Talk:Renault R35

Untitled

The original article had some copyright problems: http://www.wwiivehicles.com/france/tanks_light/r_35.html was plundered, which again stole from Foss's Salamander Tanks book :o).

--MWAK 09:06, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

R 35 at the Musée des Blindés at Saumur next to a H 35. The longer gun ia a postwar conversion - that's bullshit. You can clearly see the R 39 tank on this foto, with it's original "longer" gun. And this R 39 is next to R 35 with its short gun, not to H 35. There is H 39 (not H 35) tank on display in Saumur, you can see part of its track on the picture. Don't know where is this R 39 now, this August it was not on display. See my pictures : http://pics.livejournal.com/fat_yankey/pic/00047t4x/g13 and http://pics.livejournal.com/fat_yankey/pic/0004cd95/g13 .

I confess to having made a severe mistake in calling the R 35 a H 35 :oS. However, as far as I know, though the museum has labelled it as such for many years, there is no proof this is a "real" R 39 — if these indeed exist at all... The vehicles equipped with the SA38 have long been assumed to be German or postwar French conversions, or at best combinations of R 40 turrets with R 35 hulls made in June. Today there is evidence some vehicles were probably indeed converted in May/June but no more than a few dozen. There is no evidence for vehicles having been produced with the SA38 as their original gun. It also seems unlikely "R 39" was ever an official designation.

BTW, those are very good pictures you made! Would you consider uploading some of them to Wikicommons? --MWAK 17:52, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Well, I rely on secondary sources, so I'm not going to argue too much, but it seems that some eastern European authors (russian and polish) believe that the latest production of R 35 came with SA38. They even tell the numbers (273 R39 were allegedly produced). Of course, they could be mistaken. But anyway, if everyone can clearly read "R 39" on the table in front of the tank on the picture, it deserves some explanatons, I think.

I have no problems with sharing, but I need to learn how to use Wikicommons first.

We eagerly await the outcome! ;o). As regards the 273 estimate of "R 39" production: this was reached by mere extrapolation. We know that any converted vehicles would have been given to platoon, company and battalion commanders. There are respectively nine, three and one of these in a single battalion, in total thirteen; there were 21 R 35 battalions; thirteen times 21 makes 273! In reality only a few commanders had modified tanks. We know this from photographical evidence — wartime pictures of "R 39"s are extremely rare — and from the fact that fitting the APXR1 turret was an emergency measure: the H 35s had priority and the R 35s were originally only scheduled to be modified from late 1940 onwards. Given the production capacity for the SA38 gun, if 273 "R 39"s had been created, they would have outnumbered the "H 39"s and this clearly wasn't the case. In May production of the R 35 had already been discontinued in favour of the R 40, which makes it unlikely any vehicle had the SA38 as its first gun — however, there was a large reserve of R 35 hulls, so this possibility cannot be completely excluded, as the APXR was a standard turret, compatible to both R 35 and H 35. The Saumur "R 39", I've been told, is one of the vehicles rebuilt after the war for the Gendarmerie, which used the type in the "R 39" configuration until 1951, when it was phased out for the Sherman.--MWAK 05:53, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, as I can see you added this to the article. Thanks. On my hand, I uploaded some pictures on Wikicommons, enjoy.Fat yankey 18:10, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Thank you — and I will! Especially the AMC 35 :o)--MWAK 19:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

R35 in the IDF

From Moshe Givati - In their hands the steel was tempered [MoD 1998, p 38, 42]: 5 Syrian R-35s took part in the attack on Degania. All were disabled by PIAT rounds (so the defenders did have some AT weapons) and Molotov cocktail. One, hit by Molotov cocktail, was in a particularly poor state and was left where it was stopped (eventually the tank became monument; there are photos here: http://www.degania.org.il/eng/tour3.htm). One more was brought to kibbutz Mizra where an attemt was made to repair it. When the attempt failed, the tank was mounted on a heavy truck and was used in an attack on Meggido from the truck platform. The remaining three were brought to the Haganah workshop in Tel Litvinski (Tel HaShomer). One of those was quickly repaired, others "were disassembled and needed more work" (?). Later Givati mentions that the 8th Armored Brigade (82th battalion, light tanks company) had R-35(s) just before Operation Danny (July 1948), although doesn't say how many and if the tank(s) actually saw combat.

According to Oleg Granovskiy - Names, Designations and Service Figures of IDF Armored Vehicles (Russian; http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/Armor/1948-1952_tanks.html), 2-3 tanks were adopted, all were retired in 1952.

