This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It says male and female weights in the specifications. Is this vandalism? 17.107.83.31 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)H.H.
I did this. ( and Whippet ) GDL 3/2/2005
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 21:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to split the article? Surely each of these interesting vehicles deserves its own!
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 21:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort! And sorry for my horrid English.... I tend to agree with you as far as the earlier marks are concerned. Marks VI, VIII and IX are so different though, a separate article seems justified. Of course I'm a bit prejudiced - they are among my favourite tanks :o).
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 12:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good jod too bad my tank article is not vary long( Uber555 04:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC))
Just put in the bit about surviving tanks... feel free to add to it. I know there're others at Duxford and the IWM in London, but I've not included them as I've no idea of their details.
Catsmeat
10:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have reliable information on the tank used in that movie? Internet sources frequently call it a German "Mark 7", but the only "Mark" tanks appear to be these British ones, which is rather confusing. 70.20.217.197 04:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
These "popular culture" entries contribute nothing to the article itself - no information about the subject or its impact on war, history or society. If it leads to e.g. new phrases in a language, that's important because it tells us about the subject's impact on the world. But references in entertainment movies or commercial games do not meet these criteria, they are just things creative writers dream up with no context. Time to stop it ? Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 02:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. -- dashiellx ( talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Considering this weapon's importance to the history of modern warfare, can one of the tank experts out there consider splitting off Mks I - V into separate pages for each Mark, like other wikis have done ? There is enough difference and material to support separate pages, and would make linking easier, especially interwiki links. Rcbutcher ( talk) 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I feel like there is something wrong with this sentence:
"suffered from many bugs because of its primitive and cost-effective nature"
"Cost-effective" wouldn't qualify as a bug...maybe the author meant "costly"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.133.73 ( talk) 01:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to change the intro to this, but the server doesn't seem to like me:
References
Could we have some standardization please? Some of the article titles include the word "tank" and others don't. I think all articles about tanks should have "tank" in the title. Biscuittin ( talk) 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
"entire crews lost consciousness or became violently sick when again exposed to fresh air" "or by runners who were encouraged... by strong drink as a reward." "later marks carried semaphore arms for [sic] signalling." Really? This stuff all sounds pretty dubious to me. Seems like you would pass out inside the tank and wake up when you got fresh air; it seems laughable, the idea that a soldier would be unwilling to risk his life, unless of course there was a bottle of liquor handy, in which case it would be "bottoms up and over the top;" and the idea of semaphore arms on top of a tank sounds highly impractical, if not totally unworkable. I think these factoids should be removed if proper citations cannot be produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.15.81 ( talk) 21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
All of the above is true and can be verified from personal accounts, official reports, and regimental records as recorded in sources too numerous to mention. It is more advisable to examine some sources than to speculate merely because they are not within one's own experience.
Hengistmate ( talk) 00:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
"One commander recorded his crew all spontaneously vomiting as they took their first draughts of fresh air after hours of 'foul confinement'." - Band of Brigands; The First Men in Tanks. Christy Campbell, 2007. p333.
Semaphore signs on top of Tanks were impractical and were soon shot away by enemy fire. Nonetheless, they existed, from the Mk V onwards. Photograph on p32 of Landships; British Tanks in the First World War..David Fletcher (Curator of the R.A.C. Tank Museum, Bovington) Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1984.
The reference to bottles of whiskey is a humorous incident that has been taken at face value, perhaps by someone without the necessary grasp of such things.
I hope these references satisfy the gent who asked for them because certain things didn't seem right. It was my understanding that assertions should be challenged in the light of conflicting evidence, not merely because someone doesn't like the sound of them. Now that other people have had to do all the work, perhaps this correspondent could, in future, take it upon himself to seek verification.
Hengistmate ( talk) 13:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the latest addition about this. Weaving some original research around some linked images is not provision of a reliable source. The conclusions need to be made by the source, not the editor. ( Hohum @) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be a fair assessment of the situation. I don't think a "widely circulating view" passes the Wikipedia test, unless it is supported. Of course, the existence of photographs of the vehicles actually fighting in street battles in Berlin is unlikely, for obvious reasons. I doubt that there is a photograph of any British WWI tank in combat, although there are many of the tanks in other situations. We know that they did see combat, by virtue of the historical record, and can therefore state that with confidence. There is nothing that establishes to the degree required by Wikipedia that the Mk Vs in question were used in combat.
The web article offered in support of the theory relies on the following quotation: "He was then loaded on a turretless World War One tank for a trip thru (sic) Berlin's streets." There is no further description of the vehicle. Nor is any date given for this event. The use of the word "turretless" could mean that, being accustomed to WWII tanks, the captive assumed the Mk V was missing a turret. On the other hand, we know that in 1940 Germany captured many hundreds of Renault FTs and put them to use. The FT had a removable turret. Therefore, the captive could be describing a tank which he knew or deduced to have had its turret removed. The Northwest Florida Daily News archive for 2003 is not available online. It therefore seems to me that the use of these vehicles in combat has, at present, not been established by the means required. Their presence is established by clear photographic evidence; their actions are not.
The invitation to offer reliable evidence was made 17 months ago, and has not been taken up. I would suggest that sufficient time has elapsed for some bold editing to be justified. I apologise for the length of this response. I am not trying to substitute verbosity and persistence for historical fact, merely to anticipate all objections that might be put forward by other editors.
