Talk:Tank/Archive 7

Infobox
Should we include template:Infobox weapon at the top of this article? This would serve to graphically tie it in to the hundreds of tank and AFV articles, as well as providing a few salient details for the reader—helping to define what a tank is at a glance. —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 00:26 z 


 * Agreed, done. Dhatfield (talk) 01:02, 28 August 2008 (UTC)


 * template:Infobox weapon is to "to summarize information about a particular weapon or weapon system". Other generic articles (IFV, Armoured fighting vehicle, Rifle, Fighter aircraft, Frigate ...) don't use this template. A tank would still be a tank if it used a different type of armour to those listed. I suggest removing the infobox (leaving the picture). DexDor (talk) 22:20, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, gents. I had a huge row with someone over this, simply for suggesting that France be considered the joint country of origin, which is what it says in the article. The Gordian knot has been cut. I wouldn't count Germany, though. Their tanks programme didn't arise spontaneously, as it did in GB and France; it was a response. Cheers, Hengistmate (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Amendments March 8th, 2011
Have supplied citations requested. Restored mention of outdated technologies in Wells's story; I think it is necessary to show that the vehicles had already been overtaken by events and were therefore merely another precursor of the tank. Also reverted removal of the conjunction "that"; I find it helps readability. As the saying goes, it is rarely wrong to omit it but never wrong to include it. I cannot detect the "editorial tone" referred to.Hengistmate (talk) 12:14, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

The Type 95 Ha-Go light tank
The Type 95 light tank was a unique war machine. First fielded in 1935, it was was of the most advanced tanks in the 1930s, its only real competitor was the Russian BT tank. Both of these tanks were armed with cannons, 37mm and 45mm respectively, while nearly the rest of the armored community were equipped with machine gun or 20mm armed tanks. But the Type 95 was also diesel engine equipped, which made it more battle worthy, as the Russians found out at Nomonhan in 1939. In addition, the Type 95 had a distinctly different combat history than any other World War Two tank:
 * The Type 95 is the only enemy tank to ever invade North America during wartime. This particular Type 95 is currently on display at the US Army's Aberdeen Proving Grounds in Maryland, USA.
 * The 95 fought the longest distance war of any axis nation during WWII; over 10,000 miles from Alaska to India, and from 2,500 miles from the interior of Russia to the coastal regions of Australia.
 * The first axis tank to fight US manned armor in WWII.
 * The first axis tank to defeat US armor in WWII (December 1941 in the Philippines).
 * The first tank, in large numbers, to do battle with Soviet General Georgy Zhukov (Nomonhan) in August 1939.


 * The above statements can all be argued over or qualfied but what is the purpose of the statements? This information should already be in the tank's own article. Adding it to the main article on the tank in general would be a case of undue detail. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Apparently this Type 95 narrative is a response to a comment made by "Hohum" on April 20, 2012 stating "all main axis tanks used "petrol". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.111.48.1 (talk) 17:45, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Edits June 8th, 2012. Conception.
Dear Trekphiler,

An engine is: a mechanical contrivance consisting of several parts working together, especially as a source of power; a machine or instrument, especially a contrivance used in warfare. (O.E.D.) From the Latin ingenium. I think we can agree that such things existed even before biblical times.

The passage in question is a paraphrasing of introductory remarks from works by Alan J. Smithers, John Glanfield, Macksey & Batchelor, Trevor Pidgeon, Paul Malmassari, Jean-Gabriel Jeudy, Patrick Wright, and several others that I should have to go and look up. Many authors who would like their works to be thought of as authoritative seem to have felt that such information is necessary for a fuller understanding of the subject. I am a little pushed for time, but if you would care to totally cite them in a collaborative spirit, that would be most helpful to the project.

I am aware that the article is not a study of armour. I am not fully clear on the relevance of the remark.

I am happy, though, that you seem to have found no fault so far with my substantial rewriting of this section. Now, how do we avoid an edit war? I can never remember which way round it is. If you make three alterations and I revert you three times, have I started it? Please advise.

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The page won't burst into flame if the contested content isn't there until it is cited when you have time yourself. However of more relevance, in my opinion, is the "florid" style of the prose. ( Hohum  @ ) 19:46, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * ♠Your coming here, Hengistmate, rather than simply reverting avoids any edit war, so no worries there. :)
 * ♠I do also sense the tone is a bit overblown, but that could be my own preferences...
 * ♠As for the relevance of the remark, I meant in relation to going back to Biblical times. Armor & its use goes back a very long way; not all of its history is directly relevant to tanks. Plate mail or barding, for instance, have no relevance here, except insofar as to say armored horses were neither fast enough nor heavily armored enough to cope with HE shells & the torn up terrain of no-man's land. Whence the ref to engines: only with the introduction of mechanical power did the combination of armor & mobility make a tank concept practical. So the siege tower or armored turtles (can't think what they're called) don't pertain, tho they were intended for much the same purpose.
 * ♠That it was uncited was only an additional issue; personally, I'd be happy to wait, since I don't question the validity of your claims, only the relevance.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:03, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead picture
Every time I look at this article it seems to have a new lead picture. From memory, there was a discussion of this a while ago where the consensus was to use a photo of a T-55 on the grounds that it was the most-produced tank. While this is hardly the main priority in improving this article, a bit more stability in its lead image would help ;) Nick-D (talk) 11:18, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure that it's such a bad thing that the image changes occasionally, as long it always a useful one. This is a very broadly scoped article, and a single image doesn't really sum it up. I can't remember if there was a suggestion of using a collage of various tanks... WWI, WWII, Cold War, Modern; for instance, but I think that will start a pointless breast-beating contest, especially for the modern contenders. Animated gifs are discouraged aren't they? ( Hohum  @ ) 12:47, 27 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with the T-55 on production numbers. I've some concern with what seems to me a pro-U.S. bias (M1, M4). I understand the T-55 was objected to as on static display. I also understand, in automotive articles (not the best comparison, perhaps), the current or most recent design is preferred. Also, since most readers are likely to expect "tank" to mean "modern tank", a recent type seems to make most sense. That being so, I tend to prefer a more obscure choice (Merkava, say), or one with interesting features (reactive armo(u)r, frex). All that said, I have no strong preferences, if something can be agreed on.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  08:29, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Why as a lead picture set a Serbian M-84? Some other tank would be much better choice. My opinion is that for lead picture must be more significant tank like T-55 mentioned earlier or M1 Abrams, Panther, Merkava, M4 Sherman, T-34 etc. They all participate in battles of WW2 as important tanks or in conflicts in modern wars around SSSR (Afganistan, Korea, Vietnam, Georgija) and in Middle East. Even Leopard 2 would be good choice, modern tank, the most popular in Europe and have modern modular armour that can be upgraded easily. M-84 was only in wars in Yugoslavia, mostly used by serbian army in mass crimes on civilans of albanian, bosnian, croatian and slovenian nationality. And M-84 dosen't have noting interesting (and TREKphiler mention it) like ERA armour or active protection like system ARENA or Shtora. I think that T-55 is the best choice.--Culo-sija (talk) 08:21, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I rv'd to the M84 because it beats the M4 for reasons I mention, until we can settle on a better option. I've no strong objection to the T-55, but I still think a more modern option would be better. T-80? Or a Chinese model (type number I can't think of... :?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  12:11, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Given that tank designs look more or less the same (with a few exceptions such as the Merkava which has an unusual design), it might be best to go by the quality of the photo. The current image is pretty good, though there are likely to be clearer pictures. Nick-D (talk) 12:18, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * How about an Australian Sentinel tank? Or something South Korean?   The point being simply to get away from this "My country's tanks are better than yours" nationalism. Australia has both designed an indigenous tank and is relatively light on jingoism. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever tank is used as the lead image, someone will change it, sometimes even using a good argument. Should it be the first tank made, the most manufactured, one of the important WWII tanks, a leading cold war model, something with unique or new features? Or the one that causes the least outcry? Personally, I think that trying to settle on one is like herding cats, and it really doesn't matter if it changes, as long as it's always a useful image. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:39, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't thing that is good idea to have picture that dosent't have information about author or source and have stupid description about M1 Abrams in South Korea??? That picture must be proposed for delete. By the way, name of the picture M-84 VS means on serbian "Velika Srbija" (translate to english: "Great Serbia") and that name is serbian national propaganda. Read the article and you will see. Version of the M-84 tanke named M-84VS dosen't exist!--Culo-sija (talk) 20:24, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I think Hohum's right, it's going to keep getting changed by people with a POV of one kind or another. I could live with it if it was a couple of times a year or so. And I agree with Culo-sija, implicit promotion should be removed. I have no problem with the Sentinel (unusual/rare, not from a major tank maker) or Merkava (same reasons), nor the T-55 (most common in current use, no?). So, pic quality rules.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  22:00, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, then change picture. I see that you guys don't like american tanks (i set M4 earlier). I will not change this on my own, set any other good picture, just remove that M-84VS.--Culo-sija (talk) 22:30, 8 August 2012 (UTC)


