsmen. It would be pro-active and the type of collaborative editing that Wikipedia encourages. More work than simply reverting edits, but possibly even more satisfying. RSVP Hengistmate (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Service History.
Is it realistic to say that the Mk V was in service until 1945? There is no reliable evidence that any were used in action in 1945. Does being towed to a site and dug in as a pillbox in 1941 count as service? IIRC the last confirmed date for Mk Vs in full operational order is 1923. Hengistmate (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)


 * 1920 would seem more reasonable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Bullock, Aksenov, & Sarson say that 19 Mk Vs served in the 3rd Tank regiment, along with new Soviet designs, as late as 1930. "By 1931 all civil war period tanks were in depots, various tank schools or academies, doing limited guard duty, or were on firing ranges." David Fletcher says something along the same lines, albeit in less detail. On the other hand, Bullock, Aksenov, & Sarson also say that the Mk Vs captured in Estonia by the Soviets "actively served in the defence of Tallin in August 1941", which is rather moot. Perhaps we should define our terms. Do you have any sources? Hengistmate (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Surviving Mk Vs
The Bovington Mk V hasn't been in running order for several years. The two images of the Mk V at Luhansk are of the same vehicle. As the German and Russian captions say, it is a "Composite", or "Hermaphrodite", with one Male and one Female sponson. Most, if not all, the Mk Vs sent to Russia were Hermaphrodites, usually with the Male sponson on the right. Will check on the other examples. Hengistmate (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)


 * You may wish to comment on Commons:Category:Mk V tanks in Luhansk. The previous claim of a preserved hermaphrodite has been replaced by a claim that there are two (and two not on show), Male & Female. I remain unconvinced. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

http://englishrussia.com/2009/10/02/the-refurbished-tanks/ Two MkVs being refurbished at Luhansk. http://photo.ukrinform.ua/eng/current/photo.php?id=291086 "Moreover, on September 22, two captured Mark V tanks of the early 20th century were reinstalled at the complex after being reconstructed. The reconstruction was provided by the Luhanskteplovoz. /AB/ " There are unverified rumours of 2 more in a scrapyard.

Dates of Service.
Okay. This is the thing. It's already been quite carefully explained a couple of times that there's no evidence of Mk Vs being in action in 1945. Call it POV pushing, call it "a widely circulating view" - there's nothing that supports the proposition, particularly on the web page that is offered. No amount of reading it will reveal anything other than that the vehicles were present. Even if one thought that attempting to argue that vehicles that had been on a plinth outside Smolensk Cathedral for 20 years and then in the Berliner Lustgarten for another 4 would have been serviceable made any sense, it would be a waste of time; there is no WP:RS, a point about which some editors are very particular almost all the time. I have, therefore, taken the liberty of removing that reference.

Now to the actual verifiable dates of service: Fletcher (2011) describes, but does not display, a photograph of a Mk V allegedly in Tallinn in 1941. Examination of the photograph elsewhere reveals that Fletcher describes it correctly. It is this writer's view that he stops short of stating unequivocally that Mk Vs saw action in 1941, but it doesn't matter. We have a source that does: Eesti soomusmasinad : soomusautod ja tankid, 1918-1940 by Tiit Noormets & Mati Õun ISBN 9789985606926. So we no longer need to accommodate an info box that says 1945, without citation, and we can resolve the ambiguity of an editor offering (albeit invalid) references in support of 1945 but arguing elsewhere for 1920.

A question that remains unanswered is whether it is appropriate to say that a vehicle was "in service" when, in fact, it was a case of only a small number or a solitary example lingering on. Perhaps it is possible to find a method of categorisation that reflects the situation more helpfully. Hengistmate (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
 * There is considerable photographic evidence of a pair of wrecked Mark Vs in Berlin in 1945. It is merely you edit warring and trolling to argue otherwise. I note that you've yet again removed this, demanding sources, then when such sources are given you quietly remove the cite yet again. You are incorrigible, there is no point in attempting to discuss with you. I am only posting here to avoid your other favoured tactic, that of posting the insupportable and beyond credible comment, then when it fails to attract any such comment then later actioning it as "unopposed, therefore unanimous support". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that it is necessary to explain this a fourth time. No one is disputing the presence of the vehicles in question. Neither of the cited sources, though, supports the assertion that the tanks took part in any combat. That is very clear. Such an assertion also causes the infobox to contradict the body copy. If you believe that the sources do support your assertion, or if you can find evidence elsewhere that does, please supply more specific details. Moreover, on p67 Fletcher does not support the contention that there were two tanks, which causes a problem, since it means that the reliable source is manifestly wrong.