As it happens, the last occasion on which a British WWI tank was operational is probably 1942. But I think this article requires considerable revision before we can afford the luxury of such refinements. Hengistmate ( talk) 03:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
In accordance with the de facto Manual of Style, this article should be split into several articles. The Mark II - Mark X tanks can all get their own articles. Each vehicle can get a brief description in a section labeled "Derivatives". The article Mark tank could be created to provide an overview of tanks in the series. Marcus Qwertyus 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
On page 101 of Steve Cliffe's Churchill, Kitchener, and Lloyd George: First World War Lords (London: Fonthill Media / Philadelphia: Casemate, 2014), the author claims that after the demonstration of the tank on Feb. 2, 1916, Kitchener privately told Sir William Robertson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, that his negative comments had been for public consumption, and that such an important new weapon should never have been demonstrated so publicly, to politicians. This would suggest he though the tank a very good idea.
-- Al-Nofi ( talk) 18:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The following hidden content was relocated to the Talk page below:
!---WORK IN PROGRESS, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE
Mark I Tank and its variants and successors | ||||||||||
Model / Specification | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark I | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark II | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark III | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark IV | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark V | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark VI | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark VII | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark VIII | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark IX | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark X |
Weight (Male) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) |
Weight (Female) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) |
Length (Male) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Length (Female)) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Width (Male)) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Width (Female)) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Height (Male)) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Height (Female)) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Crew (Male) | ||||||||||
Crew (Female) | ||||||||||
Armour (Male) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) |
Armour (Female) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) |
Primary Armament (Male) | ||||||||||
Primary Armament (Female) | ||||||||||
Secondary Armament (Male) | ||||||||||
Secondary Armament (Female) | ||||||||||
Engine (Male) | ||||||||||
Engine (Female) | ||||||||||
Engine Power (Male) | ||||||||||
Engine Power (Female) | ||||||||||
Transmission (Male) | ||||||||||
Transmission (Female) | ||||||||||
Fuel Capacity (Male) | ||||||||||
Fuel Capacity (Female) | ||||||||||
Range (Male) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) |
Range (Female) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) |
Speed (Male) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) |
Speed (Female) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) |
END WORK IN PROGRESS ---
Whomever is working on this content, please do so here or in the Sandbox, not in the article proper. When you have completed your efforts you may appropriately introduce it into the article. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 01:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The second sentence of the 'Mark V series' section is nearly unintelligible. It seems to be saying that the original Mark V design was a better Mark IV, then changed to a completely new design, then reverted back to a better Mark IV. The sentence is either very badly worded or just wrong. Could someone knowledgeable on the subject clue me in? Thanks. Stepho talk 02:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The number of machine guns carried by Tanks Mk I - V* is usually misrepresented. The Mk I Male had five flaps through which machine guns could be fired, one in the cab front and two in each sponson. In practice only three were used, the cab and one in each sponson. The Female carried two Vickers in each sponson and a Hotchkiss in the cab.
Mks II - IV had purpose built mounts, one in the cab, and one in each sponson for Males, two for Females. The confusion is caused by the fact that tanks carried a spare.
In the Mk V a rearward-firing machine-gun was fitted in the rear armour, bringing the total to four for Males and six for Females.
The list of users gives the impression that the Mk I saw service with a number of countries, which is not correct. Captured Mk IVs were used by Germany, and later Mks by a number of countries during and after the War.
Hengistmate ( talk) 22:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Are not the same thing. I propose to amend this by removing the barbette reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengistmate ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The box thing gives the impression that the MkI was used by Germany, the Soviet Union, the United States, France, Canada, Australia, Estonia, and Latvia. It wasn't. The box combines all the various Marks under the heading of Tank MkI, which is confusing.
The Mk VI and X were not built. Is it reasonable to argue that the MkIX and Gun Carrier were variants? The Mk VIII was not completed in time to see service in the War. It really requires a separate box for each Mark to avoid confusion.
Looking through the rest of the text, I can see numerous misapprehensions.
David Fletcher does not say that "Salvage Companies . . . were forbidden to speak about this aspect of their work (removing corpses) with still living tank crews."
"There were two Hotchkiss machine guns in the sponsons and two removable guns for the front and back," is not correct. Only Females had 2 mgs in each sponson; Males had one, plus a cannon. Both Males and Females had a machine-gun in the cab. No tanks were fitted with mgs at the rear until the MkV.
What is described as the "Wilson Machine" was the "Tritton Machine."
"Four of the crew, two drivers (one of whom also acted as commander; he operated the brakes, the other the primary gearbox) and two "gearsmen" (one for the secondary gears of each track) were needed to control direction and speed," is incorrect. This sentence is badly expressed and needs clarification.
The claim about MkVs being used in WWI is based on photos of the tanks but does not appear to be confirmed by any accounts that will satisfy Wikipedia's requirements.
Hengistmate ( talk) 16:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the point I was making is that the first paragraph under 'Description' discusses only the armament of the Male. I think that should be improved to include the female. There's no mention of the Vickers. The reference to removable mgs is not correct. The MkI had 5 flaps for mgs; 1 in the cab and 2 in each sponson, but in practice only one in each sponson was used. Thereafter there were purpose-built mountings for mgs. Because a spare was carried, the number of mgs is usually overstated by one. There were no rear mgs in Mks I-IV.
