Talk:Renault FT/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Some Drastic Revision

Having read this article very carefully, I would suggest the following amendments:

Service History: there is evidence that FTs were used after 1945, perhaps as late as the 1950s.

Production History: I think that Louis Renault should be credited along with Ernst-Metzmaier as designer.

Variants: I would distinguish between "variants" and "derivatives" (e.g. Fiat 3000).

Estienne: "the 'Father of the Tanks'" implies that he is universally acknowledged as such, wheres it is a predominantly French appelation.

radiator fan belt and cooling system problems were not confined to early models. I suggest this be altered or noted elsewhere.

Estienne's "swarm" theory was the result of Renault convincing him of the value of the light tank. He had originally been in favour of what would be termed Medium Tanks by the standards of the day.

Afghanistan: It is not thought that the Afghan FTs were bought from France. They were, more likely, a gift from the USSR. AFAIK there is no record of their use in combat by Afghanistan.

Variants: mention of the BS and TSF is repeated. Again, I would distinguish between variants and derived designs. The U.S. M1917 was a near-copy, not a copy. Numerous other late-War and post-War variants are not listed here (e.g. bulldozer, cargo carrier, fascine carrier, bridgelayer, searchlight carrier).

Surviving Vehicles: I am not sure that the fate of the Afghan FTs is accurately described here, and am happy to investigate further.

I await the consensus.

Hengistmate (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

Most of these proposed changes seen unproblematic to me. Especially completing a list of variants would be a much-needed addition because recently much has been published about these. However, remember that information about the post-1945 use and the fate of the Afghan vehicles must be based on some secondary sources. It should not reflect completely new discoveries about the course of history by yourself alone! :o) You can always recount the essentials here, on the talk page ;o). That certain versions are mentioned both in the running text and in a list should not be changed. Ideally, the reader should be informed of the full content by normal narrative and lists should only subsume this.--MWAK (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

OK. Here goes. Hengistmate (talk) 20:44, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

What was, in the early XXth century, an 'auto-mitrailleuse' and how to translate it in English ?

From François Vauvillier, GBM, France (Foreword. This is my first attempt of contributing to Wikipedia and, if it goes to the wrong place, or with imperfections, please accept my apologizes. Please note also that English is not my mother-tongue. FV).

I refer here to the discussion between several gentlemen about the signification of the French word automitrailleuse during the period discussed.

I have studied this question very carefully in the past few years, from direct contemporary sources (French Defense Archives in Vincennes and Renault factory archives). From this, I have written a number of articles on these matters, published from 2007 onwards in the French bimonthy magazine TankZone and the French quarterly magazine GBM (both published by Histoire & Collections, Paris), which I am sure the debatters — at least some of them — know, according to what has been written in this discussion page.

To keep factual, here is what I can state, from sources :

1) auto-mitrailleuse (early spelling, currently used during the period discussed, which begins at the turn of the XXth century in France ; I use the modern spelling automitrailleuse in my works) refers to a motor car (automobile, contracted into auto-) armed with a machine-gun (mitrailleuse). There is no reference to the necessity of this motor car being armoured (blindé), neither to the fact that this motor car has to be wheeled. The latter was no question since there was no alternative to wheels at this early time, at least in France. The very first record of such French vehicles or projects I have found is dated 1899 : it is the project of commandant Paloque, although he describes, not an auto-mitrailleuse named as such, but a similar vehicle named mitrailleuse automobile (GBM # 90 page 35), indeed the same idea. The possibility of armour is not mentioned.

2) The main French promoteur of the auto-mitrailleuse before 1914, capitaine Genty, using a Panhard 'tourism" car armed with a MG, was totally against the use of armour on such vehicles.

3) The armour on French auto-mitrailleuses was uncommon before the outbreak of WWI and, when in existence, it was as private ventures rather that on French Army's requirement. The reference to the French website charsfrancais.net is not appropriate here, since it covers only armoured vehicles, and therefore does not give any information on the unarmoured Panhard-Genty models and similar vehicles by Clément-Bayard (plus others between August and late 1914). All of these, as well as the early armoured ones up to early 1915, have been fully documented by myself in GBM #90 pages 34-52.