The tank in Latrun is not one of the captured Syrian ones, it was received from a French museum. The tablet near the tank says two Syrian tanks were captured (perhaps it means that two were used / adopted / made operational ?) Bukvoed 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I've been told that the tank was shipped from Israel to the Musée des Blindés, having battle damage — I've seen it myself with the engine deck ripped open by an explosion, damage which I associated with the Degania fight — and was restored by the French in exchange for some Israeli materiel. But maybe I was misinformed.--MWAK 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Interesting... may be I was wrong... Where did this information come from ? Anyway, I'll try to check. Bukvoed 11:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

From the officer showing me the tank. But perhaps he falsely assumed it came from Israel. Or perhaps donating a tank to Israel is alright, while openly restoring an Israeli tank would be too much of an involvement, given the political sensitivities :o).--MWAK 08:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Saumur museum staff seemed quite happy to organize a special exhibit when they got their Merkava MkI - which I guess it arrived at the same time as the upgunned R35, in Spring 2004. PpPachy 15:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Which upgunned R35 are you referring to, exactly?--MWAK 08:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

This one: http://www.wistiti.fr/Wistiti/FR_fr/asp/album/Album-photo-Galerie.asp?album=edbaaEFBT110520VMQYD&page=15 PpPachy 10:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting :o).--MWAK 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

The text in the article claiming the defenders had no anti-tank weaponry isn't accurate - the R35s were knocked out primarily by 20mm anti-tank guns.

In fact, the R35 that was left at Degania, as a memorial, has a very clear penetration on the cupola, from a 20mm round, although this didn't manage to knock out the tank - which was later disabled by Molotov cocktails. The other two R35s were knocked out only by 20mm fire (they didn't get close enough for Molotov cocktails). Here are some great images of the R35 at the Degania memorial, with some focus on the damage area.

http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c320/BMoores/israel/27112007500.jpg http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c320/BMoores/israel/27112007499.jpg http://i30.photobucket.com/albums/c320/BMoores/israel/27112007502.jpg

These images aren't mine, so I can't wikify them, by the way.

Here's a good reference which talks a little more about the battle. http://www.balagan.org.uk/war/ai/1948/chronology.htm

Warthog32 (talk) 22:49, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge r40?

So I'm thinking, might it be a good idea to merge Renault R40 into this page? It seems to me that the R40 was a limited production variant of the main R35. Also, the R40 article has no information in it that Renault R35#R40 and Projects doesn't have. Howicus (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

It is certainly true that the R 40 was a limited production variant of the R 35. However, that is not very relevant within the mandatory policy about such issues, which is that of the Wikipedia:Summary style. In essence, the subject meets the notability criteria. And, contrary to what you state, the R 40 article does contain information not in the R 35 section of the parent article, one of the reasons it is about four times as long. Also the absolute length is sufficient. So in principle there should be a R 40 article. It is very likely that more information could be added, as there is much on-going research regarding French tanks. Furthermore, merging will with near certainty cause future users to again create a separate R 40 article, which then would have to be merged again, &c. &c. Stability is much served by the present situation.--MWAK (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

FT/FT17?

"I'd like to thank François Vauvillier for his clarification: we are honoured to be informed on this subject by a man who is generally recognised as one of the most distinguished experts in this field of knowledge! It is of course highly recommended to read Histoire de Guerre, Blindés & Matériel, if only because it is the most gorgeously laid-out and illustrated military magazine in the world!" - MWAK (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2011

"Écartons bien sûr l'appellation <<FT 17>> qui n'a jamais existé dans aucun document militaire ou industriel français de l'époque et qui est, définitivement, à proscrire." - François Vauvillier, Guerre, Blindés, Matériel No. 99, January 2012.

Times change

A while ago there was a perhaps unnecessarily long discussion about the name of the Renault and how it should be described on Wikipedia, bearing in mind that many people call it by a name that it was never given. The outcome was that it was decided, eventually and despite some unhelpful interventions, to call the article by the correct name and direct anyone who might use the wrong name to it, where they would learn the error of their ways. I think this is fine, because I want an encyclopaedia to provide me with facts, not tell me what a lot of people mistakenly believe. But that might be just me.

I infer from the removal of the word "or" that MWAK accepts that the use of it created an ambiguity. I notice, though, that he wishes to continue the use of "FT 17" on the grounds of its "still being the most commonly used name." Are there reliable sources for that assertion, or is it merely a suspicion of his own? We really require verifiability if we are to base our actions on such statements. It might be that, thanks to the Renault FT article on Wikipedia, "FT 17" is now no longer the most commonly used name. Wikipedia has many mirrors.