The sentence about the crew is rather imprecise and badly expressed. It will do no harm to clarify it. As a matter of fact, in the Mk I the drivers were from the RASC, not the Heavy Branch.
I do mean WWII. Beg pardon. That was a misprunt. However, their use is a matter of speculation and, as I say, is not supported by any evidence. Leaving aside the fact that it would be remarkable if they functioned after 20 years in a museum, Wikipedia requires a citation, which in our case we have not got. Their presence is supported by photos, but not their use in combat. There's no harm in mentioning this alleged episode, but I would suggest that it be made clear that it is no more than that.
I take it that we are in agreement on the matter of the "Tritton Machine."
You're quite right; this does need a major overhaul. Who's going to do it?
Regards,
Hengistmate ( talk) 11:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
That isn't what David Fletcher says on p124. "Fighting battalions believed that it was bad for morale for tank crews to remove the bodies of their comrades from wrecked tanks, and left all this to the salvage companies. When tanks had been burned out this was very grim work." There's nothing about crews being forbidden to discuss anything. Have removed.
Hengistmate ( talk) 15:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that we have articles called:
Should these be renamed for consistent use of brackets? Stepho talk 14:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It is perhaps worth considering that there was no such thing as a Mk I tank until there was a Mk II, or, at least, the prospect of it. Like "World War One." Until November 1916 there were only "Tanks." The first 150 then became the Mk I, and the next 100, ordered on October 16th and incorporating minor modifications, 50 each of Mk II & III (Albert Stern).
As for the article name, I have been required to have such discussions on a number of occasions. It seems that the Wikipedia rule is to reflect "common usage." Whether there can be such a thing in matters as comparatively specialised as this I am not certain. But I notice that the common usage rule is applied inconsistently anyway, and Wikipedia also says that the question should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Compare buttercup and cornflower. "Tank, Mk I" has a pleasing military ring to it, and I'm sure that it appeared in many inventories and official documents. But most people will want to look up (for example) "Mark V Tank." The problem with "Mark V (tank)" is that you have to distinguish it from the Covenanter, a Lincoln Continental, part of the Gospel of St. Mark, and many other things. How " Medium Mark A Whippet" and " Gun Carrier Mark I" fit into this, I cannot say. It would be my suggestion that all the British Heavy Tanks of the period be referred to as "Mark (insert numerals here) Tank." I suppose Roman numerals are a bit anachronistic, really, but I think we can hang on to them.
Whilst this desire for unifomity and clarity is very welcome, I can't help but notice that Wikipedia contains numerous articles and sections on the topic of, shall we say, early 20th century tracked, armoured fighting vehicles, and no two are alike. Some of them are appalling. Is the cart not being put before the horse? Hengistmate ( talk) 08:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I notice that a good deal of reversion has taken place here in the matter of the participation or otherwise of Mk V tanks in the Estonian War of Independence. This might be an issue not of vandalism but of historical accuracy. One hopes that no one has been too hasty or acted without examining the facts. Whilst it is undeniable that four Mk Vs were handed to the Estonian Army on condition that they be used to continue opposition to Bolshevik forces, and that a training school was set up under a Captain Shishko, I have yet to see a description of their use in combat. Although Lt. Col. Hope Carson describes British-operated Mk Vs travelling to Pskov in August 1919 and linking with Estonian units, the vehicles did not detrain and later withdrew without seeing action. Whilst Estonia sought independence, it is entirely possible to argue that all tank actions at this time were still a part of the Allied Intervention. They were certainly under the command of Gen. Yudenich, and while the Estonian War of Independence and the Russian Civil War are somewhat interwoven, it is far from clear that Mk Vs actively participated in the former. Any references that establish that they did would be very welcome. In the absence of any, I would suggest that the Estonian War of Independence ought not to appear in the infobox. Hengistmate ( talk) 13:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I am apprised that the Mk V did not see combat in the Estonian War of Independence. Hengistmate ( talk) 23:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Have tried to clarify this somewhat. Having everything under the title of "Mark I Tank" tends to give the impression that information, especially that in the infobox, refers to this Mark throughout, which it doesn't. Have specified which Marks were used by whom (adding Japan), and pointing out instances where info applies only to the Mk I. Haven't included (yet) service with the White Russians, since the vehicles were operated by British crews; would welcome opinions on that. We await a decision on the inclusion of the Estonian Civil War.
With no disrespect, the page title causes the content to fall between several stools, but since there are other articles devoted wholly or partly to this subject, it's hard to think what it could be changed to.
The acquisition of Mk VIIIs by Canada is, I believe, a moot point, and it is suggested that this might be confusion with the M1917s. Does anyone have a reliable source that doesn't seem to have taken its info from Wikipedia?