 * here we go again. Contemporary isn't an issue. Anything post the multi-turreted jobs of the 1930s looks much the same to anyone who doesn't already know the subject fairly well. Beyond that the options are numbers (T-55 I think this is the best photo we have at the moment), significance in WW2 (T-34, Sherman, perhaps panther) or the one we have the most good pics of (M1 Abrams thankyou US army).
 * The other issue people tend to raise is do we want a really good static pic or a pic of one looking like it is doing something?©Geni 08:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm opposed to most modern tanks because they have side shields that hide suspension and also because they're just too complicated. The key features of a "tank" are tracks, armour and a main gun carried in a full-rotation turret. We can see this much from the Shermans (and many others). A Challenger or Abrams hung about with thermal sights and with a turret pushed so low that it's indistinguishable from the hull doesn't make these key aspects visible to the reader. A slab-fronted Sherman, ballistically inappropriate as that might be, does at least indicate where the driver sits. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:32, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Geni, although that is a good high resolution image, I think three quarters views are far better for showing the overall shape of a tank. My preference is action pics, but I wouldn't make it a hard rule. what we really need is a template which shows one of a selection of images for each page refresh ;) ( Hohum  @ ) 17:41, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That could be a plan. :) Pull up a different one automatically. I've seen ads change each time I page refresh. Anybody want to take that on...? :p  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  19:57, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * while entirely possible its not a good idea. Wikipedia pages are meant to be fairy static in so far as that is possible with a wiki. So a sigle image or a collage are the available options.©Geni 07:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The image is I think the best we have of a T55 at this time.©Geni 07:36, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * While a T-55 would make a good choice, that photo you suggest isn't very good - its background is very cluttered, and the tank is off-centre. Nick-D (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we don't have any really first class images of T-55s. Any suggestions on how we could get one?©Geni 19:12, 13 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Changing picture is relativly hard and complicate. If you can't agree which will be, you can create gallery, with more picture of tank that represent some period of history (e.g. WWI (Mark IV or FT-17), Interwar period, WWII (Panther or M4 Sherman), Cold War (T-55), 1990.-today (Merkava or K2 Black Panther)) or connect that pictures in one big. Of course, don't let that one country be two times. This way all time will be same lead pic in the article and won't be battles about it. In the same time, readers can see different tank design and developmet in same pic. (Simular as this Poles but with bigger pic and only 5-6 pic)--Culo-sija (talk) 10:59, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

Tank ancestry
Is it acceptable saying that the war chariots, first used by the Hittite empire, who taught how to build an use chariots to the Israel kingdom, the new weapon spreading also to Egypt, were the first tanks? Probably the way war chariots were used then did not differ substantially to the way tanks, a word coming from the vehicles first having its appearance, water tanks, were used in more modern wars.--Jgrosay (talk) 14:39, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * •sigh• This is a bit like claiming every use of entrenchment is trench warfare. "Tank" describes a very specific combination of track, armor, & internal combustion engine. Not every armored contraption in history was, or is, a tank.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  18:51, 28 October 2012 (UTC)
 * A chariot is substantially faster than an early tank was, and even though modern tanks are quite fast, there are several other vehicles which are more mobile, whereas a chariot was the fastest thing on the battlefield. Furthermore, they were open-topped, which really negated the point of armouring them, aside from making sure they didn't fall over. No, a chariot is nothing like a tank. 143.92.1.33 (talk) 23:51, 30 October 2012 (UTC)
 * That's just about the most incomprehensible argument I've heard in a long time.... Chariots weren't self-propelled, for a start: they were drawn by horses. They were, & are, on a continuum of protection v speed v firepower which has been going on for millennia. So were tanks. The difference is the qualitative change on the battlefield at the time the tank was introduced: between 1870 & 1914, lethality had spiked by more than 25 to one (& IIRC, more like 100:1). The tank addressed that where nothing else could, which makes it unique.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:16, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

"Tank" word
Why is it called "tank"?--85.106.227.8 (talk) 18:18, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Did you actually read the page?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:10, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Uncited paragraphs, uncited sections
I must admit I was surprised to find so much uncited material in such a mature article on a major topic. I counted 46 uncited paragraphs - haven't sprinkled CNs over them, but have marked up the wholly uncited sections. Did a little quick editing and added an obvious ref, but there's a piece of work here. Some of the uncited material is pretty flaky (WP:OR?) and might be better removed until/unless citations can be found. Chiswick Chap (talk) 17:11, 17 January 2013 (UTC)

Etymology - Albert Stern's quote reinstated.
Particularly for the attention of William M. Connolley and The Magnificent Clean-keeper: I have reinstated the full quote from Stern’s autobiography, and shall explain why.

That is exactly what the source says. In addition, Ernest Swinton says in his own autobiography that the term tank “was to echo round the world and eventually to become incorporated in the language of every nation possessing a military vocabulary.” (Eyewitness, p161)

The fact that they were mistaken (France at first adopted the term but quickly rejected it) or that the situation subsequently changed does not permit us to misrepresent sources, edit quotations, or rewrite history, and I do not believe that Wikipedia policy permits us to do so, however pleased with ourselves we might feel at having come up with what we imagine to be a clever way of making our point.

The words, in their entirety, are Stern’s. The fact that his assertion was mistaken is accommodated in the next paragraph but two, and without his quote the reference to it does not make sense. The paragraph is relevant, since it is the case that some languages do use a version of the word tank whilst others do not, and an explanation is helpful to the reader. Hengistmate (talk) 15:09, 6 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I don't know what importance Stern's quote has in general for this article (I'd say little), but if you insist on the full quote please clarify his mistake in the very same paragraph, not three paras down. I will therefore rm. the misleading part again.TMCk (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2013 (UTC)

Well, of course you will. Wikipedia soon ceases to surprise. Deleting a line is the work of a moment, requires comparatively little constructive thought, and induces in some a pleasurable feeling of power and superiority. I'm sorry you don't understand the importance of Stern's account. It's just that the matter of the origin of the term "tank" is what we might call an FAQ, and I took the view that since he was one of the pivotal figures in tank development and was, if you like, the CEO of the committee that changed its name to include the word "tank", and that his account of events was published in 1919, and that the reference meets all the Wikipedia criteria one might wish to apply, it was probably worth a mention. On the other hand, doctoring a quote and, in doing so, rendering another part of the article nonsensical seems to me to be at odds with Wikipedia principles. It is especially puzzling when such an action ostensibly arises from a desire for precision.

Stern's claim might be inaccurate, but we are not subbing the text for publication; we are quoting it, with qualifications. It is not misleading, since the inaccuracies are addressed and refuted. It's a standard literary technique. And the inaccuracies are addressed and refuted in the same order as they occur, so changing that would not make sense and would disrupt what is, as it stands, a rather nicely balanced piece of writing, if I say so as shouldn't.

If you're worried about misleading material on Wikipedia, you're going to be very busy indeed. I am always impressed by the fine-tuning editorial skills that some "editors" possess, and the confidence with which they issue instructions to others, always, one assumes, motivated by a desire to improve the article. I do, though, wonder where they get to during the long periods when articles are risibly innacurate, as in the case of this section. For example, of the three numbered paragraphs at the top of this section, 1. is somewhat misinformed, 2. is more so (Swinton's Notes on the Employment of Tanks was issued in February 1916; it was Maurice Hankey who in January 1915 submitted his Memorandum on Methods of Attack to Prime Minister Asquith, who, in turn, forwarded it to Churchill. Swinton submitted his Memorandum on Machine-Gun Destroyers to GHQ France in June 1915), and 3. is entirely garbled. The normally reliable Martin Gilbert's account is very badly wrong. He has them called "tanks" in February 1915, ten months too early, and has confused Russia, water-carriers, water tanks, Mesopotamia, and snow ploughs. A case can be made for removing these paragraphs, but it perhaps useful to let readers see these erroneous explanations that they might have read elsewhere (possibly copied from Wikipedia) and disabuse them.

