Talk:Mk VI light tank/Archive 1

Safekeeping
The Vickers design was ready for production when the United Kingdom began its large rearmament program. The tank was mass produced to fill the ranks of both the Royal Tank Regiment and the mechanized cavalry regiments. It was a machine gun armed tank designed as a scout and reconnaissance tank, and not intended to engage enemy tanks.

Armament
The armament was twin Vickers machine guns, one .50 inch and one .303 inch in the same mount in the turret. The turret was hand cranked with a full 360 degree traverse, while the weapons could elevate to 37° and depress to -10°. 200 rounds of .50 in and 2,500 rounds of .303 inch ammunition were carried. In addition to the armament, a No. 9 W/T radio was fitted in an extension to the rear of the turret.

Armour
The armour of the Mark VI series was designed to prevent penetration by .303 inch and smaller rounds. To that end 14 mm plate (to British Official Armour Specification I.T.70) was fitted on most surfaces, although at its thinnest protection was only 4 mm.

Power plant
Power was provided by a Henry Meadows ESTB six cylinder water-cooled petrol engine producing 88 bhp at 3,000 rpm. A transmission was through a pre-selector gearbox with five forward gears plus reverse. Top speed was 30 mi/h. Total weight reached 5.12 Long tons.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk) 12:00, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Tank, Light, Mk VIA
Only 91 Mk VI tanks were produced before the improved Mark VIA was started. The most important improvements were to the suspension and cooling systems, although minor improvements to both driver and commander stations were made as well. Tracks were widened and lengthened, improving comfort without degrading performance. The original Mk VI had an inadequate cooling system for some of the hotter locations of the British Empire, and the new cooling system of the Mk VIA was tested extensively in Egypt, where it performed well. Eighty-five Mark VIA tanks were built, from November 1935 to January 1936.

The Tank, Light AA Mk I was built on the Mk VIA chassis, it featured four 7.92 BESA machine guns, a small number were produced before production was changed to the Tank, Light AA Mk II.

Tank, Light, Mk VIB
With the remedies to the mechanical problems, it was decided to equip the Indian Army with the tank. However, despite adequate engine cooling, the crew compartment was not adequate for the tropical conditions of the sub-continent. Further improvements to the engine cooling were also to be made. The result was to be a standard version for use both by British and Indian forces, the Mark VIB. The Mk VIB served with British armoured forces universally and was the most common of the Marks at 850 produced, from April 1937 to January 1940

The Tank, Light AA Mk II was built on the Mk VIB chassis, it improved upon the turret and sights of the previous model.

Tank, Light, Mk VIC
The final design of the Mark VI involved changes to the armament, replacing the Vickers machine guns with the equivalent Besa machine guns, the Vickers .50 in (12.7 mm) with a heavier 15 mm Besa, and the .303 with the near equivalent 7.92 mm. The 15 mm was capable of semi-automatic fire only. The VIC carried 2,700 rounds for the 7.92mm, and 175 rounds for the 15 mm. The commander's cupola was removed and replaced by a simple split hatch. Production was 130 vehicles, from December 1939 to June 1940.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk) 19:10, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Safekeeping III
The Tank, Light, Mk VI filled a major role with battalions of the Royal Tank Regiment and as a tank for the Indian Army on the eve of the Second World War. Many were deployed with the British Expeditionary Force to France in 1939, and most were lost/abandoned during Operation Dynamo in 1940.

Many also served the British in Egypt, where they were heavily involved in the early campaigns in North Africa. The majority of these were Mark VIB, although a few Mark VIA models remained, as well as the some of the heavier armed Mark VIC. Most of the VIA models served in the Infantry Tank Battalions. In combat against the Italian forces, it was revealed that the tank was useful only in a light reconnaissance role, but that even there it was limited by its poor off-road mobility and was deemed less useful than a wheeled vehicle. As of 1 March 1941, official reported strength for the Mark VI in Egypt was 36 Mark VI, 55 Mark VIA, 276 Mark VIB, and 1 Mark VIC with 6 more Mark VIC in transit and due to arrive. 149 of these tanks were assigned to the British 7th Armoured Division and 168 (all Mark VIB) were from the British 2nd Armoured Division. 21 Mark VIC models were shipped on the Tiger convoy which arrived on 12 May 1941.