Have also amended details of armament. Civil comments welcomed on all of the above. Hengistmate ( talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Some doubt exists as to the details of the Mk VIII deal. If MWAK can clear it up, I should be delighted to see his evidence. This is a brief explanation of the alleged controversy: http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Stories/emagazine-3/tanks/MKVIIIs_to_Canada.htm Hengistmate ( talk) 09:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
"It's incontrovertible that Canada acquired Mark VIIIs." Then, as an experienced Wikipedian, you will understand my desire to be reminded of the incontrovertible evidence that satisfies the project's requirements. As we know, a widely circulating view is insufficient. I look forward to reading same. Hengistmate ( talk) 16:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This page is entitled "Mark I Tank" so why does it discuss other tanks such as the Mark II, IV, V, V* etc? The list of nations in the "Used By" section gives the impression that the Mark I was used by, for example, Germany. There are separate pages for all the other Marks of Tank, surely the information would be better placed there? If you check the Mark IV page, for example, it doesn't mention Germany. I feel that a page about the Mark I Tank should be about the Mark I Tank. Should the page title be changed to "Various Tanks of WW1"? It doesn't make much sense the way it is. O'Contraire ( talk) 03:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I quite agree, Mr. O'Contraire, but I also observe that the idea of splitting or otherwise rejigging this article can be traced back to at least 2005. Everyone seems to be full of good advice, but no one has actually done anything except agree that something should be done. Mr. Dingley, in particular, has been tireless in his encouragement of others.
Mr. O'Contraire might like to consider that I have made certain adjustments to the infobox in an attempt to clarify which nation used which Mark(s), and what I hope are improvements in other areas, but such tinkering can achieve very little when the article's title is so restrictive. (Btw, the Mark IV page does mention German use, in the "Service" section)
In all honesty, this article requires considerable rebuilding. But since it does deal with only the British heavy rhomboid tanks, it would at least be a start to rename it "British Heavy Tanks of World War I". I shall therefore do that an hope for a collaborative and constructive response, rather than an obstructive one. Mentioning no names. Here we go. Hengistmate ( talk) 10:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Right. The Gordian Knot has been cut. We can now proceed to improve the article with the freedom that I believe the new title affords. The sections on the individual Marks can be brought more into line with their dedicated articles elsewhere on Wikipedia, the combat history can be fleshed out with Ypres, Cambrai, etc, and I'm sure editors are already thinking of other ways of making the world a better place. If anyone disagrees with anything, perhaps they can come up with some positive alternative. If you have a better idea, let's hear it and let's try it. "Don’t tell me it can’t be done, tell me how we are going to do it" - Franklin D. Roosevelt. Possibly. Hengistmate ( talk) 11:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, if that's what it takes, do it. Or whatever will work. Hengistmate ( talk) 13:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names Or whatever. What do I know? Hengistmate ( talk) 15:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I changed last sentence of first paragraph to, "Armament was of two types: naval 6-pounder (57 mm) guns, called a "male", and machine guns, called a "female"." I am just an interested layman, and found the references to "male" and "female" totally confusing. So I explained it at the top. I felt this was necessary because those terms appear in the InfoBox which is at the top. I firmly believe they should be defined right at the top. Tanks are inanimate objects and do not have sexual gender. Nick Beeson ( talk) 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've adjusted this par. There was an initial shortage of 6-pounders, but the necessary 50 were ordered from Armstrong-Whitworth without too much difficulty. The anti-personnel requirement was more of a determinant. The turret wasn't abandoned because it would have made the vehicle too high or top-heavy - the Mk I was no taller than Little Willie; it was because of the interior layout of the vehicle. A turret was feasible in Little Willie's case, but the layout of the heavier Mk I (with its gearsmen) made a turret impractical. Fletcher 2001, p51, if you want a reference, and Stern 1919 somewhere. No need to confuse the issue by introducing hermaphrodites at this stage - that bridge can be crossed in due course. Reading the par in conjunction with the infobox will, I hope, explain matters. And I wish more people knew when to use "due to." Hengistmate ( talk) 01:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi all - I find the article is certainly encyclopaedic on the different variants and construction of the tanks, but is very short on the significance of the tank in WW1. Could anyone find a source with more overview and analysis? TX. Sorry, I just proofread and edit existing work, and don't have the backround on tanks. cheers all, Billyshiverstick ( talk) 19:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
This page about english first world war tank Mark I seem not have the connection with Wikpedia pages in French,Italian and other very knowed countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.231.36.211 ( talk) 00:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I've restored the reference to WWII because some Mark V tanks did play a very small part in the conflict. Four ex=Estonian Mark Vs were used by the Red Army in the defence of Tallinn in 1941. A couple of Mk Vs were on public display in Berlin from 1943 until after the end of the War, but there is no evidence that they took part in any fighting or were even mobile. The last known operation was 1941, not 1945, but for personal reasons some "editors" will not allow this information to appear in Wikipedia. Hengistmate ( talk) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British heavy tanks of World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
"The Mark I was the world's first tank,...." not so world's "first" considering and other constructors of tanks before 1916
There is no discussion at all of how the weight of the tank is carried down to the ground. Of course suspension is a critical part of modern tanks using torsion bars etc. I gather that these old World War I tanks did not have any springs at all. The article needs to say that
Also needs to talk about the drive train … where is the drive sprocket? and also the weight as it goes down to the treads and into the ground … are the treads just scraping directly across the tank body? Is there a lot of wear and friction there? Noleander ( talk) 03:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
It says male and female weights in the specifications. Is this vandalism? 17.107.83.31 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)H.H.
I did this. ( and Whippet ) GDL 3/2/2005
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 21:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Wouldn't it be better to split the article? Surely each of these interesting vehicles deserves its own!
