From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
edit·history·watch·refresh Stock post message.svg To-do list for Tank:
Former featured article Tank is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on August 30, 2004.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
July 15, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted
February 3, 2007 Featured article review Demoted
Current status: Former featured article
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spoken Wikipedia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles that are spoken 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.
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 / Vital (Rated C-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Article actually is in American English (or should be)[edit]

Since the article is about a topic that has no clear ties to any one version of English, we need to go with the first contributor's version. Which was American English. Check the history--it was U.S. English (aka armor) up until this edit, whose only/main purpose was to switch the national variety of English used into Commonwealth English. My plan is to adjust the article accordingly, but I thought I'd post here first. Red Slash 21:56, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

While it starts in October 2001 as armor, it changed in August 2002 and has been "ou" spelling since. Little to be gained from changing now. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:31, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Neither of the versions cited there as "the beginning" are past being stubs. They'd even still just be disambigs, if such had been recognised at the time. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:33, 23 May 2013 (UTC)
Your definition of a stub is different than mine, clearly. At about 4,000 bytes of text, I mean, really? That's not a stub. Red Slash 22:27, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
In any case, after over 10 years there is little to no reason to make such a change (or fight over it). Also MOS looked very different at the time.TMCk (talk) 23:00, 24 May 2013 (UTC)
There is no reason to suddenly change the version of English of this article after such a long time. I have reverted the sudden change made two months after no consensus was made to do so here. (Hohum @) 11:13, 14 July 2013 (UTC)
See WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. 10 years ago, there was a single edit made by a single editor that was against our practices, even back then, that unilaterally changed it from U.S. English to British English. I just undid that change. Not one editor said "you shouldn't do it", they just said that they didn't see the gain from doing it. I didn't mind doing it and going by what our guidelines say, going with the first non-stub version. No fighting needed. Red Slash 06:10, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
The consensus is that there is no need to correct a "mistake" made many years ago. And Guidelines allow for some flexibility when there is a consensus; policies are the immutable positions. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:19, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

You shouldn't do it. Hengistmate (talk) 11:30, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

Reverted again. Localconsensus versus a guideline is a red herring in this case. (Hohum @) 14:07, 15 July 2013 (UTC)
Good to see there are still isolated pockets of the Wiki where consensus trumps dogma. Doug (talk) 14:56, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
Since tanks were invented in Europe, British English seems the natural choice to me. BP OMowe (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

I think that the logical choice would be to choose the version of English that most readers of this article speak. I would venture to guess that it is American English, considering Americans operate far more tanks than Britain. Is their any way to tell the origin of this articles traffic? That would be useful in resolving this. History2222 (talk) 20:11, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

The relevance of the number of tanks operated by the USA is not apparent to me, but the logic of the above is that since it is likely that the version of English spoken by readers of any article is likely to be American English, purely because the USA has, at present, the largest English-speaking population, then all of Wikipedia should be in American English. Hengistmate (talk) 11:08, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

Well, not always. Articles about British things probably get more British English readers than any other dialect.History2222 (talk) 20:53, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

As I understand it, the tank was developed first by Britain, but is now pretty universally used in English-speaking nations. Whatever the style of English used by the original author, if there was a change in style made a over a decade ago, that was the time to raise the issue. At this point, it's too late. From the POV of the subject matter, British English has something of a claim; from the POV of first author, American English has something of a claim. From the POV of readability and understandability, either is fine. If the article was in British English for a dozen years without being challenged, it should remain in British English. --Badger151 (talk) 21:55, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure I'm following your logic. Just because that language made sense 10 years ago does not mean it does today. History2222 (talk) 23:52, 6 December 2015 (UTC)

My point is that neither language has a strong claim; either language is fine. There's no compelling reason for change. --Badger151 (talk) 03:33, 7 December 2015 (UTC)
There is no reason for a change per WP:ENGVAR. The number of readers who use a particular English variation is irrelevant. (Hohum @) 13:47, 7 December 2015 (UTC)

Porsche as inventor of torsion bar suspension?[edit]

