Talk:Mk VII Tetrarch light tank

Untitled
Characteristics box needs units of measure to be defined.

How many were built?
How many were built? Gillyweed 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Tetrarch?
Where does the name Tetrarch come from? The Roman Imperial Political organization of the same name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.159 (talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
 * That's the origin of the word, but the tank was probably named that because of the FOUR wheels each side - (tetra-). Ian Dunster (talk) 10:01, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Y'see, I thought that as well, but none of my sources confirm it. Loads of other info on it, including it's nickname, but not why it was named that. Might take a trip down to the IWM one day and see if I can find out. Skinny87 (talk) 10:16, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Best of luck though I suspect it was named that by some now-unknown classically educated civil servant at the War Office. Ian Dunster (talk) 11:21, 27 December 2008 (UTC)

Survivors
A Tetrarch Mark VII is preserved at the Bovington Tank Museum in England.

Calling Emanuel Santana
"better cross-country abilities" Does lower complexity & less tendency to break down, due to no tracks, play into that, also? TREKphiler  hit me ♠  08:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I don't know, Trekphiler. The sources don't say. I won't revert now, but would you mind asking on the talk-page before making big changes to the article? I put a lot of hard work into it and want to take it to FA. Skinny87 (talk) 10:13, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Thank-you for the new wikilinks and the info about it being considered as a cruiser-type tank; I didn't have that info. I apologize for above, but I get a little antsy when I start seeing people adding a lot of stuff to articles I've worked for a while at, I've had bad experiences before. Skinny87 (talk) 10:20, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

copyediting suggestions
Lead para General
 * Use of the word "Tetrarchs" is annoying me a bit; seems a bit clumsy. In situations where the reader already knows what you are talking about, i.e "As a result, the majority of the Tetrarchs produced remained in Britain" may I suggest simply changing it to "tanks" or "vehicles"?
 * Maneuver; change to manoeuvre? British tank, British spelling, although Maneuver is also used in Britain. Ironholds (talk) 16:31, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I'll get to work on the first bit; I'm not sure about spellings really, so I think I'll just leave it consistent as it is. Skinny87 (talk) 16:42, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Fair enough. Much of what I'd normally suggest has already been covered, either during your editing or by the FA reviewers. I'd advise taking it back to them and asking if they can spot any issues (sorry I wasn't much help). Ironholds (talk) 18:14, 24 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Hey, even those comments have helped, so thanks! Skinny87 (talk) 18:43, 24 December 2008 (UTC)

War office reaction
According to the vickers tanks from landships to the challanger the war office wasn't exactly happy about the tank complaining that they had been excluded from it's development and as a light cruiser it was inferior to the nuffield A-13. Does this contradict other sources?Geni 21:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Erm, I'm not sure really, I'll need to consult my sources; it does ring a bell, but perhaps not in a great amount of detail, though it wouldn't surprise me. The Tetrarch was an awful tank. What's the author for that book, by the way? Thanks for the heads-up, by the way - if we could discuss any changes prior to editing the article I'd be greatful. Skinny87 (talk) 21:32, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * . The war offices atitude appears to have been somewhat conflicted since they only appear to have been prepared to accept the tank as a light cruiser in an emergancy but on the other hand wanted to get their hands on it with the proposal that it "might bebrought in at the end of the light tank program". Heh at this point vickers itself started to get cold feet after they found that "in getting out production drawings it was essential to refer repeatedly to the actual machine".Geni 22:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, that's rather interesting, I must admit. Well, it seems that this should form a sentence or two in the 'Development history' section - perhaps around the area beginning 'Satisfied with the tank...', or instead of it? Since you've got the book, you know what needs to be put in - perhaps you could write a sentence or two here? Skinny87 (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The War Office examined the design and put the prototype through a series of trials during May and June 1938; the model was tested as a possible "light cruiser" since War Office light tank needs were already met by its predecessor, the Mark VI. The war office then took the view that the tank was not acceptable as a light cruiser because the Nuffield A13 offered better speed and obstacle crossing performance. Despite this it was decided that it was essential to have some Tetrarchs the suggesting being that they be brought in at the end of the light tank program. The War Office gave it the official specification number A17, and, in November 1938, accepted it for limited production after requesting a few minor changes which included the fitting of an external fuel tank to increase the tank's range. Geni 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Seems good. Only two points; we should expand on what the 'Nuffield A13' is, and 'essential to have some Tetrarchs the suggesting being that they be brought in at the end of the light tank program' this seems to be missing something/ Other than that, and making sure 'War Office' is capitalized, it's all good! Skinny87 (talk) 20:45, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Given the date the Nuffield A13 is probably the Cruiser Mk III and the sentance should be "essential to have some Tetrarchs, the suggestion being that they be brought in at the end of the light tank program".Geni 21:15, 6 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Okay, but why was it deemed essential to have some Tetrarchs? I presume because Britain desperately needed tanks, but clarifying that would be good. If we can get that expanded a bit, I think we'd be ready to insert it into the article! Skinny87 (talk) 12:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * The book doesn't explain why. The book appears to be quoteing the war office but with a tense shift "It was essential to have some of these tanks and they might be brought in at the end of the light tank program".Geni 15:24, 7 April 2009 (UTC)


 * 'The War Office examined the design and put the prototype through a series of trials during May and June 1938; the model was tested as a possible "light cruiser" since War Office light tank needs were already met by its predecessor, the Mark VI. The War Office then took the view that the tank was not acceptable as a light cruiser because the Nuffield A13 offered better speed and obstacle crossing performance. Despite this, it was decided that it was essential to have some Tetrarchs produced, and it was suggested that they be brought in at the end of the light tank program . The War Office accordingly gave the Tetrarch the official specification number A17, and, in November 1938, accepted it for limited production after requesting a few minor changes which included the fitting of an external fuel tank to increase the tank's range.'
 * How does that look for you, as the final product? Skinny87 (talk) 19:54, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * fine.Geni 20:44, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * And it's in! Thanks for all the help. By the way, that book: how many pages does it have on the Tetrarch? And does it have a lot on the light tanks Vickers produced, the Mk V and so forth? I'm looking for a decent book on them. Skinny87 (talk) 21:06, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Two pages of text. Light tanks from the light tank Mk1 to the Harry Hopkins cover from pages 87 to 99. A a whole the books is probably more of interesting in improveing the Vickers MBT article.Geni 21:32, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Name
Should the Article name be Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch - which would seem to follow British tank naming conventions ? --Jim Sweeney (talk) 12:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Might not be a bad idea, with 'Tetrarch (tank) as a redirect'. If you want to move it, I don't think it would be controversial at all :) Skinny87 (talk) 12:28, 18 April 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch. 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/20150526191819/http://worldoftanks.eu/encyclopedia/vehicles/ussr/tetrarch_ll/ to http://worldoftanks.eu/encyclopedia/vehicles/ussr/tetrarch_ll/

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) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Heavy Tank M6 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 07:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)