Talk:M103 heavy tank

Service Length

The article says all units withdrawn in 1974 and shows the US as the sole operator, but the infobox says it was in service through 2001. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 32.97.27.145 (talk) 14:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Intro paragraph

The intro starts off: "The M103 heavy tank, at 65 tons, was the heaviest and most heavily armed tank in service in the United States Army and the US Marines during the Cold War". Given that the Cold War stretches to the early 1990s, this statement invites comparison between the M103 and the M1 Abrams. Even though the M1 is a much newer tank; the original M1 entering service 6 years after the last M103 was retired)

The M103 (65 tons, 120mm) outweighs and presumably outguns the initial M1 (61.5 tons, 105mm). But in 1986 the M1A1 upgrade (67.6 tons, 120mm) outweighs the M103 and the smoothbore 120mm of the M1A1 may (or may not; comparing gun effectiveness is tricky) outgun the M103.
Maybe the intro should be changed to "during the early Cold War" or something like that. - Occasional Reader 23:05, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

How about "during most of the Cold War?" —Michael Z. 2007-06-27 02:00 Z

Surviving examples

There is (or was) an M103A2 version (Reg No. 233026, MFG 2-65) located in the vehicle extrication training area at Ft. Sam Houston, TX. Rakkasan (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

M103 Nickname

Please stop reverting the changes done to remove the nickname of the M103. It was never called the "Longstreet", either officially or unofficially. Thanks muchly — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.125.11.1 (talk) 03:43, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If R.P. Hunnicutt and Kenneth Estes cannot find anything about the M103 being called the "Longstreet", it never was called the "Longstreet". Please stop reverting the changes

131.125.11.1 (talk) 03:51, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

The assertions you make are based on Original research which violates Wikipedia's policies on research — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pharoahjared (talk • contribs) 03:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, what? You're the one who's adding a name to the M103 of which it never received, with no proof whatsoever. How is that not violating Wiki's OR policy?

131.125.11.1 (talk) 04:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

If you check my original edit you will see that I added a citation unlike you. Pharoahjared (talk) 04:03, 3 September 2015 (UTC) What citation? There's only been two, both of Hunnicutt's A History of the American Heavy Tank and this is even with your original edit 131.125.11.1 (talk) 04:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's my source, in fact here is the page in question. Pharoahjared (talk) 04:19, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

And that is a load of bollocks. Same page, same book: [1]. There is no mention of Longstreet anywhere in that page or pages near it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 131.125.11.1 (talk) 04:32, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure why your copy does not the relevant sentence, perhaps a scanning error? Also both of our pages have Combat as part of the name so let's agree to keep that no matter what Pharoahjared (talk) 04:42, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

That's no scanning error. That's called blatant photoshop in your case. Again, there is no evidence for the 120mm Gun Tank M103 being called "Longstreet" either officially or unofficially. 131.125.11.1 (talk) 04:50, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

How rude. Actually it would be easier remove the relevant text then it would be to add it in. According to Occam's Razor you're the one doing the photo-editing. Pharoahjared (talk) 04:55, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

It's just as easy to add text (especially if you know the typeface) as it is to remove it. Source: I have done both many times. 131.125.11.1 (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Don't play people for fools; anyone can see the mention of Longstreet is a photoshop addition. And if you want to get anal about the 'combat' part, then the full designation is correctly "Tank, Combat, Full Tracked, 120mm Gun, M103" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.146.185.97 (talk) 04:57, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Since you are so eager of accusing people of Photoshop I must assume your the one using Photoshop and in fact have removed the sentence from your picture. Pharoahjared (talk) 05:00, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I am responding on a mobile device, so I fail to see how it would be possible for me to photoshop out a line of text especially as the device I am on does not support photo editing like that or a PDF reader. Ergo, the only logical conclusion is that you added in that line of text in a desperate measure to prove your horribly wrong point, one that has no basis in fact or has any actual evidence to support it. 131.125.11.1 (talk) 05:09, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree that the scan provided looks like it has been "doctored" and bears no resemblance to the contents of the actual book. Nothing supports the "Longstreet" nickname claim. GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:21, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree as well. In the doctored image with the added sentence there are 4 major errors that stand out:

1. The type face is smaller/thinner/shorter than the rest type in the document
2. There is no space between the period and the beginning of the added sentence
3. the sentence lacks the fading of the rest of the page and type-writer font peculiarity of the letters used elsewhere on the page.
4. the sentence extends into the margin beyond the rest of the column. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nuanil (talk • contribs) 18:08, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I have the book too and it on page 124 says nothing about it be named Longstreet by the troops...Brian D Gray