If, however, the view persists that "FT 17" is the preferred appelation, then there are quite a few sites that require returning to the status quo ante. Hengistmate (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

I feel you are confusing two separate issues here. We might agree that it is in general preferable to use the designation "Renault FT", as this is more formally correct and clearly a convention is establishing itself in the technical literature to refer to the type in this way. However, such formality should not become a vehicle for a desire to condition people to use the "right" name. The business of Wikipedia is not to educate people, merely to inform them. As there probably exists a not inconsiderable group of readers who know about the "FT 17" but are unsure what a "Renault FT" might be, simple clarity demands an explanation. You seem unwilling to tolerate the very mention of the term FT 17, even when its incorrectness is highlighted! Such sensitivity does not constitute a valid argument for removal :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

"Renault FT" is not more formally correct. It is correct, as opposed to incorrect. The vehicle was named "FT", just like the ED, EG, FB, FS, FU, GZ, and so on. We condition children to recognise that two plus two equals four. If they suggest that it equals five, we disabuse them, however much they might insist, at least in a non-Orwellian world. If people are inquisitive about the FT, they will find information in the article to which they are directed, including the reason for the mistaken belief that it was called the FT-17. There are sufficient sources, from Zaloga to Ramspacher, Mondet, Malmassari, Danjou, Jeudy, Gougaud, Touzin, Gurtner, Lawrynowicz, Misner, Vauvillier, and others I can't think of just now to support the assertion that the vehicle was called the FT. Should those historians be advised to change their texts because they are inconvenient for or unfair to the ill-informed? According to Roget, "educate" and "inform" are synonyms. I should be interested to study the distinction between the two that you suggest exists, just as I still await evidence that "FT-17" is more widespread than "FT", rather than your suspicion that it is. Until such time, why do we explain that FT does not stand for franchisseur de tranchées or faible tonnage, but draw the line at explaining that the name of the vehicle was not FT-17? Which is information and which is education? Do we rewrite history to retrospectively accommodate a slip of the pen? Whether the business of Wikipedia is to educate or inform people, it is not to misinform them (although it does do plenty of that). Is it Wikipedia's role to perpetuate misunderstanding and ignorance? To propagate misinformation? To leave people in ignorance when they have got hold of the wrong end of the stick? To demonstrate that the greater the ignorance the more weight it carries? A curious philosophy for something that purports to be an encyclopaedia.

There is a British car manufacturer called Reliant. They produce a car called the Reliant Robin. As Wikipedia correctly observes, "It is also often, and erroneously, referred to as the Robin Reliant." According to your theory, that sentence ought not to be there, for it educates people and instructs them what to call the vehicle, which is forbidden. And whenever the Reliant Robin is mentioned on Wikipedia, "Robin Reliant" should be parenthesized alongside it, so as to spare the sensitivities of those who don't know what the car is called. That's the principle you apply to the Renault FT.

Do we do the same for the Mary Celeste? The ship was the Mary Celeste; in the novel J. Habakuk Jephson's Statement by Arthur Conan Doyle, the ship is renamed Marie Celeste. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J._Habakuk_Jephson%27s_Statement The Oxford Dictionaries note that, "The ship was called the Mary Celeste, but the form Marie Celeste was popularized by an account written by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in 1884, and is now commoner in allusive use." http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/definition/english/Mary-Celeste Few people are even aware of Doyle's novel, whereas awareness of the historical event of the Mary Celeste is widespread. But as Wikipedia says, "Doyle's misspelt name has remained in the public's consciousness." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mary_Celeste#Myths_and_false_histories to the extent that the vast majority believe that the real ship was called Marie Celeste. It's common usage. Even more reason, therefore, to apply the FT-17 principle, since we actually have WP:RS that more people call it by the wrong name than by the right. So the Wikipedia article should be renamed "Marie Celeste", and whenever "Mary Celeste" appears on Wikipedia, "Marie Celeste" should appear in brackets next to it. That's how it works, I am told.

Of course not. Wikipedia contains information about a French tank called the Renault FT. It doesn't contain information about a French tank called the Renault FT-17, partly because no evidence is provided that the latter name is more commonly used, and also because there wasn't one. Hengistmate (talk) 13:48, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but the central point here is that by putting FT 17 in scare quotes, "FT 17", we already make abundantly clear that this designation is informal. What better way to point out that FT 17 is less correct? Now I don't claim that FT 17 is more commonly used; but we have to keep the simple fact in mind that it is commonly used, the very reason, after all, you are crusading against it ;o). Given that blatant truth, there are undoubtedly numerous readers who will benefit from a little clarification. What could possibly be against it? The analogy with the Mary Celeste and Reliant Robin fails because the "correct" name is so close to the usual one that any ambiguity is lacking. This is certainly not so in the case of the Renault FT which, we should admit to ourselves, is still a rather obscure concept.--MWAK (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)