4) the expression auto-mitrailleuse à chenilles has first been issued, AFAIK, in Spring 1915, to refer to the initial French (tank) project by ingenior Eugène Brillié, from Schneider & Cie, which would eventually lead to the well-known Schneider CA tank. On this particular subject, I must however be careful : I have not, so far, found a contemporary sentence in archives. I refer to Deygas' classical book of 1937, Les chars d'assaut. He comments the perspective, circa May-June 1915, of building, from Holt caterpillar tractors, an auto-mitrailleuse blindée à chenilles (Deygas' proper words), which easily translates to 'armoured machine-gun car with tracks'. In August 1915, the project was renamed tracteur armé et blindé ('armed and amoured tractor') to hide its true purpose. This idea of concealment and secrecy was the same in France as the one that led to the adoption of the word 'tank' by the British.

5) When the French 'medium' (later expression, not in existence at the time) Schneider and Saint-Chamond tanks came to existence, they were known, either as tracteurs blindés (concealment term), or for what they really were : cuirassés terrestres (land battleships, landships).

6) Louis Renault, as a car manufacturer, favoured a small-size armoured machine, more closely based on automobile technique. The name of auto-mitrailleuse à chenilles (or à chaînes, contemporary variant) was therefore highly suitable to qualify his project, more especially as the initial version was armed with a machine-gun. In fact, no other name could have been more suitably given to such a design at this time, since char d'assaut — later simply char — was not yet introduced (this word was the idea of general Estienne, in order to bannish the word tank commonly used in France at this time, after the English expression, for lack of a proper easy French word).

7) The original contract, signed with Renault by the Ministry of Amament and approved 20 May 1917 (marché n° 1283 C/V), stands for 150 autos-mitrailleuses à chaînes conformes à la description ci-jointe (= matching the description enclosed). If one wishes so, auto-mitrailleuse à chaînes may be considered as the very first official designation of the Renault FT light tank.

8) Another expression appearing rather early, on a list of spare parts from the French GHQ services (GQG, Direction de l'Arrière, direction du service automobile) during WWI, exact date not appearing on the original document, gives another expression, which I had never seen before : char auto-mitrailleur 'Renault' . This sounds quite bizarre, even in French: it makes an amalgam between the notion of char and the first usual designation of the Renault design. In this particular expression, auto-mitrailleur is used as an adjective, not a substantive; hence the masculine form eur instead of euse (as char is masculine). The second common designation for the FT was char mitrailleur (this has been already discussed by debatters above, nothing to add about it), which indeed is enough, as auto- does not bring any additional information in this case.

9) My apologizes, in the names of Molière and Victor Hugo (if they permit) who did not live long enough to sort out the matter of automitrailleuses and chars d'assaut. The French language is known to be extremely precise.--François Vauvillier (talk) 15:07, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

First of all, I'd like to thank François Vauvillier for his clarification: we are honoured to be informed on this subject by a man who is generally recognised as one of the most distinguished experts in this field of knowledge! I feel that, in line with this information, the issue can be best solved by remaining as close as possible to the etymology of the word, avoiding any presumptions about when the present meaning of automitrailleuse had consolidified.

To anyone interested in such matters it is of course highly recommended to read Histoire de Guerre, Blindés & Matériel, if only because it is the most gorgeously laid-out and illustrated military magazine in the world!--MWAK (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Nomenclature

Someone has changed the line "Automitrailleuse was the standard word for a car armed with a machine-gun," to "Automitrailleuse was the standard word for a tracked machine-gun vehicle." This is not correct. The term automitrailleuse was in use well before WWI and referred to wheeled vhicles. As is made clear in the section, the FT was briefly described as automitrailleuse à chenilles, which would be tautological if an automitrailleuse had tracks - "a tracked vehicle with tracks." It is clear from the text that tracked vehicles were developed to replace wheeled vehicles. That was the whole point of inventing Tanks in the first place. I have reverted the change. Please don't muck about with it.Hengistmate (talk) 16:55, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Your last change is quite wrong. Automitrailleuse may or not mean armoured, or with tracks, but it can only mean a powered vehicle, auto in common French parlance, armed with at least a machine gun or mitrailleuse. Armament is the key part of this, not armour. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:51, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

I have restored the original text. It is true that automitrailleuse does literally mean "machine-gun car," and it was at first applied to standard vehicles fitted with machine-guns. But from about 1902, when the Charron-Girardot-Voigt armoured car appeared, it came to mean "armoured car." By 1914 the word was generally accepted as meaning "armoured car," and that is the dictionary definition today.