So really, I think the section is, taking everything into account, better as it was. Rather than revert your reversion and talk afterwards, I invite you to study the above for a reasonable period before I return the section to its preferable form. Hengistmate (talk) 20:40, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Footage of WWI tanks correction.
That clip comprises mostly footage of British tanks shot for a 1927 feature film called The Somme. The opening title is from the same film. The brief footage of a Renault FT has been cut in. It might have been shot at Langres, where the American light tank training school was, but there's nothing to confirm that. The rest of the footage was shot on Salisbury Plain. I have tried to make the new caption as uncontentious as possible. Hengistmate (talk) 00:07, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Etymology: continued.
I'm afraid I've had to revert quite a lot of Trekphiler's recent alterations. I'm certain that Wikipedia does not approve of rewriting quotations, so I have returned the Popular Science article and Sir William Tritton's remarks to their original form. The words and punctuation are as they appeared. I suspect that that is how it ought to be. So the punctuation crusade is not necessary. I believe that the use of that word is somewhat frowned on nowadays. I have also, while I was at it, reinstated Bertie Stern's full quote. If we carry on altering references retrospectively, where will it all end? Trekphiler's aversion to the conjunction "that" remains as strong as ever, I see. I would offer that this section deals with what is essentially a British topic and is largely written in English rather than American English. As the saying goes, when it comes to the use of "that," it is seldom wrong to omit it but never wrong to include it. I think we've had this discussion before, elsewhere. I have, though, clarified the Swinton reference; I know you will be delighted, and I am grateful to you for bringing that oversight to my attention. Such minor imperfections can spoil the whole thing. While we're scrutinising the section so carefully, does anyone think that those three numbered paras at the top of the article ought to go, on the grounds that they are almost entirely misinformed? Hengistmate (talk) 12:54, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * The 3 paras at the top of 'Etymology' seem to add very little, other than that wrong theories have been held. Perhaps keep the three citations with some words like "Several wrong or rumoured explanations of the origin of the term have been recorded.[22][66][67]" or something of that kind, and remove the paragraphs.


 * We Brits use both "which" and "that", as well as neither, though perhaps "which" is our preferred tipple.


 * It might be wise to use "...."

- Albert Stern for the quotes to make it clear these are verbatim quotes not to be edited.

Hope this can be resolved peacefully. Chiswick Chap (talk) 13:21, 11 February 2013 (UTC)

Dear Chiswick Chap,

Let me assure you that no one seeks a quiet life more assiduously than I. The problem is that this is Wikipedia, where a PhD and the label on a sauce bottle are treated with equal seriousness. There are those who interpret Wikipedia's principles to mean that we must not evaluate sources or declare that anything is right or wrong, however nonsensical the information might be. This is, of course, utter claptrap. If there is a genuine conflict, then it is fair to represent it; if it is simply that a source is demonstrably wrong, then it must be discounted, but some "editors" will not countenance that. If you would like an example of the phenomenon, take a look at the murders that had to be endured in order to establish that George S. Patton Junior, a captain in the American Army, did not, in fact, lead the British Tank Corps into battle at Cambrai in 1917.

When I first consulted this section it contained three suggested origins of the term "tank," all of which were incorrect but to which no one had raised the slightest objection. Now that I have spent a considerable amount of time writing something that might find a place in a proper encyclopaedia, people are queueing up to argue about a semicolon. Such is Wikipedia. That is what gets one down.

With respect: there is a difference between the relative pronoun (The house that or which Jack built - both are acceptable) and the conjunction (It is true that Jack built this house). Trekphiler believes that neither is necessary, whereas they are sometimes necessary and, to improve the flow of language, usually desirable.

I think there is a general and widespread understanding that a quote is, by its very nature, not to be tampered with. To have to point that out seems to me to be unnecessary. Why two "editors" should suddenly decide that rewriting quotes is permissible, I really cannot say. Perhaps George Orwell might have a view.

The internet is full of complete tosh that has emanated from Wikipedia. With a flick of the wrist one can discover that "Joseph Hawker is generally considered to be the father of the tank." Of course, little could be further from the truth, but, thanks to Wikipedia, there are people who believe it. It is a constant struggle to keep this small and inconsequential area of human interest free of drivel, partly because I have an academic connection with it, but also because of the principle that the truth should be safeguarded. Thank you for your constructive suggestions. I, too, hope that this can be resolved peacefully. On past experience, I wouldn't bet on it.

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 15:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * I think I was unconsciously assuming "good faith", that they might have edited the quotes without realizing. Anyhow, if I can help in any way, feel free to ask. Chiswick Chap (talk) 16:31, 11 February 2013 (UTC)


 * What part of that quote was "rewritten"? Just because the entire passage doesn't appear in one place means nothing. The exact words used are there. By appearances, you want your formulation & none other.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  00:08, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

"What part of that quote was "rewritten"?" The highlights provided by Wikipedia are there to help you find changes. "The exact words used are there," just not necessarily in the right order. I don't expect you've heard of Morecambe and Wise. " . . . you want your formulation & none other." Whereas. . . ? If only I, too, were a paragon of flexibility and compromise. This is a peevish reaction worthy of Andy Dingley at his most obstructive, although entirely expected. Historical and other matters aside, why do you insist on removing the conjunction "that" when it ought to be there? And why mess about with a passage that is a) a quotation and b) perfectly comprehensible?

"And so, my fellow Americans: ask not what you can do for your country - ask what your country can do for you." The exact words used are there. Hengistmate (talk) 12:29, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
 * ♠"The highlights provided by Wikipedia are there to help you find changes." Yes, & they show no sign of the quote being rewritten. You insist on harping on a single word not in the quote, & call me tedious?
 * ♠"This is a peevish reaction ... entirely expected." Is that a fact? You being a dick had nothing to do with it?
 * ♠"why mess about with a passage" Oh, I don't know, how about to address both the issues already raised? Except the one where you get your way.
 * ♠"The exact words used are there." And that is rewriting the quote. Which I didn't do. You've deliberately set out to change the meaning. I broke it up. That does not change the meaning. It does deny you your preferred solution, which appears to be what you're upset about.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  14:20, 12 February 2013 (UTC)

Chiswick Chap: See what I mean?

Now, Trekphiler. I notice that you have removed your stupefyingly infantile comment. It was quite startlingly puerile, and unusual for a grown man, even one who is unembarrassed at announcing to the world his enthrallment with Star Trek. I shall return to the remaining abusive comment shortly.

Let me, as Wikipedia advises, confine myself to the editing of this section. I am reluctant to respond to the Dingleyan logomachy of your last posting, but I would explain again that the orangey brown highlighting shows which of Stern's words were removed by The Magnificent Clean-keeper, William M. Connolley, and yourself, and the light blue highlighting those of William Tritton's words you have moved when rewriting his quote. Now, Wikipedia has a policy on quotations. If you read it here, I think you will be impressed at the number of aspects of the policy your editing has ignored. And I have been unable to find a source that defines a quotation as "what someone thinks someone else ought to have said."

I restate my point about the use of English in this article, this time with the support of the table at the head of the Talk Page. "This article is written in British English, and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus." I detect no such consensus. The same applies to your "crusade" against "wrong" punctuation is as misguided as most of the undertakings that have borne that title. The punctuation is as it appeared in the Popular Science Monthly article and is correct in British English. Apart from one missing comma, which you didn't spot.

I didn't call you "tedious." It is the process that is tedious, by virtue of its predictability and familiarity. When I require the retention of the conjunction "that," I am "harping on." When you demand its removal, you are. . . something else, apparently. If only one of us is pigheadedly insisting on his point of view, why is there a dispute? It takes two to Tonga, as you would probably be happy to write. All the letters are there.