Additionally, the Mk VI served with the 4th Hussars as part of the 1st Armoured Brigade of W Force as part of the Commonwealth force sent, in 1941, to the Battle of Greece (all tanks were lost or abandoned) and 10 vehicles served with the King's Own Hussars at the Battle of Crete.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Skinny87 (talk) 19:53, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Operational History
There appears to be a typo in the following (partial) sentence "the seven Royal Armoured Corps divisional cavalry regiments, the principal armoured formations of the BEF, were each equipped with twenty-eight Mk IVs". I assume that that should read "MkVIs", but being no expert on British pre-WW2 tanks, I'll leave it to someone more knowledgeable than me to decide if a correction is neccessary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Scartboy (talk • contribs) 00:13, 6 March 2010 (UTC)

fullstop
Shouldn't there be a fullstop in "Mk VI"? This is WWII, so British did use periods back then -- 76.65.128.222 (talk) 09:18, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

15mm Besa
The article states that the 15mm Besa in the VIC was only capable of single-shot fire. The REME Museum here suggests that it was capable of both repetition and auto fire. This page agrees, albeit that they probably got their information from the REME Museum. Presumably whoever wrote the bulk of this generally very good article has a source for his information; what does the source say? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 17:10, 24 June 2008 (UTC)


 * This suggests that the 15mm was a scaled-up version of the 7.92mm BESA and was fully automatic but was ALSO capable of single-shot fire (which the 7.92 was not). DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 08:50, 26 August 2013 (UTC)
 * And this notes that while firing in single-shot mode was accurate, firing in automatic mode was not. DerbyCountyinNZ (Talk Contribs) 09:36, 26 August 2013 (UTC)

I propose this article be merged...
...into Light tanks of the United Kingdom. Surely it would be easy to achieve with the correct usage of headings and common sense. GMRE (talk) 17:17, 7 April 2014 (UTC)
 * This is not such a large topic that it should have a separate article and...
 * It makes perfect sense to list the light tanks Mk.I to VI in the same article.


 * Question of scope really. There were a hundred or fifty of all Marks up to and including Mark V. Most of these did not go near a battlefield. Then the final iteration Mark VI enters service and there were 1,600 of these and they were the model used in the Battle of France, North Africa and so on before taken out of the front line. The article as it stands on the Marks I to V is about development and improvement, whereas the "story" of the Mark VI is about its actual use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:35, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not Merge - A notable war vertaeran with a wellwritten article which has scope for more expansion - Why merge? Include a para or main articlelink in the light tanks article.--Petebutt (talk) 18:53, 7 April 2014 (UTC)


 * Not Merge - I agree with GraemeLeggett and Petebutt. This was a significant tank, which made up over 50% of the BEF tank strength in May 1940 (see http://niehorster.orbat.com/017_britain/40-05_bef/z_afv_40-05-10.htm). As such, it deserves not only to have its own page, but to have it expanded to include more details of its operational history.Scartboy (talk) 12:21, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

armour
I just wanted to correct the "3-14mm" in the german wiki, but than I saw that this "tank" had 3mm at the bottom, strange because even an extreme small anti-personal mine would destroy the tank driving over it with 3mm "armour" (4mm was to protect .303 inch gun fire maximum... 7,69mm... so I guess the 3mm could maybe be penetrated by a .22 inch weapon at close range), however maybe you correct it in the infobox? I mean usually the bottom armour is important for tanks or isn't it?! greetings! Kilon22 (talk) 22:06, 7 August 2014 (UTC)


 * It's a lightly armoured tracked vehicle for reconnaissance. A balance between size, engine power, and protection. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:18, 8 August 2014 (UTC)