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 16:38, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

It means "armoured car" when that means "both armed and armoured". Claiming that it means armouring specifically, or that this is the origin of the term, is quite wrong. Engin blindé is the term for armoured car, or more recently véhicule blindé. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:46, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Now raised at Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Hengistmate_reported_by_User:Andy_Dingley_.28Result:_.29 Andy Dingley (talk) 18:17, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

The change was originally made by an IP who claimed to be correcting the translation. However, that appears to have been wrong. "Automitrailleuse" is defined by dictionaries simply as "armored car".[1][2][3] Not "machine gun car" or anything of the sort. Our French article defines "Automitrailleuse" as "a military vehicle armed and lightly armored with wheels"— the term may well only refer to armed and armored cars (i.e. a specific type of armored car), but that's not the change you're trying to implement. Even if it is wrong to simply say, "armored car", I'm not seeing how "machine gun-carrying car" is more correct. Swarm ^X 19:33, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

See Talk:Contact fuse for why everyday dictionaries are problematic for technical terms.

Of course automitrailleuse translates into English as "armoured car", because English uses one term for both and cannot easily distinguish them. This is no reason to change a definition of automitrailleuse, when this is being explained in detail, term by term, as here.

This is particularly the case around the Great War, when the concepts were so new. The notion of an "armed car" was quite distinct from an "armoured car" at this time, as choosing one often meant excluding the other. French military parlance had, and still has to this day, the term 'Engin blindé' specifically to distinguish armoured cars - perhaps its best known example being the Panhard EBR (EBR being 'Engin Blindé de Reconnaissance'). Andy Dingley (talk) 19:49, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

standard dictionary references aren't really adequate for translating military terminology, as are no references at all, and self references to wikipedia. Unless some are forthcoming the entire paragraph ought to go. (Hohum ^@) 21:55, 3 November 2011 (UTC)

Why I need to write the exact same thing to get my point across is beyond me, but I'll do so: while "armored car" may not be correct, I see nothing that says "machine gun-carrying car" is correct. I'm going to have to agree with Hohum on this one: the whole paragraph ought to go if neither side can start providing some reliable sources. Swarm ^X 01:42, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

You could start with a French dictionary, even the online Larousse you've already linked, and try looking at mitrailleuse vs. blindé. Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

My opinion is: Translating word by word (or partial-word) via a dictionary is hardly adequate. Ideally, find a source about this tank which provides the translation, otherwise leave it out. (Hohum ^@) 19:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

I empathise, Mr. Swarm. I, too, have struggled to follow Mr. Dingley's logic in this and some other matters. Allow me to offer some supporting evidence. I have consulted my son, who has lived in France since, I think, 1988 and who sometimes corrects my French, but I realize this is inadmissible. (He also, incidentally, speaks a reasonable Welsh, but he gets that from his mother)

I cannot be held responsible for the fact that Renault chose to describe the prototype as automitrailleuse, but they did. I am happy to explain in detail how the word was initially used to describe a motor vehicle fitted with a machine-gun and subsequently a vehicle fitted with a machine-gun and either improvised or purpose-built armour. The point that I think I made clearly in the section is that by 1914 automitrailleuse was universally understood to mean the latter. The English equivalent was "armoured car." It is a matter of accident that the French term ignores the armour, and the British the armament. To avoid any possibility of ambiguity that might be seized upon, it should be noted that cars fitted with armour and a small calibre gun (in the military sense of the word) were referred to as autocanon. The logic of that seems to be entirely consistent. These terms were used by Francophone manufacturers of such vehicles during the period in question. Later, when many more types of armed-and-armoured vehicles came into being, subtler terms and distinctions became necessary, but that did not apply at the time we are examining. Those involved in this discussion might care to study this site,[4] a history of French armoured vehicles administered by a French military historian with the collaboration of several other French military historians. I beieve that the situation will become clear.