What is the source for this claim? Torsion bar suspension was first used on J.G. Parry-Thomas' racing cars in the 20s. First use on a tank is the Swedish Strv L-60 of 1934. Where does Porsche come in? Vasiliy Fofanov (talk) 11:44, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Editors of articles, particularly ones as wide-ranging as this one are not experts in all areas of tank technology. You appear to be an expert on torsion-bar suspension, which is great, we need your input! This was asserted by Deighton, which many have noted is not a particularly authoritative source. Also, I may have misinterpreted what he wrote. However, the article on the Strv L-60 gives no citation and I'm reluctant to change this without one because I have no better information on hand. If you can supply some more detail and particularly citations, I'd suggest you WP:Be bold. Edits with citations may be rewritten for style, but they are very unlikely to be reverted. Doug (talk) 14:49, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
I understand. The L-60 is not a widely-known tank so indeed the sources are sparse. Its wiki page mentions it inspired Russian and German tank designers, and indeed Russian sources assert the torsion bar suspension on Soviet pre-war tanks like the T-40 is derived from L-60. One detailed (non-Russian) page on L-60, in particular crediting it with being the first tank to use the torsion bar suspension, is here (in Swedish): Curiously, this source also goes on to credit F.Porsche with this invention, but at the moment it seems dubious to me since Porsche hasn't been drawn into armor technology until well into the war... Vasiliy Fofanov (talk) 15:37, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

From the article Torsion bar suspension:

The Czechoslovakian Tatra cars designed by Professor Hans Ledwinka in the mid-1930s used all round independent torsion bar suspension, along with air cooled rear engines. Also in the 1930s, prototypes of the first Volkswagen Beetle incorporated torsion bars—especially its transverse mounting style. Ledwinka's concept had been copied by Ferdinand Porsche, whose successors later had to acknowledge the influence of Ledwinka's sophisticated Tatra models on the Porsche-designed Kdf-Wagen of 1938 (later renamed the VW Beetle), a post-war lawsuit resulting in a DM3,000,000 settlement paid by Volkswagen to Ringhoffer-Tatra in 1961.

Since there was a lot of technical exchange between the engineers it's not unreasonable to postulate Landsverk got the idea from the Porche construction and thus attributed it to F.P. BP OMowe (talk) 20:03, 3 February 2015 (UTC)

But Landsverk got the tank finished in 1934, probably was designing it for several years before that, so seems to me they couldn't have got the idea from any mid-30s, never mind end-30s, design. Dates of introduction just don't compute otherwise. Vasiliy Fofanov (talk) 14:42, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Early German Development.[edit]

The reasons for Germany's belated and rather desultory entry into tank production were more complicated than "lack of capacities and resources." It was more to do with lack of belief in the tank's potential. Also, specific mention of the A7V seems overly detailed for inclusion in the lead par. There's no equivalent mention of earlier and more numerous Allied types. That tends to happen with the A7V. Suggest we tone this down a bit and allow the details to emerge in the later section on German development. Nothing will be lost, and the lead par will be better balanced. Hengistmate (talk) 23:21, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't agree. Instead, work should be done on equivalent allied vehicle, like British Mark Series. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rimsky.cheng (talkcontribs) 12:32, 21 September 2014 (UTC)

Design section incomplete[edit]

I came to the 'Tank' article hoping for information on why the design of tanks changed radically after WW1, reverting from the track-all-round-the-edge design to something more like the abandoned Little Willy design. Could anyone contribute something on the reason for this? For instance, was it entirely because the WW1 design had to cope with trench-warfare conditions? The 'Tanks in WW1' article touches sketchily on this but I'd have thought there was more to be said; and it belongs in the Design section of the main 'Tank' article. Dayvey (talk) 23:29, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