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 21:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)
Thank you for your effort! And sorry for my horrid English.... I tend to agree with you as far as the earlier marks are concerned. Marks VI, VIII and IX are so different though, a separate article seems justified. Of course I'm a bit prejudiced - they are among my favourite tanks :o).
MWAK-- 84.27.81.59 12:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Good jod too bad my tank article is not vary long( Uber555 04:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC))
Just put in the bit about surviving tanks... feel free to add to it. I know there're others at Duxford and the IWM in London, but I've not included them as I've no idea of their details.
Catsmeat
10:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)
Does anyone have reliable information on the tank used in that movie? Internet sources frequently call it a German "Mark 7", but the only "Mark" tanks appear to be these British ones, which is rather confusing. 70.20.217.197 04:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
These "popular culture" entries contribute nothing to the article itself - no information about the subject or its impact on war, history or society. If it leads to e.g. new phrases in a language, that's important because it tells us about the subject's impact on the world. But references in entertainment movies or commercial games do not meet these criteria, they are just things creative writers dream up with no context. Time to stop it ? Rod. Rcbutcher ( talk) 02:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)
Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. -- dashiellx ( talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
Considering this weapon's importance to the history of modern warfare, can one of the tank experts out there consider splitting off Mks I - V into separate pages for each Mark, like other wikis have done ? There is enough difference and material to support separate pages, and would make linking easier, especially interwiki links. Rcbutcher ( talk) 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
I feel like there is something wrong with this sentence:
"suffered from many bugs because of its primitive and cost-effective nature"
"Cost-effective" wouldn't qualify as a bug...maybe the author meant "costly"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.133.73 ( talk) 01:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)
I've been trying to change the intro to this, but the server doesn't seem to like me:
References
Could we have some standardization please? Some of the article titles include the word "tank" and others don't. I think all articles about tanks should have "tank" in the title. Biscuittin ( talk) 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
"entire crews lost consciousness or became violently sick when again exposed to fresh air" "or by runners who were encouraged... by strong drink as a reward." "later marks carried semaphore arms for [sic] signalling." Really? This stuff all sounds pretty dubious to me. Seems like you would pass out inside the tank and wake up when you got fresh air; it seems laughable, the idea that a soldier would be unwilling to risk his life, unless of course there was a bottle of liquor handy, in which case it would be "bottoms up and over the top;" and the idea of semaphore arms on top of a tank sounds highly impractical, if not totally unworkable. I think these factoids should be removed if proper citations cannot be produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.15.81 ( talk) 21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)
All of the above is true and can be verified from personal accounts, official reports, and regimental records as recorded in sources too numerous to mention. It is more advisable to examine some sources than to speculate merely because they are not within one's own experience.
Hengistmate ( talk) 00:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)
"One commander recorded his crew all spontaneously vomiting as they took their first draughts of fresh air after hours of 'foul confinement'." - Band of Brigands; The First Men in Tanks. Christy Campbell, 2007. p333.
Semaphore signs on top of Tanks were impractical and were soon shot away by enemy fire. Nonetheless, they existed, from the Mk V onwards. Photograph on p32 of Landships; British Tanks in the First World War..David Fletcher (Curator of the R.A.C. Tank Museum, Bovington) Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1984.
The reference to bottles of whiskey is a humorous incident that has been taken at face value, perhaps by someone without the necessary grasp of such things.
I hope these references satisfy the gent who asked for them because certain things didn't seem right. It was my understanding that assertions should be challenged in the light of conflicting evidence, not merely because someone doesn't like the sound of them. Now that other people have had to do all the work, perhaps this correspondent could, in future, take it upon himself to seek verification.
Hengistmate ( talk) 13:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I have reverted the latest addition about this. Weaving some original research around some linked images is not provision of a reliable source. The conclusions need to be made by the source, not the editor. ( Hohum @) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
That seems to be a fair assessment of the situation. I don't think a "widely circulating view" passes the Wikipedia test, unless it is supported. Of course, the existence of photographs of the vehicles actually fighting in street battles in Berlin is unlikely, for obvious reasons. I doubt that there is a photograph of any British WWI tank in combat, although there are many of the tanks in other situations. We know that they did see combat, by virtue of the historical record, and can therefore state that with confidence. There is nothing that establishes to the degree required by Wikipedia that the Mk Vs in question were used in combat.
The web article offered in support of the theory relies on the following quotation: "He was then loaded on a turretless World War One tank for a trip thru (sic) Berlin's streets." There is no further description of the vehicle. Nor is any date given for this event. The use of the word "turretless" could mean that, being accustomed to WWII tanks, the captive assumed the Mk V was missing a turret. On the other hand, we know that in 1940 Germany captured many hundreds of Renault FTs and put them to use. The FT had a removable turret. Therefore, the captive could be describing a tank which he knew or deduced to have had its turret removed. The Northwest Florida Daily News archive for 2003 is not available online. It therefore seems to me that the use of these vehicles in combat has, at present, not been established by the means required. Their presence is established by clear photographic evidence; their actions are not.
The invitation to offer reliable evidence was made 17 months ago, and has not been taken up. I would suggest that sufficient time has elapsed for some bold editing to be justified. I apologise for the length of this response. I am not trying to substitute verbosity and persistence for historical fact, merely to anticipate all objections that might be put forward by other editors.