On a further linguistic note, the assertion made earlier that automitrailleuse meant a tracked vehicle is insupportable; if it did, there would have been no need for Renault to add à chenilles - that would mean "a tracked vehicle with tracks." Blindé means, as an adjective, armoured or, as a noun, an armoured vehicle. Engin blindé and vehicule blindée mean "armoured vehicle," with no further qualification. The French museum at Saumur is the Musée des Blindés, and it harbours all manner of armoured vehicles. I actually think that Larousse supports my view.

I am not sure which parts of the section are being considered for removal. I hope that, apart from this particular issue, it satisfies Wikipedia's requirements. I took the trouble and a considerable amount of time to construct it and, I hope, rectify a long-standing misapprehension, pro bono publico. To remove parts of it without a certain amount of care would seriously disrupt the narrative. I should also be keen to know which parts of it require additional citation.

As regards the roots of this dispute, I apologize for my ignorance of Wikipedia's workings. I did not realize that repeated reversion of unjustified alterations triggered some sort of alarm. However, I think you will see from the earlier discussions, with MWAK, that I usually conduct debates in a methodical, polite and good-humoured fashion, considering alternative viewpoints and being prepared to arrive at a reasoned conclusion. I would ask you to consider the response I received from Mr. Dingley during a discussion of another, somewhat related, topic: "Patronising tosser. 'You make a number of points, several of which are true' Well pardon me. As to references, yours are hardly impressive, being the sort of coffee table "Big Boy's Book of WAR!!!" that are the bane of Wikipedia." I believe these remarks contravene two of Wikipedia's rules: politeness and acknowledgement of reliable sources. I attempted to resist being provoked, although perhaps not entirely successfully. I would also invite you to note the immoderate language in which Mr. Dingley's other remarks are couched. I actually beseeched him not to enter into an edit war.

I find it odd that not having encountered Mr. Dingley until very recently I now see him taking a great interest in other items that I have submitted. It is almost as if he were seeking them out and trying to find fault with them. Yet his accusations include the allegation that I have a personal agenda. I am tempted to suggest that this dispute is what we refer to in my line of work as "frivolous and vexatious." The nugatory nature of it would, I venture, embarrass a mediaeval theologian.

However, I shall be happy to cooperate in the finding of a form of words that satisfies all concerned, provided the essential facts are retained. It seems a shame to spoil the ship for considerably less than a ha'p'orth of tar.

Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 14:50, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Please focus on improving the article, and not commenting on editors. (Also WP:TLDR) (Hohum ^@) 17:09, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

This is indeed a ha'porth of tar, especially as it bears so little direct connection to the Renault FT, as compared to an armoured car.

Your change was to change "car armed with a machine-gun" to "armoured car". This was probably in response to an IP's earlier change that had changed this (incorrectly, I agree) to be "... with tracks". I suggest that your significant and appropriate reaction to the wording as "tracks" caused you to over-react somewhat and revert both aspects of the change made.

To clarify, both terms in French translate to "armoured car" in English. This is because there is no comparable uncontrived English term to "armed car". It does not indicate the specific meaning of either French term: to claim that a French term meaning "armed" in origin changing its own meaning to become "armoured", just because English has no more specific term would cause apoplexy at L'Académie.

The problem here is that it's a matter of little real weight, and any weight that etymology does carry is in favour of armed car, not armoured. To start attempting a defence of your edit-warring through multiple revisions (see WP:3RRNO) you would have to show that these changes were "Reverting obvious vandalism" (emphasis original). They are clearly not. Even if you disagree, they are not vandalism. Even if the distinction is slight, the meaning of armed car (over armoured) is the more exact. Even if this could make some difference on armoured car (Was the unarmed Killen-Strait tractor ever described as an automitrailleuse I wonder?) it makes little difference to this article on an armed, armoured (and for that matter, tracked) Renault FT.