Some additional matters: Hengistmate (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Please concentrate on the editing and do not attack other editors as you have done here.
 * There is no edit-warring or trolling taking place. Please check on the definitions and refrain from using the terms gratuitously.
 * Please remember that Wikipedia's rules on both procedure and behaviour apply to everyone, even those who repeatedly remind others of them.
 * I am not aware of posting any "insupportable and beyond credible" material on Wikipedia. I always do my best to make sure that anything I offer is thoroughly researched and, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. That might be the problem here.
 * Wikipedia advises against repeated use of the word, "you".
 * Long-standing resentment should not be an influence when contributing to Wikipedia.
 * I cannot understand the last sentence.


 * This is a bit awkward. I've explained that the sources don't support the assertion being made, and yet an "editor" has reinstated them, without addressing the points made above. It's rather like an incident a few months ago when someone was making a lot of quite significant changes to an article on a vaguely related subject. When he was asked to provide a citation or two (not by Mr. Dingley, in this instance) it turned out that if one read them closely, the sources actually contradicted the assertions being made. And so it is with these claims, I'm afraid. I really do feel that the content of the article should reflect what is actually known. Hengistmate (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * What is known is that two Mark Vs (or one - Fletcher) appeared (were photographed) on the streets of Berlin during (or after) the fall of Berlin. They were photographed there by multiple photographers. It's not clear where they came from (Smolensk), or just what use was made of them (Agreed!), but it's unlikely that they were just there for a parade. (Funny! Well, no. But they kind of were. A sort of . . . static parade.) It's also clear that they were Mark V, not Mark IV and so were not WWI Beutepanzer (Who's arguing? What difference would it make?).
 * Just what part of this do you disagree with? Hardly anything. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC) Hengistmate (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Read. Hengistmate (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * Thankyou for fixing your previous edit to make it clear that you're not an independent anon IP who conveniently supports your viewpoint. (A typo makes someone's day.)
 * There are two tanks here. (Agreed, but not acc to D. Fletcher.) One shows a male left hand side with 20mm(?) damage to it. Another shows a female right hand side with what looks like a shell hole and possibly a blow out from the internal ammunition racks (or possibly not one. NPOV.). It has also shed both tracks. Now even assuming (Assuming? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources) that both of these were already displayed in the Lustgarten pre-war (They weren't.), we have one tank that has been used for target practice by a Russian (not convincing for service, they probably (Probably?) shot up the post boxes too). The female though must have (Must have?) been moving to shed its tracks like that  – either under power, or at least being towed. This indicates that they were seeing at least as much pillbox service as a MkV would have done in 1941 (which you're happy to keep claiming (As are you, but in this case because of reliable evidence)).
 * I have no idea what state these tanks were in in 1945. But they were being used, as were sewers and concrete drainpipes, as ad hoc defences. Ref? Maybe it was no more than a couple of Hitler Youth with rifles as old as the tanks, but something made them a military target. Ref? Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Seven? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources

Eight? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:British_heavy_tanks_of_World_War_I#Mark_V_series_use_in_Berlin_1945

Nine? Read your sources over and over and over again.

Ten? "It's not clear where they came from, or just what use was made of them." Apart from the fact that we do know where they came from (Smolensk - are you actually reading any of this?), I couldn't have put it better myself. There is consensus.

I think this sums it up very nicely:

"The last known use of the Mk V in battle was by units of the Red Army during the defence of Tallin against German forces in August 1941. The four Mk Vs previously operated by Estonia were used as dug-in fortifications. It is believed that they were subsequently scrapped."

"In 1945, Allied troops came across two badly damaged Mk V tanks in Berlin. Photographic evidence indicates that these were survivors of the Russian Civil War and had previously been displayed as a monument in Smolensk, Russia, before being brought to Berlin after the German invasion of the Soviet Union in 1941.[6] Accounts of their active involvement in the Battle of Berlin have not been verified."

Fletcher is wrong about the number of vehicles, but the facts about them can be established separately. Assumptions about them cannot. We can establish 1941, but not 1945.

(Btw, at Tallin two of the Estonian vehicles moved under their own power, and two were towed into position. Info not yet published, so that is FYI only. Don't put it on Wikipedia.)

