Talk:Char D1

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / European / French C‑class

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.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	European military history task force
	French military history task force

France Low‑importance

	France portal 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.FranceWikipedia:WikiProject FranceTemplate:WikiProject FranceFrance articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The FT sections don't need to take up so much space.

While the D1's lineage comes from the FT, why so much info about the FT variants? Shouldn't that all be in with the FT and just referenced by this article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.10.226.163 (talk) 12:47, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Well, these are in fact direct precursors of the Char D1. Their importance mainly resides in forming the developmental path, in the postwar period, leading to it. So, a more detailed description of these vehicles is more appropriate here than in the FT article — from which it would have to be split off under the "Summary Style" policy, had it been part of it. This is also the way this information tends to be presented in the secondary literature. And, strictly speaking, only the "FT Kegrèsse", treated in a short paragraph, is a real FT variant. The Char D1 simply had a rather complicated design history. It can't be helped so it is best to embrace it :o).--MWAK (talk) 13:11, 21 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Why would the French Army keep a large stable for mad horses?

In the "Final Fights" subsection, last sentence of the first paragraph, it says

When the Italian armistice control commission visited, these tanks were successfully hidden behind the stable for mad horses.

These seems odd, because:

) What the heck.
) "Mad" means "rabid" in this context, does it not? Unless they are referring to "Mad Horse Disease", which apparently is very rare and was not diagnosed at this time (I think). I doubt that "angry" or "insane" is meant.
) In which case, why would you keep them in a stable? Rabid animals are put down right away I think. Mad Horse Disease is unpleasant and incurable I believe.
) And not only that, but have enough of these rabid (or whatever) animals that you need a stable big enough to hide twenty light tanks behind.

So, I just marked this as dubious and here is thread for this to be explained. Herostratus (talk) 23:46, 23 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tank transporters

It says the limitations of the FT were that it required transports for any sort of long distance travel, but isn't that true of any tank to the era? Anything besides immediate combat use was generally done with trains, most often, or special trailers. They were too slow and unreliable to drive long distances, needed a lot of maintenance even if they didn't break down, and only could do a limited number of miles before needing the entire engine and drivetrain replaced or overhauled. Who was patrolling the countryside in tanks in the 1930s? Isn't that what armored cars are for? Idumea47b (talk) 05:15, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Well, as stated in the article the French did in 1926, after the Kégresse track was fitted :o). Not ideal, but offering more tactical options compared to armoured cars, which were more vulnerable and couldn't leave the road. Indeed, all First World War tanks had severe limitations in this respect, the reason why most research centred on suspension improvements.--MWAK (talk) 07:09, 21 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]