I cannot speak for the IP editor, but I see your edits here as more of a problem for their manner, than their content as such. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:12, 6 November 2011 (UTC)

From François Vauvillier, GBM, France: Gentlemen, if I may intervene in your discussion, for the sake of accuracy in translating auto-mitrailleuse à chenilles (as I see that what I have already written, below, was not complete enough), I wish to add the following :

10) We have to keep consistent with chronology, and this is of the utmost importance to translate properly from French to English the controversial term auto-mitrailleuse ;

11) In this debate (not dispute I hope) about the Renault FT, please keep in mind that we are already in the second half of the Great War. At this time, all the former unarmoured autos-mitrailleuses have disappeared, many months ago, from the French inventory. They have been replaced by the armoured autos-mitrailleuses of various makes (mainly Renault, by the way ; the Peugeot were autos-canons because of their 37 mm QF naval gun). As a matter of fact, the necessity for a MG-car to be armoured had appeared in the last months of 1914 (see GBM # 90 on this specific point, especially from p. 43 : Avec la guerre, le blindage l'emporte : With war, armour wins).

12) However, after year 1914, there have been a certain number of unarmoured machine-gun cars serving in the French army during WWI. The three instances which come to my mind right now are :

a - the voitures de liaison, torpedo tourism type, fitted with a MG pole and attached, as staff cars, to the armoured cars (MG-armed Renault and 37mm gun-armed Peugeot) groups. One such liaison car per group (ref. GBM #90 page 52, text top 1st column);

b - the tracteurs mitrailleurs of the French Aeronautique in Tunisia (see Les Camions de la Victoire, Jeudy and Boniface page 183-184);

c - the voitures mitrailleuses of the supply train, also torpedo type (ibid, page 105).

But the important fact here are the distinct designations of all three types. This is because the meaning of auto-mitrailleuse had turned, suddenly (formally, in October 1914) but very clearly, into the idea of an armoured machine-gun car.

13) After WWI, I know of only one type of regular French unarmoured MG-car which however received the name of automitrailleuse : they were the automitrailleuses légères du désert (desert light machine-gun cars) of the Special Levant Forces. And this is true for the first type only, Chenard & Walcker U8. Its successor in the same role and same designation was the Hotchkiss armoured torpedo (see photo in Les véhicules blindés français 1900-1944, Touzin, page 244 top).

14) Back to the early development of the Renault FT, to call it auto-mitrailleuse à chenilles (or à chaines), obviously meant that it was question of an armoured car, armed with a machine-gun and fitted with tracks. This is exactly how a Frenchman of 1916-17, be he a famous car maker, a general in the Tank Force, a minister of Supply or private Toulemonde, would have understood it.

15) In other words, an auto-mitrailleuse à chenilles, in French 1916-17 understanding, is nothing more and nothing less than what the British would have translated, in the same time, and still now —, as a light tank armed with a machine-gun (if Shakespeare permits).--François Vauvillier (talk) 23:01, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, that is again very clarifying. Might it be correct to state that the concept is best translated thus, but that the French, struggling to express the new idea as precisely as possible, creatively combined somewhat older terminology and that the reader might benefit from an additional more literal translation to gain insight in this creative process?--MWAK (talk) 17:41, 10 November 2011 (UTC)

From François Vauvillier, GBM, France: Bonjour MWAK. To finally sort out this tricky matter of designation/nomenclature of the Renault FT light tank, I have made, in the last 48 hours, a deeper research which gives a series of precisely-dated appellations for the Louis Renault design — from contemporary archives as I use to. I will add the result of this research to a big article/study, at least 16 pages scheduled at this moment, on the FT production process and total numbers of FTs produced (1917-1919), which I am currently writing for my quarterly magazine Guerre, Blindés & Matériel (GBM), issue #99. This gathering of never-published before informations and documentations is due for release in late December 2011 (French language, sorry). I suggest we wait for this publication to set out the matter in Wikipedia. And this will be also a very good occasion to make an in-depth amendment to the French Wikipedia FT Article, which has not, so far, benefited from the various discussions held here by the English-speaking debatters. Bien cordialement.--François Vauvillier (talk) 10:00, 11 November 2011 (UTC)

It's good to hear a new article by your hand will appear! Especially since it's strict Wikipedia policy that only information from secondary sources may be inserted; I had feared much of your very valuable contributions here might be rendered useless by this...We'll expectantly await its publication!

