Talk:Schneider CA1

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject France (Rated B-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject France, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of France on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Military history (Rated B-Class)
MILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale.

?[edit]

Any reason why Great War is used instead of World War I'? •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, it's a concept contemporary to the tank itself. The lead section is about to be rewritten, and I'll then add the term First World War.--MWAK (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Some matters of dispute[edit]

There are some points User John and I have disagreed on. I'll give my interpretation of each issue:

  1. "Cancelled" versus "annulled": I still think the latter term is to be preferred from a purely legal point of view, even though there is a strong association with the annulment of a marriage. However, "cancelled" is acceptable. But the "hereby" is necessary: the later order replaced the older one. Perhaps we can agree on "was hereby replaced" or "this replaced the original order".
  2. "the War Ministry ordered the secret production" versus "the War Ministry secretly ordered the production": well, indeed the production too was as far as possible to be kept a secret, but one of the means of assuring this was to keep the order itself a secret. Only gradually it was divulged to other cabinet members and selected members of parliament.
  3. "and Schneider chose the shorter design" versus "afterwards a choice was made for the shorter type designed by Schneider": the point is here that, although Schneider could in principle have made a choice of its own accord, a consensus was reached to produce the shorter Schneider design.
  4. "Estienne's decisive rôle in getting the Schneider vehicle produced in mass has earned him a traditional position in history as the creator of the first French tank, although there had been a long prior development phase with the Schneider company; in January 1916 the project was entrusted to a ministerial bureau headed by General Léon Augustin Jean Marie Mourret, director of the Army automobile service. Mourret did not closely cooperate with Estienne, who was excluded from decisions of a technical nature." versus "Estienne's decisive rôle in getting the Schneider vehicle produced in mass has earned him a traditional position in history as the creator of the first French tank, but his actual involvement in its technical design was limited for not only had there been a long prior development phase with the Schneider company, already in January 1916 the actual completion was entrusted to a ministerial bureau headed by General Léon Augustin Jean Marie Mourret, director of the Army automobile service. Mourret did not closely cooperate with Estienne, who was basically excluded from decisions of a technical nature.": the source emphasises that the technical involvement of Estienne has been limited, that this was caused by his essentially (not formally) losing control of the actual design of the prototype as early as January 1916, and that this puts into perspective the importance traditionally assigned to him. My sentence is awkward but tried to express these causal relations. Perhaps we can replace it by "Although there had been a long prior development phase with the Schneider company, Estienne's decisive rôle in getting the Schneider vehicle produced in mass has earned him a traditional position in history as the creator of the first French tank. This is put into perspective by his limited involvement in its technical design; as early as January 1916 the actual completion was entrusted to a ministerial bureau headed by General Léon Augustin Jean Marie Mourret, director of the Army automobile service. Mourret did not closely cooperate with Estienne, who was essentially excluded from decisions of a technical nature."--MWAK (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)

Historical research has recently be published, of sufficient importance to lead to some changes and additions to this article, as it happens mainly to the chapter under dispute. In view of this I propose to adopt for the time being my two suggestions; the other two points will in all likelihood be made irrelevant by the new information.--MWAK (talk) 13:52, 28 July 2013 (UTC)

Bit of a snag.[edit]

Something that occurs to me is that the Schneider isn't actually, by the definition in Wikipedia and elsewhere, a tank. It's somewhere between an armoured fighting vehicle and a self-propelled gun. Come to that, the same applies to the Saint-Chamond, the A7V, . . . and all the British "tanks" of 1916-18. What should we do about that? Hengistmate (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Nothing, the sources all call them tanks.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

Hello, Mr. Leggett. Funnily enough, just as your contribution arrived I was looking at one of your edits from a while back, in the article about the Mk V tank, and wondering about it. Anyway, you raise an interesting point. As you say, almost all sources in English call them tanks. (Well, I do recall one author saying that both the Schneider and Saint-Chamond were, strictly speaking, self-propelled guns, but I can't recall who, and, anyway, it might not count as a significant minority view.) But sources can be misleading, incomplete, or outdated, something you know as well as anyone. On the other hand, the French don't call them tanks; they call them "chars," and even though the article is in English, it's about a French thing. I realise we don't necessarily use French terms in an article in English, but that does illustrate something. Both the British and the French invented something (you'll remember the discussion we had about whether it was fair to say that, which ended, after a bit of a struggle, in consensus that it was, as the sources pointed out: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tank/Archive_6#Country_of_Origin.) and gave it a name - "tank" or "char." The invention subsequently changed in nature - it adopted a turret - but the name continued to be applied to it. So the names that Colonels Swinton and Estienne gave it were transferred to something that was different in a crucial way. It's probably a bit like the way "automitrailleuse" changed its meaning during WWI. That was surprisingly difficult to explain, but we got there https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Renault_FT#Nomenclature and everyone eventually grasped it. So now we have a new definition of what a tank is, but for the moment it doesn't exclude what are now non-tanks, because there's nowhere for them to go. But then comes the rise of the self-propelled gun, and the first, non-turreted, "tanks" are reclassified, retrospectively. The turret is a sine qua non. All tanks and SPGs are AFVs, though not all AFVs are tanks or SPGs. The problem is that someone reading the Wikipedia definition of a tank ("Modern tanks are strong mobile land weapons platforms, mounting a large-calibre cannon in a rotating gun turret") might wonder why Wikipedia is describing as a tank something that doesn't meet its own definition, and might make an issue of it. There are some people who will do that. It will do no harm, at the very least, to anticipate and answer any such objections. (In fact, thinking back, I believe it was I who inserted the word "modern" into the definition, for that very reason. IIRC it was reverted, but one expects that, and it is now, I believe, a useful qualification.)

One of Wikipedia's purposes, theoretically, is to provide comprehensive, accurate information for those in search of knowledge, and I think that the addition of this small clarification furthers that end. I shall add something to that effect, explaining that, although not a tank by today's definition, the CA is generally included in the category, something that, as you so speedily pointed out, is confirmed by many reliable sources. Hengistmate (talk) 11:00, 24 February 2015 (UTC)

Boirault's 1917 Experiments.[edit]

I think that Touzin is either wrong or misquoted here. Schneider and Renault declined to support Boirault and would not participate in or supply vehicles for his trials. Boirault's drawings show a completely new tank, designed by FAMH (Saint-Chamond) with double tracks and what appear to be 75s in turrets. His idea was for an amphisbaenic vehicle with a central power plant and tanks coupled at either end. When costs became prohibitive, he drew up an alternative using three existing or modified Saint-Chamonds. Malmassari covers it in some detail, and has made scale models of both designs. Hengistmate (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

I can't recall this. Where exactly has Malmassari written about it?--MWAK (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Les chars de la grande guerre, Steelmasters 37, GBM 106, et al. Hengistmate (talk) 13:50, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

Good catch! I'll update the article immediately.--MWAK (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)