This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone please fix that.
David Latapie (
✒ |
@)
09:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
On the whole a very nice article, but there are a couple of assertions regarding the nature of British infantry tanks which are inaccurate. For example, the article states that Infantry tanks were usually larger than Cruisers, whereas in actual fact the opposite is the case. With the exception of the Churchill tank, Infantry tanks were universally smaller than the contempory cruisers and even the Churchill was dimensionally about the same as the Cromwell tank. Also, again with the exception of the Churchill, the Infantry tanks were not notably heavier than their Cruiser tank equivalents. Additionally, the implication that Cruiser tanks were not capable of fighting enemy tanks is incorrect. Cruiser tanks were actually expected to engage enemy tank formations and were armed accordingly. The trade off between Cruisers and Infantry tanks was exclsively one of armour vs mobility. The two types almost invariably had equivalent firepower. Also the equating of Cruisers and Infantry tanks to Medium and heavy tanks is misleading. I shall be making some edits to address these points shortly. Cheers, Getztashida 10:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The Soviets had two different roles for infantry and heavy tanks, the latter for “breakthrough”. In the 1930s–40s the former was represented by the T-26 and T-50 tank project, the latter by the T-35 and KV-1—the KV was not the successor to the T-26 as is stated in the article. (There were also “artillery tanks”, the T-26A, BT-5A, BT-7A, and KV-2.)
The successor to the BT fast tank “cruiser”, the T-34, was put forward by its designer as a “universal tank”—its adoption was delayed by political pressure for the T-50, but the design and production of that tank was badly botched, so the T-34 had to be mass-produced when Germany invaded the USSR. It stepped into the void as a medium tank and precursor to the MBT.
I can help with references for some of this, if anyone wants to introduce it into the article. — Michael Z. 2008-10-22 18:40 z
I find the comparison technically wrong. Although better armed than the Matilda, the KV-1 was not better armed than the T-34, a medium tank. In fact, the KV-1 could be said to be underarmed, much like the Matilda and Churchill were, especially later on. AllStarZ ( talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The following passage is not correct:
"For political reasons, the US Army was not permitted "tanks" in the years before WWII and so the tracked AFVs that it did develop were termed "Combat Cars" instead."
In fact the National Defense Act of 1920 placed the Tank Corps under control of the Infantry, and the Infantry remained responsible for tanks and did work to develop infantry support tanks between the wars until the creation of the Armored Force. For example, the tanks provided for the experimental mechanized force in 1928 came from the Infantry.
In fact, the 2nd Armored Division was created from the Provisional Tank Brigade (which had been created at Fort Benning from the various pre-existing Infantry tank units). The M1 Light Tank, M2 Light Tank and M2 Medium Tank were all 'tracked AFVs' developed for the infantry.
'Combat cars' was the term used for cavalry-developed AVFs (often just variations of infantry tanks), but the idea that these were the only 'tracked AVFs' developed by the Army is just wrong. As is the idea that the Army was not permitted tanks.
67.181.62.193 ( talk) 07:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I am grateful for the explanation, but my reading skills are highly developed, and I am able to make that association unaided. No, the thing is this:
Is an "infantry tank-supported attack" an attack supported by infantry tanks or an infantry attack supported by tanks? It's the clumsiness and slight ambiguity of the phrase that concerns me, and a small grammatical adjustment removes that ambiguity and makes the sentence clearer. I cannot see that any reasonable person would object to an increase in Wikipedia's clarity, especially one who considers himself an authority on English and other modern European languages, and who frequently makes pronouncements on these and many other things. Of course, if it is felt that this alteration harms the project, then by all means let it be reverted and let warnings be issued and complaints lodged, as is customary. On the other hand, as your optician might perhaps say, "Is that better, worse, or about the same?" Then again, we could wait and see if there is consensus on whether this change should stand, something that Wikipedia strongly recommends.
The paragraph that precedes it also seems rather cumbersome and ungrammatical. I shall submit some suggested improvements when time permits. Apologies for the delay, but one is not able to devote unlimited amounts of time to Wikipedia. Hengistmate ( talk) 09:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems as though the British I tank concept and tanks for infantry are being discussed in the same article. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Andy, please don't make retrograde edits, find the page numbers! Keith-264 ( talk) 21:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
At the moment the article seems to be about the British I tank concept and a comparative study of equivalent infantry support tanks of other countries. I'm not sure that this will work, despite it being inherently interesting, because of the amount of sources necessary. To avoid disruption, I've copied sections into a sandbox while I've been doing a literature search, J. P. Harris turning out to be a disappointment as well as the second most boring milhist writer in the world. T. H. Place is much more helpful. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Graham, what copyright infringing? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 20:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm maturing an article here User:Keith-264/sandbox3 called Infantry tank which is specific to Britain and wonder if it should replace the one already here or be separate. It lacks the comparative aspect of the existing article but delves deeper. I'd be grateful if interested editors would venture an opinion as to where the new one should go. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 10:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
ITs are essentially British, with other nations sometimes following along for a tank or two. If British ITs become the main feature of a different article, then this article won't have enough content to justify its existence, unless we duplicate most of the info here as well. I see no benefit in splitting. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@ A D Monroe III: Sorry about that, I thought I was annotating the revamp in my sandbox. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 23:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Someone please fix that.