Finally: whilst I have explained politely and in detail why I disagree with your edits, you have called me a dick. Even without checking, I'm sure that that is contrary to Wikipedia policy. I should be happy to seek an impartial view on both the editing of the section and the appropriateness of certain words and expressions. Hengistmate (talk) 19:14, 22 February 2013 (UTC)


 * ♠"those of William Tritton's words you have moved" Yes, moved. Not altered one whit, contrary to your effort to portray it as such.
 * ♠"two to Tonga, as you would probably be happy to write. All the letters are there." For all your pretense of intelligence, you do demonstrate a genuine ignorance of the difference between your approach & mine. Or is that willful? Since this is twice you've done something I never have, & claimed it's the same thing.
 * ♠So, if I quote Churchill saying, "We shall fight on the beaches" and say, "He finished by saying, 'We shall never surrender'", you believe I've changed the meaning, do you? I invite you to find anyone who isn't you who thinks so.
 * ♠The policy page you link to says, "The wording of the quoted text should be faithfully reproduced." Care to demonstrate one single place where I haven't reproduced the exact wording of the quote in question? (Not the "that", which isn't part of the quote, but seems to irritate you so.)
 * ♠The policy page you link to says, "Do not omit text where doing so would remove important context or alter the meaning of the text." This appears to be your primary complaint. Again, care to demonstrate one single place where I have changed the meaning? As opposed to moving the same piece so it's not where you'd prefer it?
 * ♠"I have explained politely and in detail" Polite? "stupefyingly infantile comment"? "startlingly puerile" What remarkable politeness. You start with tone that makes it pretty clear you think I'm an idiot unworthy of your attention. Yet it appears to surprise you I don't like it. You then go on to accuse me of multiple violations of guidelines, with not a grain of evidence. By appearances, you want to make it about what you consider my lack of intelligence, or my motives. You want to claim personal attack? I invite you to do so. I shall quote your own words here & be satisfied to take what comes. Will you? Or is that puerile, too?  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  20:56, 20:57, & 20:59, 22 February 2013 (UTC)

Hello again, Mr. Trekphiler. I'm sorry I haven't had the time of late to continue our discussion, but I'm able to spare a few minutes now.

I at first thought you had mounted a complex defence of your alterations, but on closer inspection it proves to be more of a smokescreen.

If I understand you correctly, then you have not rewritten anything. You have merely moved some words around. And removed one. And altered the punctuation.

Here are some definitions of "rewrite" from major English language dictionaries: to write again, especially in a different or improved form; write (something) again so as to alter or improve it; to write in a different form or manner; to change something that has been written, especially in order to improve it, or because new information is available; British English: rewrite - if someone rewrites a piece of writing such as a book, an article, or a law, they write it in a different way in order to improve it.

No matter that your alterations don't constitute an improvement. I think we can say that the intent was there. I find it very hard to argue that you have not rewritten the quote. Please do not pretend not to understand the word.

Also, please do not use a "straw man" argument. I have not said that you have changed the meaning; I said that you have rewritten the quote, which you have. My alteration to the JFK quote was to show. . . well, I forgot about the irony thing.

If you look here, you will see the changes you have made; what you have moved and/or removed. If no rewriting has taken place, then I cannot understand why the two versions are not identical. Can you explain? The "one single place" where you "haven't reproduced the exact wording" is: the entire quote. I'm afraid that is inescapable. And "that" is part of the quote, as can clearly be seen.

Could I also again ask you to explain why my desire to incorporate the original "formulation" is somehow unreasonable insistence, whilst your equal and opposite wish to include the altered version is not?

The situation is that you have rewritten a quote without the good cause that Wikipedia requires. You appear to have substituted American English for English without seeking consensus, and changed the punctuation so that it is neither original nor correct. If you believe that there is good cause, it would be most interesting to learn what it is. What I find hardest to understand is that you didn't just leave the whole thing alone, as you had while the actual fact-finding was taking place.

You will also remember that you were very keen to clarify the line, "Lt.-Col. Swinton also claims that it was his suggestion at that meeting." Apart from the removal of the conjunction "that", could you explain how the article benefits from the replacement of my clarification, "Lt.-Col. Swinton also claims to have suggested the adoption of the term" with "Lt.-Col. Swinton also claims he also suggested the name"? It's a small point, but I have become acutely aware of the need for precision.

I take the charitable view that some people are so keen to improve Wikipedia that, having nothing factual to contribute, they will examine other "editors'" grammar or style or spelling or punctuation or anything, really, and introduce what they imagine to be improvements.

The same can perhaps be said in the case of Mr. Leggett's recent interest, possibly stimulated by your own involvement. I notice that the two "editors" who kicked this off seem to have lost interest, but Mr. Leggett sets about the section with vigour. It isn't actually the original quote, and I'm not sure why he felt the changes are necessary, and the sentence, "To Sir Eustace Tennyson-d'Eyncourt's idea of "Water Carrier" was not popular with Stern who wrote . . . " doesn't make sense and is incorrectly punctuated, and d'Eyncourt's name was not hyphenated, but it's there, and to correct it might seem rather high-handed and could lead to an edit war.

But back to our original discussion. I don't wish to claim personal attack. That's another straw man, and anyone reading your remarks can draw their own conclusions. I have no interest in Wikipedian games, just in trying to make a small part of it something like a proper encyclopaedia with some historical credibility. I welcome the opportunity to seek a consensus on these changes, as should have been done some time ago. That isn't puerile. This is, though: "You being a dick had nothing to do with it?" And so is this.

What happens now? Hengistmate (talk) 04:19, 13 March 2013 (UTC)
 * Why isn't it the same? Have you not read any part of what I wrote? Because my intent was to avoid the conflict over the quote, which you have since decided to make about me, or my effort, instead of the substantive issue.
 * Rewritten? What's been rewritten isn't the quote, contrary to what you've been saying. Look at the actual quote. What part of it was "rewritten"? What words were omitted? What words were changed? What part of the meaning is different?
 * What happens now? I ignore you, since you clearly have no intention of improving the page & would rather be insulting & irrelevant.  TREKphiler   any time you're ready, Uhura  01:06, 14 March 2013 (UTC)

Etymology: some more changes.
Hello. I've decided to expand this section to include some more recent research and reflect the various relevant sources. So now we've got Stern, Swinton, d'Eyncourt, Tritton, Volckheim, Strutz, and so on. There's additional information on a number of matters, and it is, if I might say so, a bit of "bold" editing of the sort that Wikipedia encourages. Some previous edits have had to be corrected or, unfortunately, have had to go, but all in the interests of making sense and being historically accurate, grammatically correct, et cetera. I've changed one passage back to the way it was before it wasn't rewritten, but, luckily, since it wasn't rewritten, no one will be able to tell the difference.

Here's an observation that might be of interest, although it is a deduction and not available in a form that other editors will necessarily find acceptable. However: Swinton says that the words that he and Dally Jones considered included container, receptacle, reservoir, cistern, and, finally, tank. His thinking appears to have revolved around the idea of something that holds water. Why? A soldier thinking about an armoured land vehicle? The obvious answer is that he was influenced by d'Eyncourt's suggestion of "water carrier" earlier that day. So where did d'Eyncourt's idea come from? Well, he liaised with Tritton a great deal and visited the factory in Lincoln often, inspecting progress on "Little Willie." It seems unlikely that he would have not become aware of the habit of calling the vehicle a "tank". Then why didn't he suggest the word at the meeting on Dec 24th? Did both Tritton's workforce and Swinton and Jones come up with the name completely by coincidence? Seems a long shot. Perhaps if anyone has any further information they might care to offer it. Must stop now, before I improve the page. No intention of doing that. Hengistmate (talk) 00:23, 27 April 2013 (UTC)


 * At the time fabricated iron or steel water tanks (for fresh water, etc.) were constructed of iron or steel plates riveted together, and the early vehicles would resemble these boxy water containers, both in approximate shape and appearance with many prominent rivets in evidence, quite closely. Hence the naming of the vehicles as 'tanks'. To a factory worker, railway man or similar, who would not have been informed of the nature of the construction it would have been quite plausible to explain the (secret) device as a 'water tank' or 'water carrier' because that is just what it looked like to the uninformed eye.


 * Bearing in mind that few laymen of the time would ever have seen a track-laying vehicle, then the initial naming of 'tank', followed perhaps by calling it a 'water carrier' once it became revealed that the device was actually a vehicle, may well have been appropriate to conceal its true nature and purpose.

Cleankeeper.
Hello, Mr. Cleankeeper.