I've referred before to your collection of runner-up medals. I don't know why you persist. We're in (in the light of recent events) Stuart Lancaster territory. I'd call it a day if I were you. Hengistmate (talk) 21:28, 22 June 2014 (UTC)
 * I'll just say this the once: don't edit other's comments on talk pages, especially not for your inevitable sarcasm. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:32, 22 June 2014 (UTC)


 * , I do not believe that the "Beutepanzer" page can be used to argue that the tank was "in service". I do not believe that a couple of Hitler Youth kids running one through to the streets counts as "in service. Hengistmate is not letting this go, considering their latest block, but we should get this right. I don't have access to the Fletcher source. Drmies (talk) 02:57, 2 March 2016 (UTC)
 * "I do not believe that the "Beutepanzer" page can be used to argue that the tank was "in service"."  Fortunately no-one is doing that. If you look at the article, there (or would be, if Hengistmate would stop deleting them) other refs.
 * There are two issues here and I'm not sure which you object to:
 * Were Mark V employed as last ditch defence in the Battle for Berlin?
 * Does that use count as "service"?
 * Hengistmate seems to be arguing that they simply never existed. Yet he's using Fletcher (who says one) as both evidence that it wasn't two, and also as evidence that there were none (which is the opposite of what Fletcher says) - but then Hengistmate's most recent block was for just this sort of misrepresentation of a printed source, so he has no credibility there.

Now this is neither issue to regular troops in the Beutepanzer sense, nor were they likely to be particular functional vehicles. The photos do suggest a working drive in one of them, but I doubt they had much military value other than as thin-skinned pillboxes with small arms within and nothing to fit the sponson guns. Still, if we're counting the 1941 service, why not 1945? This is covered in more detail in the article (Hengistmate permitting) and for the "headline" like this I think it's better to favour inclusion than exclusion, so long as it is explained more thoroughly in the body. See also the Stridsvagn L-60, another surprisingly long service history.
 * If you look at Hengistmate's editing history, predominantly, and going back over several years, you'll see classic WP:NOTHERE and an interest more about trolling me than doing anything positive. Which is a shame, because I've always thought he had plenty to offer in a technical sense. Andy Dingley (talk) 03:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, I think I agree with Hengistmate that the one reference doesn't prove that the tank was legitimately in service in 1945--sorry, I thought I made that clear. I don't have access to the other source. Whether the editor is HERE or not is one thing, but even if they're not, they may have a valid point, even if a minor one, or part of one. For the "headline", as you call it--the infobox--I think it is better to be conservative and let the article expand on the matter. Drmies (talk) 07:31, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
 * It's a massive stretch to say that they were *in service" from what the sources say. It would be truer to say "may have seen some kind of action, perhaps only as static emplacements". Neither 1941 or 1945 belong in the infobox. ( Hohum  @ ) 18:31, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could follow the mark IV example and simply list the wars it was involved with.©Geni (talk) 03:53, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't see that taking the extremely minor Tallinn or Berlin incidents and labelling that as "WWII" undiscussed further would improve clarity for readers. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:28, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Mk V Tanks in Berlin, 1945: an Apology.
Sorry to Andy Dingley, Scrapiron IV, et al.

Our research has just unearthed the diary of a member of the Hitler Youth, Eulen Spiegelei, who was just 14 at the time of the Battle of Berlin. In it he describes how, in the last days of the battle, he and his platoon started up the two Mk Vs and drove them through the streets of the city, attempting to halt the advance of the Red Army. These attacks took the Soviets completely by surprise, and, because they were carried out by what appeared to children, they were nicknamed Kinderüberraschung.

The tanks themselves performed remarkably well after a long period of inactivity, and harried the invading troops so doggedly that admiring German troops indeed dubbed them "dog tanks" (Hundepanzer).

Apologies to everyone who has helped to edit this section, and sorry for having doubted you. This new information has not yet appeared in a WP:RS, but it might well, soon. In the meantime, should I correct the "lede" to include their WWII service? Hengistmate (talk) 10:35, 1 April 2016 (UTC)


 * There is video evidence to support this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ItIcvbacUWo Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Various things
Hi,, thanks for your edits. A few ideas: Cheers, >MinorProphet (talk) 01:56, 30 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The point I was intending to make in the lede about "the last tank based on the Mark I to see combat" was that I was using the blanket term 'Mark V' to include all variants. It was indeed the V*, as you correctly say in your edit summary, but I was just hoping to emphasise that none of the later Marks (e.g. Mark VIII) were used in action. Perhaps "The Mark V* was the last tank based on the Mark I to see combat" would do.
 * You say that the Mark IX wasn't based on the Mark V. But in Mark IX tank it says that the vehicle was indeed based on a lengthened Mark V, citing Fletcher (2001), The British Tanks 1915-19. In addition, the concise but normally accurate B. T. White confirms this view: "The mechanical features of the design were based on the Mark V with an extended driving shaft."
 * You correct the 'approximately 60' tanks used at Hamel to exactly sixty - would you have a complete source for the "Jones, Rarey, Icks. P 32." to which you refer in your edit summary? If not, Fuller (Tanks in the Great War, p. 205) agrees with even more detail, and I can fill in the cite for you.
 * You correct the 'approximately 60' tanks used at Hamel to exactly sixty - would you have a complete source for the "Jones, Rarey, Icks. P 32." to which you refer in your edit summary? If not, Fuller (Tanks in the Great War, p. 205) agrees with even more detail, and I can fill in the cite for you.