As it happens, the last occasion on which a British WWI tank was operational is probably 1942. But I think this article requires considerable revision before we can afford the luxury of such refinements. Hengistmate ( talk) 03:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
In accordance with the de facto Manual of Style, this article should be split into several articles. The Mark II - Mark X tanks can all get their own articles. Each vehicle can get a brief description in a section labeled "Derivatives". The article Mark tank could be created to provide an overview of tanks in the series. Marcus Qwertyus 23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)
On page 101 of Steve Cliffe's Churchill, Kitchener, and Lloyd George: First World War Lords (London: Fonthill Media / Philadelphia: Casemate, 2014), the author claims that after the demonstration of the tank on Feb. 2, 1916, Kitchener privately told Sir William Robertson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, that his negative comments had been for public consumption, and that such an important new weapon should never have been demonstrated so publicly, to politicians. This would suggest he though the tank a very good idea.
-- Al-Nofi ( talk) 18:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)
The following hidden content was relocated to the Talk page below:
!---WORK IN PROGRESS, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE
Mark I Tank and its variants and successors | ||||||||||
Model / Specification | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark I | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark II | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark III | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark IV | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark V | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark VI | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark VII | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark VIII | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark IX | style="background:#AFBBD2;" align="center" Colum width="90px"|Mark X |
Weight (Male) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) |
Weight (Female) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) | 122.38 t (122.38 t) |
Length (Male) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Length (Female)) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Width (Male)) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Width (Female)) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Height (Male)) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Height (Female)) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) | 122.38 m (401.5 ft) |
Crew (Male) | ||||||||||
Crew (Female) | ||||||||||
Armour (Male) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) |
Armour (Female) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) | 19 mm (0.75 in) |
Primary Armament (Male) | ||||||||||
Primary Armament (Female) | ||||||||||
Secondary Armament (Male) | ||||||||||
Secondary Armament (Female) | ||||||||||
Engine (Male) | ||||||||||
Engine (Female) | ||||||||||
Engine Power (Male) | ||||||||||
Engine Power (Female) | ||||||||||
Transmission (Male) | ||||||||||
Transmission (Female) | ||||||||||
Fuel Capacity (Male) | ||||||||||
Fuel Capacity (Female) | ||||||||||
Range (Male) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) |
Range (Female) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) | 1,400 km (870 mi) |
Speed (Male) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) |
Speed (Female) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) | 27.016 km/h (16.787 mph) |
END WORK IN PROGRESS ---
Whomever is working on this content, please do so here or in the Sandbox, not in the article proper. When you have completed your efforts you may appropriately introduce it into the article. Wikiuser100 ( talk) 01:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)
The second sentence of the 'Mark V series' section is nearly unintelligible. It seems to be saying that the original Mark V design was a better Mark IV, then changed to a completely new design, then reverted back to a better Mark IV. The sentence is either very badly worded or just wrong. Could someone knowledgeable on the subject clue me in? Thanks. Stepho talk 02:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)
The number of machine guns carried by Tanks Mk I - V* is usually misrepresented. The Mk I Male had five flaps through which machine guns could be fired, one in the cab front and two in each sponson. In practice only three were used, the cab and one in each sponson. The Female carried two Vickers in each sponson and a Hotchkiss in the cab.
Mks II - IV had purpose built mounts, one in the cab, and one in each sponson for Males, two for Females. The confusion is caused by the fact that tanks carried a spare.
In the Mk V a rearward-firing machine-gun was fitted in the rear armour, bringing the total to four for Males and six for Females.
The list of users gives the impression that the Mk I saw service with a number of countries, which is not correct. Captured Mk IVs were used by Germany, and later Mks by a number of countries during and after the War.
Hengistmate ( talk) 22:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)
Are not the same thing. I propose to amend this by removing the barbette reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengistmate ( talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
The box thing gives the impression that the MkI was used by Germany, the Soviet Union, the United States, France, Canada, Australia, Estonia, and Latvia. It wasn't. The box combines all the various Marks under the heading of Tank MkI, which is confusing.
The Mk VI and X were not built. Is it reasonable to argue that the MkIX and Gun Carrier were variants? The Mk VIII was not completed in time to see service in the War. It really requires a separate box for each Mark to avoid confusion.
Looking through the rest of the text, I can see numerous misapprehensions.
David Fletcher does not say that "Salvage Companies . . . were forbidden to speak about this aspect of their work (removing corpses) with still living tank crews."
"There were two Hotchkiss machine guns in the sponsons and two removable guns for the front and back," is not correct. Only Females had 2 mgs in each sponson; Males had one, plus a cannon. Both Males and Females had a machine-gun in the cab. No tanks were fitted with mgs at the rear until the MkV.
What is described as the "Wilson Machine" was the "Tritton Machine."
"Four of the crew, two drivers (one of whom also acted as commander; he operated the brakes, the other the primary gearbox) and two "gearsmen" (one for the secondary gears of each track) were needed to control direction and speed," is incorrect. This sentence is badly expressed and needs clarification.
The claim about MkVs being used in WWI is based on photos of the tanks but does not appear to be confirmed by any accounts that will satisfy Wikipedia's requirements.
