Talk:M1917 light tank

Military history: Land vehicles / North America / United States 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
	North American military history task force
	United States military history task force

Canadian Service

Hi, Silverfang. Glad you're interested in the M1917. I've taken the liberty of making some adjustments to your edit. It's not necessary to describe the vehicle as a US copy of the FT17. That's already explained in the lead (and it wasn't a copy, but a near-copy; nor was the Renault called the FT17, just the FT). Hope this is OK with you. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 20:19, 29 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Another Name Problem.

Bit of a snag here. In the initial contracts, this machine was described as the Six Ton Special Tractor. It became the Tank M1917 on entering service. It is therefore not correct to describe it as "the Six Ton Tank (or Special Tractor) M1917." Amongst the sources that support this is F. Crismon's US Military Tracked Vehicles. I think I'll change it and see who disagrees. Hengistmate (talk) 20:35, 18 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by 86.166.106.231, Feb 24, 2014.

Thanks for tidying up the Distinguishing Features section. I'd just like to make one or two suggestions.

I thought it a good idea to list the visible differences between the M1917 and the Renault FT so as to provide an instant recognition guide. The two are often confused in books and web articles, sometimes by people who ought to know better. A list of external differences would help people to identify which was which. The engine and other technical details are covered in the Infobox, and, IMO, could be expanded upon in the body copy as part of the History and production process. (I think the separate reference to the pressurized water cooling system is a bit of superdetail - I would suggest that that goes hand-in-hand with the engine - and it's already mentioned in the Infobox, but a bit of background on the choice of the Buda would not be amiss.)

So my proposal would be to restrict the info in the itemised list to visible differences, and to expand on the engine and technical differences within the body copy, complemented by the Infobox. Also, If I might say so, the tenses in 86.166.106.231's version are inconsistent; I would prefer the past, throughout. I should like to tweak some of the wording in the list; and "in accommodation of" is a construction I have not come across before.

Comments eagerly awaited.Hengistmate (talk) 16:30, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Edits by Dictionary1, 20.5.2017

Pluperfect tense incorrect. The rest of it neither here nor there, really. Of course, the article would most likely be in American English if an American had taken the trouble to write it. Hengistmate (talk) 20:01, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

My mistake. Thanks for pointing it out to me. I will try to not make the same error again. Dictonary1 (talk) 20:07, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

You are welcome. Good faith. Hengistmate (talk) 21:23, 20 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Notable Use during Bonus Army Camp Clearance.

Was used during Bonus Army Camp Clearance.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonus_Army#Police_shooting 220.240.231.28 (talk) 13:00, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

That point is made in this article's "Operational Use" section. Hengistmate (talk) 15:28, 4 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Rhinebeck Aerodrome reference.

I would suggest that this reference is better suited to the External Links section. To make special mention of one survivor requires similar mention for all 20. The shadock site has a short description of each of the 20. Hengistmate (talk) 13:32, 9 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Awful photo editing

An interesting and decent image has been butchered by rendering part of it monochrome and blurring it as well as over saturating the colour, creating the impression of a CGI image. Can someone who knows how revert the image to the original version? Stub Mandrel (talk) 20:37, 8 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, this photo is terrible. Cheese with Crackers (talk) 01:40, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

bad external link

The first entry under External links "American six-ton tank M1917 – Walk around photos" goes to a site written in Russian about a Chieftan tank. The site uses a format I'm not familiar with that does not respond to any of my computer commands to go to a site with a listing for the M1917 light tank. Needs fixing or removing. The URL for the weird site in Russian is given below. Thanks! https://web.archive.org/web/20120216122822/http://www.thetankmaster.com/ENGLISH/AFV/american-six-ton-tank-M1917-1.asp Linstrum (talk) 01:12, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I guess someone pulled an archive link but got a date when the content was wrong. I've found a working link and put it in. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:42, 2 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]