 * Forgive me for being critical, but getting the date of Hamel wrong doesn't inspire confidence. All the following comments are made with a view to improving the article, for the benefit of succeeding generations.


 * I wonder why the Mark IX is included at all.


 * Fletcher 2001, p167: "The Mark IX, which was the last British heavy tank to be built before the end of the war was, in reality, hardly a tank at all, at least not in the combat sense. Like the Mark VIII, it was drawn up by d'Eyncourt and J.G. Rackham [actually George John Rackham], and, according to Wilson, the original scheme was for a multi-purpose tank capable of fighting, transporting troops, and carrying supplies." Rackham was answerable to Wilson.


 * B.T. White 1974, p183 says of the Mk IX, "The hull was an elongated version of the lozenge profile of the Mark V, etc. but without the sponsons . . ." That makes life difficult, because it clearly isn't the same lozenge profile; the front horns were sloped more steeply downwards, to improve vision, and the rear horns were also steeper. Fletcher, 2001, p168, disagrees: "The profile of the Mark IX was completey different. It was, in effect, a long, rectangular box with steeply sloped frames at the front and rear and a sort of upturned snout . . " (I have to say that the 'snout' isn't especially obvious to me.)


 * White also says, "Mechanically, the Mark IX was based on the Mark V," but then lists the ways in which the internal layout differs (the engine moved forwards and the gearbox and final drive backwards) so I take that to mean that it used Mark V parts but arranged them very differently.


 * Also Fletcher, p167: "Mention might also be made of a Mark X, described as an improved Mark V in which particular attention had been paid to manoeuvrability, crew comfort, and reliability. This also apparently reached the design stage at the time of the Armistice."


 * An unattributed source says, "The Mark X was a paper-only project to improve the Mark V, originally known as Mark V***. This was basically a contingency plan in case the Mark VIII project failed (if so a production of 2000 was foreseen for 1919), trying to produce a tank with as many parts of the Mark V as possible but with improved manoeuvrability and crew comfort."


 * I think the point of this is that if something is debatable but not vital or clearly wrong, it does no harm to simply omit it, rather than create a hostage to fortune. I'm sure you can write your way around these slight ambiguities. Is, for example, "The Mark V* was the last tank based on the Mark I to see combat" essential? I can't see that the narrative would suffer without it.


 * If you were to ask me about the lead and your changes to it, I'd say that the Mark V was the latest in a series of upgrades to the original rhomboid design, with significant improvements on the previous four, notably the epicyclic transmission which allowed one man to steer etc. . ..


 * The service history overemphasises operations in the East at the expense of the Mk V's actions on the Western Front, which were far more numerous. That should be expanded on.


 * It's only a minor syntactical, but there was no "lengthened Mark V*" - there was a Mark V*, which was a longer Mark V. The Mark V*** was also known as the Mark X, which makes life difficult. Does it merit being included in an article on the Mark V or is it a separate model? Why not mention the Mk Vs that were distributed to Soviet cities after the Great War as "presentation tanks," which is why several survive today? I don't think it's true to say that "the Mark VIII tank was an enlarged Mark V"; it was a new and radically different design.


 * This source may be of use: http://landships.info/landships/tank_articles.html?load=/landships/tank_articles/Tank_Projects_1917_1919.html


 * And details of Jones/Rarey/Icks: https://www.abebooks.co.uk/first-edition/Fighting-Tanks-1916-Ralph-Jones-George/22419101187/bd Fuller breaks it down to main and reserve units, but the total is still 60.


 * There's a lot here, and it's somewhat complicated in parts. Please continue to improve matters. Hengistmate (talk) 10:57, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

thing
The last confirmed use of the Mk V in battle was by units of the Red Army during the defence of Tallinn against German forces in August 1941. The four Mk Vs previously operated by Estonia were used as dug-in fortifications. It is believed that they were subsequently scrapped. The source says, that it's unknown whether they got to the actual battle... with this plan ... WikedKentaur (talk) 14:27, 9 August 2022 (UTC)