Please explain, without the use of exclamation marks, how providing additional, historically correct, referenced information is contrary to the Talk Page consensus. In fact, please explain what the Talk Page consensus is. I am unable to detect one. Hengistmate (talk) 07:52, 27 April 2013 (UTC)

Da Vinci
Can we somehow stop contributing to the myth that Leonardo da Vinci "invented" the "tank"? His proposed vehicle incorporated the three elements - mobility, protection, and weaponry - that are present in the tank, but that had been present in vehicles of war for at least 2,000 years before da Vinci. Although it contained some small refinements, it was still muscle-powered, wooden, and mounted on wheels. It fails to meet the criteria set out in the article. It was not tracked; it was not armoured in the sense in which the term is applied to tanks; it did not incorporate an internal combustion engine; it did not have "independent, all-terrain mobility"; the presence of cannon is a matter of degree, not a fundamental design principle. I don't understand why we need to include in an article on the tank so much information about something that is not a tank, and that was not historically significant or influential. It seems reasonable to debate at what point between 1903 and 1915 the tank was invented, because it was during that period that it was invented, but it was not invented by da Vinci, any more than the automobile was invented by Kirkpatrick MacMillan. I don't understand why this machine is singled out for special mention. It is even overshadowed by the Hussite war wagons that predated it. They, at least, existed and fired their guns while on the move. I fear that the almost mandatory references to da Vinci's design afford it an importance it does not merit and subliminally reinforce the impression that it played some real part in the process. Of course, to omit reference to it altogether would simply invite the misguided to insist on its inclusion. Sadly, therefore, we must acknowledge its existence, but I think the arguments for its being a tank should be refuted more robustly than at present. At the very least, let us stop referring to it as "a tank." Hengistmate (talk) 08:49, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Its a mention in passing at the moment, I wouldn't give it any more attention than it deserved and wouldn't use the word tank with it. No need to specifically say it isn't tank unless there are some sources that do claim it as one. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:06, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

The point I was rather hoping to make is that many sources make the claim. If one puts the words "da Vinci" and "tank" in a search engine, then one will find a great many assertions that the former invented, to a greater or lesser extent, the latter. In fact, in the development of the tank, da Vinci's proposed vehicle is irrelevant. It was just another shed on wheels, albeit a rather aesthetically pleasing and slightly complicated one. The trouble is that the belief has become so ingrained that one dare not omit mention of it for fear of being accused of an oversight. The more disturbing, then, that in April 2013 an anonymous "editor" inserts into the paragraph that debunks the da Vinci claim an image of a modern reconstruction, and does use the word "tank". And since many sources do "claim it as one", I believe there is a need to specifically say it isn't one. Hengistmate (talk) 20:38, 29 May 2013 (UTC)


 * in that case per wikipedia policy, one has to report that some sources identify it as a tank, and that some do not and leave it to the reader to take a side. Unless either there is a nuance in the sources that has not been drawn out in the text, or that these sources are not authoriatative. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:09, 29 May 2013 (UTC)

Early German Development.
The reasons for Germany's belated and rather desultory entry into tank production were more complicated than "lack of capacities and resources." It was more to do with lack of belief in the tank's potential. Also, specific mention of the A7V seems overly detailed for inclusion in the lead par. There's no equivalent mention of earlier and more numerous Allied types. That tends to happen with the A7V. Suggest we tone this down a bit and allow the details to emerge in the later section on German development. Nothing will be lost, and the lead par will be better balanced. Hengistmate (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. Instead, work should be done on equivalent allied vehicle, like British Mark Series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimsky.cheng (talk • contribs) 12:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Design section incomplete
I came to the 'Tank' article hoping for information on why the design of tanks changed radically after WW1, reverting from the track-all-round-the-edge design to something more like the abandoned Little Willy design. Could anyone contribute something on the reason for this? For instance, was it entirely because the WW1 design had to cope with trench-warfare conditions? The 'Tanks in WW1' article touches sketchily on this but I'd have thought there was more to be said; and it belongs in the Design section of the main 'Tank' article. Dayvey (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)
 * It would be quite inaccurate to say that WW1 tanks all followed such a track pattern. Yes the British Marks had, but not e.g. the French St-Chamond and Schneider_CA1, nor the German A7V. It would also be inaccurate to say this pattern hasn't survived the WW1. The British remained faithful to this design choice well into WW2 with Churchill. As to why it disappeared, such track pattern is only suitable for low-speed vehicles. As tanks' mobility increased it could no longer cope. This seems a fairly minor point to me, there have been so many variations in tanks' layout and individual component design, that explaining all their pros and cons looks out of place in a general purpose encyclopedia. Vasiliy Fofanov (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * "Around the edge" isn't the issue, it's much more about suspension.
 * WWI tanks had no effective suspension for their road wheels. Most were rigid, a handful (and more in the 1920s) gained leaf springs. As engines were feeble and track design poor (they'd throw their tracks at speed) this was no restriction. As they became more powerful and faster, which could be seen even in the WWI Whippet etc., the advantages were realised of a central "turret" (even if fixed rather than rotating) for all-around visibility and field of fire, together with better suspension to give a ride that allowed a crew to fight effectively on the move.
 * The ultimate "WWI tank" was probably the Vickers Independent of 1925. Although quite different to the WWI period tanks, it was designed for the same purpose - to slowly cross a shell-torn battlefield, spanning trenches and shell holes, engaging infantry with multiple MGs and a light HE cannon for dealing with emplacements. Even in the 1930s and after lots of war games on Salisbury Plain, this gave rise to the British doctrine of the "Infantry tank", slow-moving to support an infantry advance.
 * The British had though also developed the notion of the "Cruiser tank", which was fast and equipped to fire AP shot at other tanks. Opinions vary as to whether this was truly a development of the WWI Whippets and Chasers or a separate idea. Obviously these needed good suspension, where Christie was probably the best of the lot.  The Soviets also followed this doctrine of Infantry and Cruiser in tank design for some years, although operational doctrine shifted away from it after experience of the Germans.
 * The German Blitzkrieg concept was quite different. Tank roles were combined as a universal battle tank, capable of either supporting infantry or of engaging other tanks. As assault infantry was mechanised, they too moved fast and so the false notion of "infantry tanks only need to travel at walking pace" was abandoned, as was the idea that these infantry tanks could somehow avoid having to engage other tanks. The Soviet T34 was of course a fine example of such a universal tank. If you're interested, try to find David Fletcher's excellent books ("Scandal" and "Universal") on failures of UK tank design for this issue.
 * Where the Germans needed an "infantry tank" for close support artillery, they soon produced an effective range of assault guns. These were actually faster than the related tanks (lighter, on the same chassis), lower targets and avoided the hugely expensive turret and turret ring mechanism that also limited the long-term calibre and recoil limits of the chassis. The most expensive part of a wartime tank is the factory machinery that can make a turret ring bearing - this is very specialised, not used by much other heavy engineering and takes a long time to provide for new tank factories. As they were deployed with surrounding infantry, they even omitted local defence hull MG gunners altogether - anathema to the multi-turret "walking pillboxes" like the Independent.
 * Enveloping tracks didn't go away, they just shrank lower. You can see them on the Independent, you can even see them on the Churchill. They're just lower, to allow a full traverse turret to shoot over them. As the main gun gets bigger, the turret ring must also grow bigger to support the recoil forces. When this becomes wider than the track spacing, something has to give.  We now see a step change in tank hull design,  where the upper hull bursts free like an uncorseted Goth and spreads wider into a beer shelf hull sponsons above the track. The turret ring can now be the full width across the tracks, not between them. The sponsons also give more space for storage of the increasingly larger ammunition, and the extra crew loader to handle it. The tracks don't care, they have good suspension that can run them at speed without continual support. The Russians also discover the useful fact that "slack track", abandoning upper return rollers altogether, will on average run just as well as a tank in average service condition. It even has a useful snow and mud clearing effect, avoiding the packing and jamming problems that bedevilled later German tanks with their space-efficient, but clog-prone interleaved suspension.  Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * The rhomboidal design was simply to get a sufficient trench-crossing ability so as to cross the wide German trenches of the period. These trenches were often of considerable width, up to seven or eight feet. Later after WW I this became less desirable as trench warfare was becoming obsolescent and general mobility on roads and other terrain, as well as other design factors, became more important. The high rhomboidal shape also meant that a turret could not be used as the centre of gravity would have been too high and have made the vehicle unstable. In contrast, the French and German WW I designs had almost no trench-crossing ability at all in comparison as they just got stuck when the vehicle encountered a trench and the nose dug-in.