David Latapie (
✒ |
@)
09:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
On the whole a very nice article, but there are a couple of assertions regarding the nature of British infantry tanks which are inaccurate. For example, the article states that Infantry tanks were usually larger than Cruisers, whereas in actual fact the opposite is the case. With the exception of the Churchill tank, Infantry tanks were universally smaller than the contempory cruisers and even the Churchill was dimensionally about the same as the Cromwell tank. Also, again with the exception of the Churchill, the Infantry tanks were not notably heavier than their Cruiser tank equivalents. Additionally, the implication that Cruiser tanks were not capable of fighting enemy tanks is incorrect. Cruiser tanks were actually expected to engage enemy tank formations and were armed accordingly. The trade off between Cruisers and Infantry tanks was exclsively one of armour vs mobility. The two types almost invariably had equivalent firepower. Also the equating of Cruisers and Infantry tanks to Medium and heavy tanks is misleading. I shall be making some edits to address these points shortly. Cheers, Getztashida 10:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
The Soviets had two different roles for infantry and heavy tanks, the latter for “breakthrough”. In the 1930s–40s the former was represented by the T-26 and T-50 tank project, the latter by the T-35 and KV-1—the KV was not the successor to the T-26 as is stated in the article. (There were also “artillery tanks”, the T-26A, BT-5A, BT-7A, and KV-2.)
The successor to the BT fast tank “cruiser”, the T-34, was put forward by its designer as a “universal tank”—its adoption was delayed by political pressure for the T-50, but the design and production of that tank was badly botched, so the T-34 had to be mass-produced when Germany invaded the USSR. It stepped into the void as a medium tank and precursor to the MBT.
I can help with references for some of this, if anyone wants to introduce it into the article. — Michael Z. 2008-10-22 18:40 z
I find the comparison technically wrong. Although better armed than the Matilda, the KV-1 was not better armed than the T-34, a medium tank. In fact, the KV-1 could be said to be underarmed, much like the Matilda and Churchill were, especially later on. AllStarZ ( talk) 18:14, 17 April 2009 (UTC)
The following passage is not correct:
"For political reasons, the US Army was not permitted "tanks" in the years before WWII and so the tracked AFVs that it did develop were termed "Combat Cars" instead."
In fact the National Defense Act of 1920 placed the Tank Corps under control of the Infantry, and the Infantry remained responsible for tanks and did work to develop infantry support tanks between the wars until the creation of the Armored Force. For example, the tanks provided for the experimental mechanized force in 1928 came from the Infantry.
In fact, the 2nd Armored Division was created from the Provisional Tank Brigade (which had been created at Fort Benning from the various pre-existing Infantry tank units). The M1 Light Tank, M2 Light Tank and M2 Medium Tank were all 'tracked AFVs' developed for the infantry.
'Combat cars' was the term used for cavalry-developed AVFs (often just variations of infantry tanks), but the idea that these were the only 'tracked AVFs' developed by the Army is just wrong. As is the idea that the Army was not permitted tanks.
67.181.62.193 ( talk) 07:13, 1 January 2011 (UTC)
I am grateful for the explanation, but my reading skills are highly developed, and I am able to make that association unaided. No, the thing is this:
Is an "infantry tank-supported attack" an attack supported by infantry tanks or an infantry attack supported by tanks? It's the clumsiness and slight ambiguity of the phrase that concerns me, and a small grammatical adjustment removes that ambiguity and makes the sentence clearer. I cannot see that any reasonable person would object to an increase in Wikipedia's clarity, especially one who considers himself an authority on English and other modern European languages, and who frequently makes pronouncements on these and many other things. Of course, if it is felt that this alteration harms the project, then by all means let it be reverted and let warnings be issued and complaints lodged, as is customary. On the other hand, as your optician might perhaps say, "Is that better, worse, or about the same?" Then again, we could wait and see if there is consensus on whether this change should stand, something that Wikipedia strongly recommends.
The paragraph that precedes it also seems rather cumbersome and ungrammatical. I shall submit some suggested improvements when time permits. Apologies for the delay, but one is not able to devote unlimited amounts of time to Wikipedia. Hengistmate ( talk) 09:34, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
It seems as though the British I tank concept and tanks for infantry are being discussed in the same article. Keith-264 ( talk) 20:06, 13 October 2016 (UTC)
Andy, please don't make retrograde edits, find the page numbers! Keith-264 ( talk) 21:47, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
At the moment the article seems to be about the British I tank concept and a comparative study of equivalent infantry support tanks of other countries. I'm not sure that this will work, despite it being inherently interesting, because of the amount of sources necessary. To avoid disruption, I've copied sections into a sandbox while I've been doing a literature search, J. P. Harris turning out to be a disappointment as well as the second most boring milhist writer in the world. T. H. Place is much more helpful. Keith-264 ( talk) 08:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
@Graham, what copyright infringing? Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 20:20, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
I'm maturing an article here User:Keith-264/sandbox3 called Infantry tank which is specific to Britain and wonder if it should replace the one already here or be separate. It lacks the comparative aspect of the existing article but delves deeper. I'd be grateful if interested editors would venture an opinion as to where the new one should go. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 10:45, 9 September 2017 (UTC)
ITs are essentially British, with other nations sometimes following along for a tank or two. If British ITs become the main feature of a different article, then this article won't have enough content to justify its existence, unless we duplicate most of the info here as well. I see no benefit in splitting. -- A D Monroe III ( talk) 16:42, 13 September 2017 (UTC)
@ A D Monroe III: Sorry about that, I thought I was annotating the revamp in my sandbox. Regards Keith-264 ( talk) 23:17, 25 November 2017 (UTC)