Hengistmate ( talk) 16:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)
I'm sorry, the point I was making is that the first paragraph under 'Description' discusses only the armament of the Male. I think that should be improved to include the female. There's no mention of the Vickers. The reference to removable mgs is not correct. The MkI had 5 flaps for mgs; 1 in the cab and 2 in each sponson, but in practice only one in each sponson was used. Thereafter there were purpose-built mountings for mgs. Because a spare was carried, the number of mgs is usually overstated by one. There were no rear mgs in Mks I-IV.
The sentence about the crew is rather imprecise and badly expressed. It will do no harm to clarify it. As a matter of fact, in the Mk I the drivers were from the RASC, not the Heavy Branch.
I do mean WWII. Beg pardon. That was a misprunt. However, their use is a matter of speculation and, as I say, is not supported by any evidence. Leaving aside the fact that it would be remarkable if they functioned after 20 years in a museum, Wikipedia requires a citation, which in our case we have not got. Their presence is supported by photos, but not their use in combat. There's no harm in mentioning this alleged episode, but I would suggest that it be made clear that it is no more than that.
I take it that we are in agreement on the matter of the "Tritton Machine."
You're quite right; this does need a major overhaul. Who's going to do it?
Regards,
Hengistmate ( talk) 11:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
That isn't what David Fletcher says on p124. "Fighting battalions believed that it was bad for morale for tank crews to remove the bodies of their comrades from wrecked tanks, and left all this to the salvage companies. When tanks had been burned out this was very grim work." There's nothing about crews being forbidden to discuss anything. Have removed.
Hengistmate ( talk) 15:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)
I noticed that we have articles called:
Should these be renamed for consistent use of brackets? Stepho talk 14:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
It is perhaps worth considering that there was no such thing as a Mk I tank until there was a Mk II, or, at least, the prospect of it. Like "World War One." Until November 1916 there were only "Tanks." The first 150 then became the Mk I, and the next 100, ordered on October 16th and incorporating minor modifications, 50 each of Mk II & III (Albert Stern).
As for the article name, I have been required to have such discussions on a number of occasions. It seems that the Wikipedia rule is to reflect "common usage." Whether there can be such a thing in matters as comparatively specialised as this I am not certain. But I notice that the common usage rule is applied inconsistently anyway, and Wikipedia also says that the question should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Compare buttercup and cornflower. "Tank, Mk I" has a pleasing military ring to it, and I'm sure that it appeared in many inventories and official documents. But most people will want to look up (for example) "Mark V Tank." The problem with "Mark V (tank)" is that you have to distinguish it from the Covenanter, a Lincoln Continental, part of the Gospel of St. Mark, and many other things. How " Medium Mark A Whippet" and " Gun Carrier Mark I" fit into this, I cannot say. It would be my suggestion that all the British Heavy Tanks of the period be referred to as "Mark (insert numerals here) Tank." I suppose Roman numerals are a bit anachronistic, really, but I think we can hang on to them.
Whilst this desire for unifomity and clarity is very welcome, I can't help but notice that Wikipedia contains numerous articles and sections on the topic of, shall we say, early 20th century tracked, armoured fighting vehicles, and no two are alike. Some of them are appalling. Is the cart not being put before the horse? Hengistmate ( talk) 08:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)
I notice that a good deal of reversion has taken place here in the matter of the participation or otherwise of Mk V tanks in the Estonian War of Independence. This might be an issue not of vandalism but of historical accuracy. One hopes that no one has been too hasty or acted without examining the facts. Whilst it is undeniable that four Mk Vs were handed to the Estonian Army on condition that they be used to continue opposition to Bolshevik forces, and that a training school was set up under a Captain Shishko, I have yet to see a description of their use in combat. Although Lt. Col. Hope Carson describes British-operated Mk Vs travelling to Pskov in August 1919 and linking with Estonian units, the vehicles did not detrain and later withdrew without seeing action. Whilst Estonia sought independence, it is entirely possible to argue that all tank actions at this time were still a part of the Allied Intervention. They were certainly under the command of Gen. Yudenich, and while the Estonian War of Independence and the Russian Civil War are somewhat interwoven, it is far from clear that Mk Vs actively participated in the former. Any references that establish that they did would be very welcome. In the absence of any, I would suggest that the Estonian War of Independence ought not to appear in the infobox. Hengistmate ( talk) 13:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)
I am apprised that the Mk V did not see combat in the Estonian War of Independence. Hengistmate ( talk) 23:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)
Have tried to clarify this somewhat. Having everything under the title of "Mark I Tank" tends to give the impression that information, especially that in the infobox, refers to this Mark throughout, which it doesn't. Have specified which Marks were used by whom (adding Japan), and pointing out instances where info applies only to the Mk I. Haven't included (yet) service with the White Russians, since the vehicles were operated by British crews; would welcome opinions on that. We await a decision on the inclusion of the Estonian Civil War.
With no disrespect, the page title causes the content to fall between several stools, but since there are other articles devoted wholly or partly to this subject, it's hard to think what it could be changed to.
The acquisition of Mk VIIIs by Canada is, I believe, a moot point, and it is suggested that this might be confusion with the M1917s. Does anyone have a reliable source that doesn't seem to have taken its info from Wikipedia?