 * The high rhomboidal shape was really just a solution to the particular problem facing the designers at the time, i.e., making a vehicle able to cross the wide trenches and not be stopped by the muddy conditions, and by things such as large shell craters. Soon after it was realised that it was simpler to just carry fascines and drop them into any trenches or ditches that needed crossing, and so British tank design abandoned the rhomboidal shape after WW I. For all their shortcomings, the British Mark I and subsequent rhomboidal vehicles were a successful design in that they solved the problems they were designed to, i.e, carrying protected men and guns across no-man's land under heavy enemy machine gun fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.31.130.17 (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Lede image unsuitable
The M4A4 cutaway image is too specialized to be selected for the lede. We need a more generalized image and relocate M4A4 cutaway somewhere else in the article. Green547 (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Agreed, although (per many past comments on this page) I wouldn't chose a modern tank, or one with side skirts hiding the roadwheels and tracks. M4 Shermans are quite a good choice, but not this cutaway. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Then how about this one? Green547 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)


 * Good. WWII defined first real "tanks".  Sherman was familiar to most Western Allies -- especially good for this en-Wikipedia.
 * I still like the cut-away pic in general, though. Pls find a new place for it in this article.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
 * Done. I've changed the lede image (the generalized, flashy image looks much better) and the cutaway has been relocated to a prominent spot in the WWII section. Cheers, Green547 (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Article actually is in American English (or should be)
Since the article is about a topic that has no clear ties to any one version of English, we need to go with the first contributor's version. Which was American English. Check the history--it was U.S. English (aka armor) up until this edit, whose only/main purpose was to switch the national variety of English used into Commonwealth English. My plan is to adjust the article accordingly, but I thought I'd post here first. Red Slash 21:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * While it starts in October 2001 as armor, it changed in August 2002 and has been "ou" spelling since. Little to be gained from changing now. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)


 * Neither of the versions cited there as "the beginning" are past being stubs. They'd even still just be disambigs, if such had been recognised at the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
 * Your definition of a stub is different than mine, clearly. At about 4,000 bytes of text, I mean, really? That's not a stub. Red Slash 22:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * In any case, after over 10 years there is little to no reason to make such a change (or fight over it). Also MOS looked very different at the time.TMCk (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)


 * There is no reason to suddenly change the version of English of this article after such a long time. I have reverted the sudden change made two months after no consensus was made to do so here. ( Hohum  @ ) 11:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)


 * See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. 10 years ago, there was a single edit made by a single editor that was against our practices, even back then, that unilaterally changed it from U.S. English to British English. I just undid that change. Not one editor said "you shouldn't do it", they just said that they didn't see the gain from doing it. I didn't mind doing it and going by what our guidelines say, going with the first non-stub version. No fighting needed. Red Slash 06:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * The consensus is that there is no need to correct a "mistake" made many years ago. And Guidelines allow for some flexibility when there is a consensus; policies are the immutable positions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't do it. Hengistmate (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)


 * Reverted again. Localconsensus versus a guideline is a red herring in this case. ( Hohum  @ ) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
 * Good to see there are still isolated pockets of the Wiki where consensus trumps dogma. Doug (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Since tanks were invented in Europe, British English seems the natural choice to me. BP OMowe (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the logical choice would be to choose the version of English that most readers of this article speak. I would venture to guess that it is American English, considering Americans operate far more tanks than Britain. Is their any way to tell the origin of this articles traffic? That would be useful in resolving this. History2222 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)


 * The relevance of the number of tanks operated by the USA is not apparent to me, but the logic of the above is that since it is likely that the version of English spoken by readers of any article is likely to be American English, purely because the USA has, at present, the largest English-speaking population, then all of Wikipedia should be in American English. Hengistmate (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, not always. Articles about British things probably get more British English readers than any other dialect.History2222 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * As I understand it, the tank was developed first by Britain, but is now pretty universally used in English-speaking nations. Whatever the style of English used by the original author, if there was a change in style made a over a decade ago, that was the time to raise the issue.  At this point, it's too late.  From the POV of the subject matter, British English has something of a claim; from the POV of first author, American English has something of a claim.  From the POV of readability and understandability, either is fine.  If the article was in British English for a dozen years without being challenged, it should remain in British English. --Badger151 (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Just because that language made sense 10 years ago does not mean it does today. History2222 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)


 * My point is that neither language has a strong claim; either language is fine. There's no compelling reason for change. --Badger151 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)


 * There is no reason for a change per WP:ENGVAR. The number of readers who use a particular English variation is irrelevant. ( Hohum  @ ) 13:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Another example of lies propaganda & thievery. An Australian invented the tank in 1911.
This wikipedia article is yet another inaccurate article & i feel it should be changed to reflect the truth about the invention of the Tank.

The current article on the main page sez the tank was developed simultaneously by France & Great Britan in world war one.

This claim is ambiguous.

The Following statement is wrong ... wrong ... wrong ...

'''Tanks in World War I were developed separately and simultaneously by Great Britain [2] and France as a means to break the deadlock of trench warfare on the Western Front. Their first use in combat was by the British Army on September 15, 1916 between the villages of Flers and Courcelette, during the Battle of the Somme. The name "tank" was adopted by the British during the early stages of their development, as a security measure to conceal their purpose (see etymology). While the French and British built thousands of tanks between them, Germany was unconvinced of the tank's potential, and built only twenty of her own.''' ________________________

Fact is Australia invented the worlds first tank in 1911, but during world war one Australia was so far away from the Australian mainland .... it asked it's allies to help ..... Just as Australia did when Australian Howard Flory invented Penicillin but Australia needed the British & later the USA to help ramp up production. ( Australia had/has a small population an as such Australia's manufacturing industry is non existent. So in the case of the Tank. ... Australia ... Who is part of the Commonwealth, asked the British war office to build the tank in Europe as Australia could not build it in Australia .... nor transport it from Australia to Europe.

But Dont take my word for it .... Ask the British war office. Or read the 1912 letter ( Documented Proof ) that Lancelot Eldin invented the Tank.

How did France develop the tank when it was occupied by the Germans & then taken back by the Australian's & British.

& how did the French & British invent the tank in after the start of world war one ... 1914. when Australian Lancelot Eldin de Mole invented the tank & wrote to Australian & later British generals at the Commonwealth war office & later to the the British war office as early as 1912. A whole two years before the start of world war one.

''' 1911: tank

In 1911, Australian-born Lancelot Eldin de Mole was struck with the idea for an armoured vehicle that ran on treads. He sent sketches and descriptions of his design to the British War Office, only to be informed in June 1913 that his idea had been rejected. When in 1916 an inferior (in de Mole's opinion) tank was introduced, the engineer realised that he had been passed over. A British royal commission later said that de Mole's design "had made and reduced to practical shape, as far back as the year 1912, a brilliant invention which anticipated, and in some respects surpassed, that actually put into use in the year 1916", but he was never formally acknowledged as the tank's inventor.'''

http://www.cnet.com/au/pictures/best-aussie-inventions-of-all-time/8/

&

Military history of Australia during World War I

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/

While Australia saved the world in world war one defeating the Muslim caliphate which spanned from Africa to the borders of France & Hungry ... Engulfing Spain ect ect Australia was liberating France, Italy, Greece, Hungry, Belgium ect ect ... Fighting the Germans, Muslims on 3 fronts in Africa, Middle East & Europe ...

See ...

http://www.awmlondon.gov.au/

&

Australians on the Western Front 1914-1918

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/australian-remembrance-trail/where-australians-fought.php

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/villers-bretonneux/visiting-villers-bretonneux/second-battle-of-villers-bretonneux.php

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/ieper/what-happened-here.php

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/bullecourt/

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/fromelles/pheasant-wood.php