It would be quite inaccurate to say that WW1 tanks all followed such a track pattern. Yes the British Marks had, but not e.g. the French St-Chamond and Schneider_CA1, nor the German A7V. It would also be inaccurate to say this pattern hasn't survived the WW1. The British remained faithful to this design choice well into WW2 with Churchill. As to why it disappeared, such track pattern is only suitable for low-speed vehicles. As tanks' mobility increased it could no longer cope. This seems a fairly minor point to me, there have been so many variations in tanks' layout and individual component design, that explaining all their pros and cons looks out of place in a general purpose encyclopedia. Vasiliy Fofanov (talk) 15:55, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
"Around the edge" isn't the issue, it's much more about suspension.
WWI tanks had no effective suspension for their road wheels. Most were rigid, a handful (and more in the 1920s) gained leaf springs. As engines were feeble and track design poor (they'd throw their tracks at speed) this was no restriction. As they became more powerful and faster, which could be seen even in the WWI Whippet etc., the advantages were realised of a central "turret" (even if fixed rather than rotating) for all-around visibility and field of fire, together with better suspension to give a ride that allowed a crew to fight effectively on the move.
The ultimate "WWI tank" was probably the Vickers Independent of 1925. Although quite different to the WWI period tanks, it was designed for the same purpose - to slowly cross a shell-torn battlefield, spanning trenches and shell holes, engaging infantry with multiple MGs and a light HE cannon for dealing with emplacements. Even in the 1930s and after lots of war games on Salisbury Plain, this gave rise to the British doctrine of the "Infantry tank", slow-moving to support an infantry advance.
The British had though also developed the notion of the "Cruiser tank", which was fast and equipped to fire AP shot at other tanks. Opinions vary as to whether this was truly a development of the WWI Whippets and Chasers or a separate idea. Obviously these needed good suspension, where Christie was probably the best of the lot. The Soviets also followed this doctrine of Infantry and Cruiser in tank design for some years, although operational doctrine shifted away from it after experience of the Germans.
The German Blitzkrieg concept was quite different. Tank roles were combined as a universal battle tank, capable of either supporting infantry or of engaging other tanks. As assault infantry was mechanised, they too moved fast and so the false notion of "infantry tanks only need to travel at walking pace" was abandoned, as was the idea that these infantry tanks could somehow avoid having to engage other tanks. The Soviet T34 was of course a fine example of such a universal tank. If you're interested, try to find David Fletcher's excellent books ("Scandal" and "Universal") on failures of UK tank design for this issue.
Where the Germans needed an "infantry tank" for close support artillery, they soon produced an effective range of assault guns. These were actually faster than the related tanks (lighter, on the same chassis), lower targets and avoided the hugely expensive turret and turret ring mechanism that also limited the long-term calibre and recoil limits of the chassis. The most expensive part of a wartime tank is the factory machinery that can make a turret ring bearing - this is very specialised, not used by much other heavy engineering and takes a long time to provide for new tank factories. As they were deployed with surrounding infantry, they even omitted local defence hull MG gunners altogether - anathema to the multi-turret "walking pillboxes" like the Independent.
Enveloping tracks didn't go away, they just shrank lower. You can see them on the Independent, you can even see them on the Churchill. They're just lower, to allow a full traverse turret to shoot over them. As the main gun gets bigger, the turret ring must also grow bigger to support the recoil forces. When this becomes wider than the track spacing, something has to give. We now see a step change in tank hull design, where the upper hull bursts free like an uncorseted Goth and spreads wider into a beer shelf hull sponsons above the track. The turret ring can now be the full width across the tracks, not between them. The sponsons also give more space for storage of the increasingly larger ammunition, and the extra crew loader to handle it. The tracks don't care, they have good suspension that can run them at speed without continual support. The Russians also discover the useful fact that "slack track", abandoning upper return rollers altogether, will on average run just as well as a tank in average service condition. It even has a useful snow and mud clearing effect, avoiding the packing and jamming problems that bedevilled later German tanks with their space-efficient, but clog-prone interleaved suspension. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
The rhomboidal design was simply to get a sufficient trench-crossing ability so as to cross the wide German trenches of the period. These trenches were often of considerable width, up to seven or eight feet. Later after WW I this became less desirable as trench warfare was becoming obsolescent and general mobility on roads and other terrain, as well as other design factors, became more important. The high rhomboidal shape also meant that a turret could not be used as the centre of gravity would have been too high and have made the vehicle unstable. In contrast, the French and German WW I designs had almost no trench-crossing ability at all in comparison as they just got stuck when the vehicle encountered a trench and the nose dug-in.
The high rhomboidal shape was really just a solution to the particular problem facing the designers at the time, i.e., making a vehicle able to cross the wide trenches and not be stopped by the muddy conditions, and by things such as large shell craters. Soon after it was realised that it was simpler to just carry fascines and drop them into any trenches or ditches that needed crossing, and so British tank design abandoned the rhomboidal shape after WW I. For all their shortcomings, the British Mark I and subsequent rhomboidal vehicles were a successful design in that they solved the problems they were designed to, i.e, carrying protected men and guns across no-man's land under heavy enemy machine gun fire. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 11:30, 27 February 2015 (UTC)

Wikipedia - Another example of lies propaganda & thievery. An Australian invented the tank in 1911.[edit]

This wikipedia article is yet another inaccurate article & i feel it should be changed to reflect the truth about the invention of the Tank.

The current article on the main page sez the tank was developed simultaneously by France & Great Britan in world war one.

This claim is ambiguous.

The Following statement is wrong ... wrong ... wrong ... 