Have also amended details of armament. Civil comments welcomed on all of the above. Hengistmate ( talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
Some doubt exists as to the details of the Mk VIII deal. If MWAK can clear it up, I should be delighted to see his evidence. This is a brief explanation of the alleged controversy: http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Stories/emagazine-3/tanks/MKVIIIs_to_Canada.htm Hengistmate ( talk) 09:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
"It's incontrovertible that Canada acquired Mark VIIIs." Then, as an experienced Wikipedian, you will understand my desire to be reminded of the incontrovertible evidence that satisfies the project's requirements. As we know, a widely circulating view is insufficient. I look forward to reading same. Hengistmate ( talk) 16:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
This page is entitled "Mark I Tank" so why does it discuss other tanks such as the Mark II, IV, V, V* etc? The list of nations in the "Used By" section gives the impression that the Mark I was used by, for example, Germany. There are separate pages for all the other Marks of Tank, surely the information would be better placed there? If you check the Mark IV page, for example, it doesn't mention Germany. I feel that a page about the Mark I Tank should be about the Mark I Tank. Should the page title be changed to "Various Tanks of WW1"? It doesn't make much sense the way it is. O'Contraire ( talk) 03:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I quite agree, Mr. O'Contraire, but I also observe that the idea of splitting or otherwise rejigging this article can be traced back to at least 2005. Everyone seems to be full of good advice, but no one has actually done anything except agree that something should be done. Mr. Dingley, in particular, has been tireless in his encouragement of others.
Mr. O'Contraire might like to consider that I have made certain adjustments to the infobox in an attempt to clarify which nation used which Mark(s), and what I hope are improvements in other areas, but such tinkering can achieve very little when the article's title is so restrictive. (Btw, the Mark IV page does mention German use, in the "Service" section)
In all honesty, this article requires considerable rebuilding. But since it does deal with only the British heavy rhomboid tanks, it would at least be a start to rename it "British Heavy Tanks of World War I". I shall therefore do that an hope for a collaborative and constructive response, rather than an obstructive one. Mentioning no names. Here we go. Hengistmate ( talk) 10:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Right. The Gordian Knot has been cut. We can now proceed to improve the article with the freedom that I believe the new title affords. The sections on the individual Marks can be brought more into line with their dedicated articles elsewhere on Wikipedia, the combat history can be fleshed out with Ypres, Cambrai, etc, and I'm sure editors are already thinking of other ways of making the world a better place. If anyone disagrees with anything, perhaps they can come up with some positive alternative. If you have a better idea, let's hear it and let's try it. "Don’t tell me it can’t be done, tell me how we are going to do it" - Franklin D. Roosevelt. Possibly. Hengistmate ( talk) 11:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
Well, if that's what it takes, do it. Or whatever will work. Hengistmate ( talk) 13:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names Or whatever. What do I know? Hengistmate ( talk) 15:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
I changed last sentence of first paragraph to, "Armament was of two types: naval 6-pounder (57 mm) guns, called a "male", and machine guns, called a "female"." I am just an interested layman, and found the references to "male" and "female" totally confusing. So I explained it at the top. I felt this was necessary because those terms appear in the InfoBox which is at the top. I firmly believe they should be defined right at the top. Tanks are inanimate objects and do not have sexual gender. Nick Beeson ( talk) 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I've adjusted this par. There was an initial shortage of 6-pounders, but the necessary 50 were ordered from Armstrong-Whitworth without too much difficulty. The anti-personnel requirement was more of a determinant. The turret wasn't abandoned because it would have made the vehicle too high or top-heavy - the Mk I was no taller than Little Willie; it was because of the interior layout of the vehicle. A turret was feasible in Little Willie's case, but the layout of the heavier Mk I (with its gearsmen) made a turret impractical. Fletcher 2001, p51, if you want a reference, and Stern 1919 somewhere. No need to confuse the issue by introducing hermaphrodites at this stage - that bridge can be crossed in due course. Reading the par in conjunction with the infobox will, I hope, explain matters. And I wish more people knew when to use "due to." Hengistmate ( talk) 01:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)
Hi all - I find the article is certainly encyclopaedic on the different variants and construction of the tanks, but is very short on the significance of the tank in WW1. Could anyone find a source with more overview and analysis? TX. Sorry, I just proofread and edit existing work, and don't have the backround on tanks. cheers all, Billyshiverstick ( talk) 19:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)
This page about english first world war tank Mark I seem not have the connection with Wikpedia pages in French,Italian and other very knowed countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.231.36.211 ( talk) 00:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)
I've restored the reference to WWII because some Mark V tanks did play a very small part in the conflict. Four ex=Estonian Mark Vs were used by the Red Army in the defence of Tallinn in 1941. A couple of Mk Vs were on public display in Berlin from 1943 until after the end of the War, but there is no evidence that they took part in any fighting or were even mobile. The last known operation was 1941, not 1945, but for personal reasons some "editors" will not allow this information to appear in Wikipedia. Hengistmate ( talk) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on British heavy tanks of World War I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 05:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
"The Mark I was the world's first tank,...." not so world's "first" considering and other constructors of tanks before 1916
There is no discussion at all of how the weight of the tank is carried down to the ground. Of course suspension is a critical part of modern tanks using torsion bars etc. I gather that these old World War I tanks did not have any springs at all. The article needs to say that
Also needs to talk about the drive train … where is the drive sprocket? and also the weight as it goes down to the treads and into the ground … are the treads just scraping directly across the tank body? Is there a lot of wear and friction there? Noleander ( talk) 03:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)