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/villers-bretonneux/

http://www.ww1westernfront.gov.au/bullecourt/warlencourt.php

Please correct the main article to reflect the fact that it was Australian ancelot Eldin de Mole who invented the worlds first tank, in 1911, a tank that was later built by Commonwealth forces in 1916.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.204.136.60 (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Why not add it yourself? de Mole's work belongs here, I would agree. It's in the WWI tanks article already.
 * I don't think he invented the tank though. The concept was around even before him, the problem was the substantial one of how to build it. de Mole didn't solve this. He didn't build a full-sized model (and the real practical problems are only evident at full size). He didn't describe a model that would work at full size. At most, he was the first with the idea of the 'climbing face'. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Actually he is already in the article under "history".--TMCk (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Missed that. Is it worth adding the cash award post-WWI? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Apparently he received some money for his expenses but not in form of an award. See Lancelot de Mole for more detail.--TMCk (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * the statement "Tanks in World War I were developed separately and simultaneously by Great Britain and France as a means to break the deadlock of trench warfare on the Western Front" is not ambiguous. Here "Developed" means brought into being, which De Mole did not contribute to, certainly not to the French efforts. And the efforts of Wilson and Foster appear to have independently reached the rhomboid arrangement and solved the sagging Holt tracks. Which the commission reflected in its awards. One element of the narrative missing - in my mind - is that in 1913, de Mole's tank is trying to solve a problem that does not yet exist; the wires and machine guns and trenches have yet to appear. From the tone of the ip editor's text, there appears to elements of trying to "right a wrong". GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Mole was a British subject as were all 'Australians' at the time. They didn't get separate citizenship until 1948. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.169 (talk) 18:45, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Porsche as inventor of torsion bar suspension?
What is the source for this claim? Torsion bar suspension was first used on J.G. Parry-Thomas' racing cars in the 20s. First use on a tank is the Swedish Strv L-60 of 1934. Where does Porsche come in? Vasiliy Fofanov (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)
 * Editors of articles, particularly ones as wide-ranging as this one are not experts in all areas of tank technology. You appear to be an expert on torsion-bar suspension, which is great, we need your input! This was asserted by Deighton, which many have noted is not a particularly authoritative source. Also, I may have misinterpreted what he wrote. However, the article on the Strv L-60 gives no citation and I'm reluctant to change this without one because I have no better information on hand. If you can supply some more detail and particularly citations, I'd suggest you WP:Be bold. Edits with citations may be rewritten for style, but they are very unlikely to be reverted. Doug (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I understand. The L-60 is not a widely-known tank so indeed the sources are sparse. Its wiki page mentions it inspired Russian and German tank designers, and indeed Russian sources assert the torsion bar suspension on Soviet pre-war tanks like the T-40 is derived from L-60. One detailed (non-Russian) page on L-60, in particular crediting it with being the first tank to use the torsion bar suspension, is here (in Swedish): http://www2.landskrona.se/kultur/landsverk/militart/stridsvagnar/l60-s.html Curiously, this source also goes on to credit F.Porsche with this invention, but at the moment it seems dubious to me since Porsche hasn't been drawn into armor technology until well into the war... Vasiliy Fofanov (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

From the article Torsion bar suspension: The Czechoslovakian Tatra cars designed by Professor Hans Ledwinka in the mid-1930s used all round independent torsion bar suspension, along with air cooled rear engines. Also in the 1930s, prototypes of the first Volkswagen Beetle incorporated torsion bars—especially its transverse mounting style. Ledwinka's concept had been copied by Ferdinand Porsche, whose successors later had to acknowledge the influence of Ledwinka's sophisticated Tatra models on the Porsche-designed Kdf-Wagen of 1938 (later renamed the VW Beetle), a post-war lawsuit resulting in a DM3,000,000 settlement paid by Volkswagen to Ringhoffer-Tatra in 1961. Since there was a lot of technical exchange between the engineers it's not unreasonable to postulate Landsverk got the idea from the Porche construction and thus attributed it to F.P. BP OMowe (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)
 * But Landsverk got the tank finished in 1934, probably was designing it for several years before that, so seems to me they couldn't have got the idea from any mid-30s, never mind end-30s, design. Dates of introduction just don't compute otherwise. Vasiliy Fofanov (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Very true,albeit the development of the Beetle took unusually long time from the initiation in 1932((?), and Porche had been involved in the car&racing industry before that. Like Porches comment on the Tatra lawsuit, claiming inspiration and ideas had passed both ways... There is simply no way to dismiss the source as obviously false or mistaken with less another RS which specifically looks into the matter says so.BP OMowe (talk) 21:19, 1 July 2016 (UTC)

Comment moved from ANI
The "Tank" page was changed to British English. While the tank was first used by British forces, American tanks and tactics were used in the most recent conflict that was internationally recognized. America has manufactured more tanks than Britain in every war since WWI, and British tanks are adaptations of American tanks, not the other way around, and have been for decades. For these reasons, I hold that the article should be in American English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Helpingoutagain (talk • contribs) 15:42, 3 March 2016 (UTC) moved from WP:ANI by Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:46, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

I moved your comment here because it's relevant to this article, and isn't a matter requiring administrators' involvement. Please discuss here. Ivanvector 🍁 (talk) 15:47, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Note that the page was changed back to British after it was changed to American by you, which, per wp:ENGVAR and wp:RETAIN, is something we normally don't do. - DVdm (talk) 16:51, 3 March 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't mean to be off-topic but - British tanks are certainly NOT adaptations of American tanks. There is zero basis for that remark. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 18:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Note that the discussion from 2013 reached the conclusion that raising objections more than a decade after the change is simply too late and that the article should remain in British English. As for the argument that number of tanks produced should be the determining factor, I think all agrees that having the article in Soviet English is a bad idea. BP OMowe (talk) 21:10, 1 July 2016 (UTC)


 * Da. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:06, 18 July 2016 (UTC)

Major tank battles are... ?
I agree to having a section on Tank; it's an notable part of what it means to have tanks. But recent additions have made it somewhat long, losing any implied meaning of "most important" tank battles. Do we have criteria for inclusion here? Also, what is the sort criteria? Both these criteria should probably be stated in the article, or at least as hidden comments so other editors will know how to contribute to this. Or maybe this should be a table, not just a list, so the criteria (and dates etc. for context?) can be displayed. (Pinging who made most of the additions.)  --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:23, 1 August 2016 (UTC)


 * It seems the user that created the long list, Don Brunett, won't respond here; editor is unfortunately blocked and retired. Please, does anyone else have a guess on what the inclusion and sort criteria may be?  Such a long list cannot be maintained without this.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:27, 8 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I've added comments for a very few of these that might explain their reason for inclusion. I'm having trouble finding the significance for the next few.  It would be helpful if any other editors can add something.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 16:40, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I think the whole section should be removed or pared down very significantly, on the order of 90%. First, I cannot imagine defining what a 'tank battle' is. To take an obvious example, Kursk is traditionally referred to that way amongst amateurs, but any halfway serious study demonstrates it was a combined-arms operation on both sides, just as were most major engagements of both world wars and indeed most major modern wars. Second, even if we can define a 'tank battle', which ones would be included? the biggest? the most important? Those which led to some innovation? Those that had some decisive effect? Third, no matter what we decide now, this sort of list is bound to produce repeated arguments and back-and-forth editing.
 * So, my suggestion would be to remove it entirely. My second-best suggestion is to re-name it as "Notable usage of armor" or something to that effect, and then have a very limited list, perhaps something like : Cambrai (first usage), Battle of France (first major power defeated through modern tank-led combined arms offensive), Kursk (largest and probably most decisive armor engagement), and maybe Sinai (1973) or 73 Easting as modern examples of where the state-of-the-art is with mechanized combat.
 * Just my thoughts. DMorpheus2 (talk) 17:02, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I hoped the list could be improved as-is, but I must admit that I cannot discern the criteria, which makes it unmaintainable. I like the idea of converting it to just a few items that highlight a history of tank warfare firsts, though I agree if we can't keep that well-defined it may be best to scrap the whole thing.  I'll give it a day or two for additional comments before I give it a shot.  --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:47, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Per the above, I've rewritten this section completely; it's now a table of just a few entries. Others are welcome to modify and expand, but we shouldn't allow this to become as unwieldy as it was before. The section is now called Tank. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Looks good. DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:29, 15 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks good? Interesting. Third Ypres was the first attempt to employ tanks, was it? Historical accuracy not a criterion, then. "Few" isn't very encyclopaedic, is it? How do we define "successful"? After all, most authorities consider Cambrai a combined-arms operation. No mention of first use by the French or Germans? Good grief. This will need more passes than the Six Nations. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.157.169 (talk) 21:35, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Anyone is welcome to improve the list by citing sources.
 * I don't think first use by each nation is much of a milestone concerning tanks in general; it's notable just for that nation. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:39, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Wow 5.81.157.169, I don't know what your personal problem is but that was uncalled for. A D Monroe cleaned up a huge mess. Feel free to help continue the effort. DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:47, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Propose merge of some history from Tank to to History of the tank
Currently, we have some history details in this article that are missing from the main article. See discussion at Talk:History of the tank. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:27, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Tank
This section was recently added. It's unreferenced, fairly unencyclopedic, and inaccurate when compared to the main article Tank classification. Although L/M/H tanks are noted in the main article, they are also noted as only one way of classification and mostly obsolete.

A classification section would be good to have, but I don't see anything to salvage from the current one. If no one objects, I'll scrap this and replace it with a short summary of the main article. (A short version will end up kind of saying "it's complicated", so less entertaining, but more accurate, and can then be thoughtfully expanded and improved by others.)

Comments? --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:42, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Do it. I made a quick stab at cleaning it up but it was a quick patch rather than a proper fix. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:01, 14 August 2017 (UTC)


 * I've boldly replaced the section. I tried to summarize the summary from Tank classification, and it ended up close to "there were some classifications, they varied, and now we just have MBTs".  I then inserted a list of notable tank classifications held loosely together with some prose.


