Talk:Landships Committee

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated Start-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.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale.

H.G. Wells[edit]

The reference to "borrowing" Wells's idea, and Churchill's reaction to same, is unintelligible.

Also, it seems slightly absurd to think that military planners might be bothered by copyright law in taking their inspiration for the battle tank from H.G Wells' book.Landroo (talk) 16:54, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Not Good.[edit]

I'm afraid I must agree. This is very poor.

The reference to copyright of The Land Ironclads has no basis or meaning. The Committee was not connected with the War Cabinet; it was formed under the auspices of the Admiralty, and the War Office came to hear of it several months later. Churchill endorsed Hankey's memo, but it was an approach by officers of the R.N.A.S. Armoured Car Squadron that prompted him to set up the Committee.

The fifth paragraph is extremely confused and misinformed.

Accounts of the exact make-up of the Committee conflict. D'Eyncourt was Chairman, and Hetherington a founder member, but there are differing versions of the status of Dumble, Crompton, Tritton, and others, even within the memoirs of those directly or closely concerned (d'Eyncourt, Stern, Swinton, Fuller, etc).

Sorry, but this is shocking.

Hengistmate (talk) 19:31, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


Did citations as far as the OH and the page were on the same planet.Keith-264 (talk) 21:36, 28 June 2013 (UTC)

Edits March 25th, 2014.[edit]

I'll tell you what I've done: removed those parts of this article that are grossly inaccurate. What remains is passable. It actually needs a massive rewrite, but I haven't got time at the moment. Until then, I take the view that if Wikipedia is to have any pretensions to being an encyclopaedia, it ought to contain information that is, as far as can be established, broadly correct. I am not of the opinion that putting information that is wildly, demonstrably, and sometimes risibly incorrect on the internet as a temporary measure is acceptable. Better to say nothing. Hengistmate (talk) 13:19, 25 March 2014 (UTC)