This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mk VII Tetrarch light tank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Mk VII Tetrarch light tank is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 19, 2015. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 21 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch to Mk VII Tetrarch light tank. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Characteristics box needs units of measure to be defined.
How many were built? Gillyweed 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Where does the name Tetrarch come from? The Roman Imperial Political organization of the same name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.159 ( talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
A Tetrarch Mark VII is preserved at the Bovington Tank Museum in England.
"better cross-country abilities" Does lower complexity & less tendency to break down, due to no tracks, play into that, also? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Lead para
General
According to the vickers tanks from landships to the challanger the war office wasn't exactly happy about the tank complaining that they had been excluded from it's development and as a light cruiser it was inferior to the nuffield A-13. Does this contradict other sources? Geni 21:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help). The war offices atitude appears to have been somewhat conflicted since they only appear to have been prepared to accept the tank as a light cruiser in an emergancy but on the other hand wanted to get their hands on it with the proposal that it "might bebrought in at the end of the light tank program". Heh at this point vickers itself started to get cold feet after they found that "in getting out production drawings it was essential to refer repeatedly to the actual machine".
Geni
22:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The War Office examined the design and put the prototype through a series of trials during May and June 1938; the model was tested as a possible "light cruiser" since War Office light tank needs were already met by its predecessor, the Mark VI. The war office then took the view that the tank was not acceptable as a light cruiser because the Nuffield A13 offered better speed and obstacle crossing performance. [1] Despite this it was decided that it was essential to have some Tetrarchs the suggesting being that they be brought in at the end of the light tank program [1]. The War Office gave it the official specification number A17, and, in November 1938, accepted it for limited production after requesting a few minor changes which included the fitting of an external fuel tank to increase the tank's range. Geni 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) Cite error: The named reference "foss" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
Should the Article name be Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch - which would seem to follow British tank naming conventions ? -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 12:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch. 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) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Heavy Tank M6 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Mk VII Tetrarch light tank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | Mk VII Tetrarch light tank is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on May 19, 2015. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | On 21 February 2024, it was proposed that this article be moved from Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch to Mk VII Tetrarch light tank. The result of the discussion was moved. |
Characteristics box needs units of measure to be defined.
How many were built? Gillyweed 10:38, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Where does the name Tetrarch come from? The Roman Imperial Political organization of the same name? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.36.159 ( talk) 23:12, 3 February 2008 (UTC)
A Tetrarch Mark VII is preserved at the Bovington Tank Museum in England.
"better cross-country abilities" Does lower complexity & less tendency to break down, due to no tracks, play into that, also? TREKphiler hit me ♠ 08:37, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
Lead para
General
According to the vickers tanks from landships to the challanger the war office wasn't exactly happy about the tank complaining that they had been excluded from it's development and as a light cruiser it was inferior to the nuffield A-13. Does this contradict other sources? Geni 21:07, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help). The war offices atitude appears to have been somewhat conflicted since they only appear to have been prepared to accept the tank as a light cruiser in an emergancy but on the other hand wanted to get their hands on it with the proposal that it "might bebrought in at the end of the light tank program". Heh at this point vickers itself started to get cold feet after they found that "in getting out production drawings it was essential to refer repeatedly to the actual machine".
Geni
22:10, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
The War Office examined the design and put the prototype through a series of trials during May and June 1938; the model was tested as a possible "light cruiser" since War Office light tank needs were already met by its predecessor, the Mark VI. The war office then took the view that the tank was not acceptable as a light cruiser because the Nuffield A13 offered better speed and obstacle crossing performance. [1] Despite this it was decided that it was essential to have some Tetrarchs the suggesting being that they be brought in at the end of the light tank program [1]. The War Office gave it the official specification number A17, and, in November 1938, accepted it for limited production after requesting a few minor changes which included the fitting of an external fuel tank to increase the tank's range. Geni 19:37, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
References
{{
cite book}}
: Check |isbn=
value: checksum (
help); Unknown parameter |coauthors=
ignored (|author=
suggested) (
help) Cite error: The named reference "foss" was defined multiple times with different content (see the
help page).
Should the Article name be Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch - which would seem to follow British tank naming conventions ? -- Jim Sweeney ( talk) 12:14, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Light Tank Mk VII Tetrarch. 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) 10:42, 20 May 2017 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Heavy Tank M6 which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 07:19, 21 February 2024 (UTC)