Tanks in World War I were developed separately and simultaneously by Great Britain [2] and France as a means to break the deadlock of trench warfare on the Western Front. Their first use in combat was by the British Army on September 15, 1916 between the villages of Flers and Courcelette, during the Battle of the Somme. The name "tank" was adopted by the British during the early stages of their development, as a security measure to conceal their purpose (see etymology). While the French and British built thousands of tanks between them, Germany was unconvinced of the tank's potential, and built only twenty of her own. ________________________

Fact is Australia invented the worlds first tank in 1911, but during world war one Australia was so far away from the Australian mainland .... it asked it's allies to help ..... Just as Australia did when Australian Howard Flory invented Penicillin but Australia needed the British & later the USA to help ramp up production. ( Australia had/has a small population an as such Australia's manufacturing industry is non existent. So in the case of the Tank. ... Australia ... Who is part of the Commonwealth, asked the British war office to build the tank in Europe as Australia could not build it in Australia .... nor transport it from Australia to Europe.

But Dont take my word for it .... Ask the British war office. Or read the 1912 letter ( Documented Proof ) that Lancelot Eldin invented the Tank.

How did France develop the tank when it was occupied by the Germans & then taken back by the Australian's & British.

& how did the French & British invent the tank in after the start of world war one ... 1914. when Australian Lancelot Eldin de Mole invented the tank & wrote to Australian & later British generals at the Commonwealth war office & later to the the British war office as early as 1912. A whole two years before the start of world war one.

1911: tank

In 1911, Australian-born Lancelot Eldin de Mole was struck with the idea for an armoured vehicle that ran on treads. He sent sketches and descriptions of his design to the British War Office, only to be informed in June 1913 that his idea had been rejected. When in 1916 an inferior (in de Mole's opinion) tank was introduced, the engineer realised that he had been passed over. A British royal commission later said that de Mole's design "had made and reduced to practical shape, as far back as the year 1912, a brilliant invention which anticipated, and in some respects surpassed, that actually put into use in the year 1916", but he was never formally acknowledged as the tank's inventor.


Military history of Australia during World War I

While Australia saved the world in world war one defeating the Muslim caliphate which spanned from Africa to the borders of France & Hungry ... Engulfing Spain ect ect Australia was liberating France, Italy, Greece, Hungry, Belgium ect ect ... Fighting the Germans, Muslims on 3 fronts in Africa, Middle East & Europe ...

See ...


Australians on the Western Front 1914-1918

Please correct the main article to reflect the fact that it was Australian ancelot Eldin de Mole who invented the worlds first tank, in 1911, a tank that was later built by Commonwealth forces in 1916.

Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 21:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Why not add it yourself? de Mole's work belongs here, I would agree. It's in the WWI tanks article already.
I don't think he invented the tank though. The concept was around even before him, the problem was the substantial one of how to build it. de Mole didn't solve this. He didn't build a full-sized model (and the real practical problems are only evident at full size). He didn't describe a model that would work at full size. At most, he was the first with the idea of the 'climbing face'. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:49, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Actually he is already in the article under "history".--TMCk (talk) 22:12, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Missed that. Is it worth adding the cash award post-WWI? Andy Dingley (talk) 22:31, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
Apparently he received some money for his expenses but not in form of an award. See Lancelot de Mole for more detail.--TMCk (talk) 22:44, 29 March 2015 (UTC)
the statement "Tanks in World War I were developed separately and simultaneously by Great Britain and France as a means to break the deadlock of trench warfare on the Western Front" is not ambiguous. Here "Developed" means brought into being, which De Mole did not contribute to, certainly not to the French efforts. And the efforts of Wilson and Foster appear to have independently reached the rhomboid arrangement and solved the sagging Holt tracks. Which the commission reflected in its awards. One element of the narrative missing - in my mind - is that in 1913, de Mole's tank is trying to solve a problem that does not yet exist; the wires and machine guns and trenches have yet to appear. From the tone of the ip editor's text, there appears to elements of trying to "right a wrong". GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:53, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Lede image unsuitable[edit]

A perfect color view of a 76 mm M1 gun gun equipped Sherman

The M4A4 cutaway image is too specialized to be selected for the lede. We need a more generalized image and relocate M4A4 cutaway somewhere else in the article. Green547 (talk) 17:32, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

  • Agreed, although (per many past comments on this page) I wouldn't chose a modern tank, or one with side skirts hiding the roadwheels and tracks. M4 Shermans are quite a good choice, but not this cutaway. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:51, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Then how about this one? Green547 (talk) 17:59, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Good. WWII defined first real "tanks". Sherman was familiar to most Western Allies -- especially good for this en-Wikipedia.
I still like the cut-away pic in general, though. Pls find a new place for it in this article. --A D Monroe III (talk) 19:21, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
Done. I've changed the lede image (the generalized, flashy image looks much better) and the cutaway has been relocated to a prominent spot in the WWII section. Cheers, Green547 (talk) 21:04, 13 July 2015 (UTC)