 * At least I can say it now isn't blatantly at odds with the main article.


 * I didn't get to sources, so the rewrite is still just as bad in that respect. The problem I'm finding is that tank classifications aren't well defined by RSs, even though they make ample use of tank class terms.  The main article itself is tagged as "possible OR".  Given that, it may be a long uphill battle for sources.  We'll see.


 * As always, others are free to further improve, refactor, or replace. --A D Monroe III (talk) 20:36, 16 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Well done, it reads well. The only thing I'm not sure on is the Tank Destroyer being up-armoured.  I see them more as highly mobile SP artillery pieces to ambush tanks on the move (think Hellcat and Achilles, both of which had relatively light armour). Lkchild (talk) 21:51, 17 August 2017 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I agree that TDs (like most classifications) aren't that uniform. Assault-guns and SP anti-tank guns employed in the TD role were probably more effective (and cost less) that specially-designed TDs -- the ones that might have better armor. So, yeah, let's go with the more demonstrable effective TDs rather than the "full" concept.  I'll remove "up-armoured".  --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on 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/20130614054809/http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut9801/RuTLe/RuTLe008.htm to http://vadimvswar.narod.ru/ALL_OUT/TiVOut9801/RuTLe/RuTLe008.htm

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) 07:44, 10 January 2018 (UTC)

Milestones
It isn't good enought to put grossly inaccurate information on Wikipedia and wait for it to be corrected. Wikipedia imagines that it is an encyclopaedia, and some people look things up in it and believe what they read. I wonder how many people will now be declaring that the first use of tanks was at the Third Battle of Ypres, thanks to Wikipedia. While Monroe's ill-conceived, badly researched, and, in my view, unnecessary section is in the article, it is misleading people. It is preferable to do what real encyclopaedias do, which is to get the facts right and then publish them.

To judge from his contributions elsewhere, Monroe believes himself to be in a position to make pronouncements on this topic and closely related ones. Therefore, for him to be ignorant of the date and place of the first deployment of tanks does little for his authority. It doesn't seem that any research was done at all. Those facts are freely available - they're on Wikipedia - so where this misinformation came from is baffling.

The second attempt is a little better in that respect, but is still lamentable. No attempt seems to have been made to find out the number of tanks deployed, and while Sheffield's book is technically acceptable as a source, it is a simple matter to link to the battle of Flers-Courcelette on Wikipedia, which is a much more detailed account. The citation is, I believe, improperly used here, and lacks a page number.

Cambrai needs a fuller explanation than this table allows. It was an initial success, and the biggest deployment of tanks so far, but it is not regarded by authoritative sources as a tank battle. Indeed, the title of Monroe's source indicates that the notion is a myth. Hammond's whole argument is that Cambrai was an all-arms battle in which the tanks played a partThat's why his book is calledCambrai 1917: The Myth of the First Great Tank Battle. It can't be offered as a reference simply because it contains the words "Cambrai" and "First Great Tank Battle".

As for the rest of it - I'm not in a position to comment in detail on interwar and WWII, but it seems to me that this is a hostage to fortune and will lead to endless arguments about what constitutes a "milestone". This is already evident in Monroe's argument that French and German developments are of no interest to anyone but the French and Germans. It isn't unreasonable to suggest that it is not widely known that France developed tanks at the same time as the British and was the second nation to use them. And people do tend to associate tanks with Germany, but might be unaware that the first "panzers" appeared during WWI.

So I suggest that a poorly researched, factually incorrect, incomplete and anglocentric piece of work such as this can't be left on Wikipedia to mislead people, and propose to remove it accordingly. If Monroe wishes to undertake some elementary research and apprise himself, for example, of the number of tanks deployed at Flers-Courcelette, accurately reflect the significance of Cambrai, and so on, some might think it worthwhile to reintroduce the section. I would not be one of them. One of Wikipedia's flaws is that it is easy to insert dreadful stuff such as this, but a monumental, time wasting job to get rid of it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.75.139.78 (talk) 19:26, 6 September 2016 (UTC)


 * No one has said the section can't be improved. All of WP is a work in progress.  We don't just delete sections with a long history just because they need improvement.  If the section has long-standing problems that appear intrinsic to the subject, then it should be deleted.  So far, no such problem has been stated, much less supported by any evidence.    --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:02, 10 September 2016 (UTC)


 * Another needlessly obnoxious comment. I wonder if this IP user is the same as the last critic who showed up here. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:43, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Dear 85.75.139.78. "It isn't good enought to put grossly inaccurate information on Wikipedia and wait for it to be corrected." This is a common misconception - publishing information that stands a risk of being corrected is exactly what we should do. If Wikipedia exists, it can be improved upon. If it does not exist, we return to the millenium in which the few held the keys to all of the knowledge. Since nothing in science can be proved correct, only proven incorrect, your preference is effectively nihilism. I have no problem with that viewpoint in principle, it's just not useful in this context. Given the success of science and engineering in general it may be societally wise to cut ourselves a little slack. All content on Wikipedia exists, will continue to be disseminated (if we continue to pay the collective costs) and it is our obligation to the future that it must be improved upon. If you cannot see the mind-altering genius in that concept (including the imperfections) then I suggest we end our conversation cordially right now.
 * If a viewpoint is presented that can be turned into article content, then it is constructive criticism and we welcome it. "Delete X" is a nihilist suggestion that is treated with the same weight as an anonymous post (quite frankly, none). In case that was unclear, your post regardless of how educated it was, was treated with confidencence level 0.00^2. This is not a reflection on you, simply on societal self-preservation mechanics.
 * That said, I have seen many articles with POV bias and wanted them to be more inclusive - but it takes real specialist knowledge to do that. If you are one of those specialists - and your comments suggest this - then please elaborate in a way that can be turned into content. This is not a 'waste of time', this is our legacy and we care about it. Doug (talk) 09:14, 4 February 2017 (UTC)


 * If you want a 'milestone' then try the Vickers Medium Mark I or possibly the Vickers Medium Mark II. IIRC, it was the first tank to have tracks with a life of up to 500 miles, due to use of IIRC of manganese in the links. This made it possible to use the tank as a normal road vehicle, whereas before the very limited track life of other vehicles prevented their extended use on anything other than wet, muddy, terrain. IIRC, this was stated in one of the Bovington handbooks on inter-war tanks.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.137 (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Comma second sentence
The second sentence of the article has an out of place comma but I don't see a way to edit the opening section. Maybe someone with higher clearance can fix it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:86B:4A00:211F:F474:D0D:28CE (talk) 09:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)
 * I've now removed it - thanks for bringing this up. Entranced98 (talk) 09:19, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Sentence with definition of a tank
We've been having repeated conflicting edits on the second sentence recently. This has the definition of a tank. AFAIK, this is big gun, heavy armor, tracks and battlefield mobility. If it doesn't have all of these, it's not a tank. Right?

For reference, it's currently this:

If there's something to improve in the wording, let's fix that, but let's not break the definition of a tank in the process.

Suggestions? --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 17:06, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * BTW, most definitions of a tank I've seen also include having a turret, but maybe we should set that aside until the gun/armor/track/engine definition wording is settled. --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  17:11, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Something just seems off in the sentence.  ⠀—‌‌ ''' Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  ''' 17:49, 30 April 2019 (UTC)


 * When I first read the sentence the "and" towards the end made me take it for a list with these items:
 * heavy firepower
 * strong armour, with tracks
 * a powerful engine.
 * I had to read it again and use my prior knowledge of tanks to understand how to parse it. I had no intention to change the definition, but the sentence could be clearer. I suggest: "They have heavy firepower and strong armour. Tracks and a powerful engine provide good battlefield manoeuvrability."Sjö (talk) 06:17, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * Splitting the definition into multiple sentences tends make just a series of unconnected comments rather than a clear definition. The comma before "with" should separate armor from tracks, but so it goes.  I suggest:
 * --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk) 16:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * That works for me. Sjö (talk) 16:25, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
 * ”Tanks have heavy firepower, strong armour, and good battlefield manoeuvrability provided by tracks and a powerful engine” sounds good.  ⠀—‌‌ ''' Glosome‌‌‌‌‌‌‌‌  ''' 💬 04:56, 2 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks, all.  --A&#8239;D&#8239;Monroe&#8239;III(talk)  16:32, 2 May 2019 (UTC)