Greetings, --MWAK (talk) 18:38, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

M1917 in Canadian service.

Silverfang77 has added some details about the U.S. M1917 in Canadian service. Since the M1917 is a variant of the FT, and has an article of its own in which the Canadian service is described, I would suggest that Silverfang's addition is unnecessary. I propose to remove it. Hengistmate (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

unnecessary? The m1917 article is the place for detail coverage of Canadian use of that version of the Ft17. However there is no reason not to mention briefly that the US built tanks where not for US use alone. Consider it in the same form as a summary of a child article with a link to the full story. II recommend leaving it but polish the addition for stylistic match with the rest of the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, where do we start with this? The M1917 was not a copy but a near-copy of what it took several thousand occasionally acrimonious and mostly unecessary words (above) to agree was the Renault FT. I know of no M1917s being delivered to the UK for training during WWII. I suspect that is confusion with the FTs delivered in WWI. I think it fair to say that the M1917 was not built for other users. It was to supply the AEF and relieve France of the necessity to supply FTs. Whether they would have been shared with the other Allies, we shall never know, since none arrived in time. It was never offered to other nations while in service, and the examples delivered to Canada were not built for them but were obsolete, out-of-service vehicles, nominally sold as scrap. The omission of a mention of the Fort Garry Horse in the midst of this seems to be the least of our problems. At least, the spelling has now been attended to. It is my contention that in an article on the Renault FT, detailed information on the fate of a derivative twenty years later belong elsewhere, especially since there is a dedicated article already in existence. Otherwise the section can be expanded indefinitely. More of a disruptive adolescent than a child.

Unfortunately, most of the articles in this category require substantial revision and correction. Several are flawed at a rather fundamental level. But, as we have seen, improving matters can be like having a tooth out. However, your suggestion is an excellent one. I recommend you go ahead with the polishing, and I'll appraise it.Hengistmate (talk) 01:03, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Edits: 16th April, 2012.

Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whilst I'm a great believer in improving matters, and some of the syntax and grammar needed tickling up, this is rather over the top. In particular, the new version ignores Estienne's initial opposition to the FT, and also implies that he was Commander-in-Chief, which he wasn't. Some explanation of who Rodolphe Ernst-Metzmaier was is required. The chronology of the turret designs now has been confused. The sentence about use by France and the USA now implies that the latter used FTs from May 1918, which isn't correct. The line about the Fiat 3000 now includes a misplaced participle. The structure of the section on nomenclature was very carefully considered. After a lengthy discussion (see above) it was agreed that Wikipedia's ethos was best served if the misconception was first stated and then refuted. The alterations have changed the emphasis. The paragraph describing the change of name from mitrailleur to mitrailleuse is integral, and should not have been removed. The insertion of dashes before and after the reference to Estienne is grammatically unnecessary and, in any event, a dubious device.

Some of the punctuation has probably benefitted, and the syntax was a little "continental" in places, but the major edits have impaired rather than improved the article. Hengistmate (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Copyeditting is first of all an attempt to improve form and style. Inadvertently factual errors can slip in; there is of course no objection to correcting these. I intend to considerably expand the French World War I tank articles and hope to remove all concerns.--MWAK (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I quite understand that, MWAK, but the editing has introduced errors that weren't there previously. And several complex sentences have been broken down into simple ones, so the article reads less well, rather than better. François V says above that the article as it stood was better than its counterpart on French Wikipedia, despite the contributions of one or two people who hindered rather than helped. I'll wait and see what Diannaa's response is, but much of this needs to be reverted, IMO. Cheers, Hengistmate (talk) 13:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I was attempting to clean up the prose, as the article was tagged for copy edit. I do not have access to the sources. If you have spotted some factual errors please feel free to correct them. -- Dianna (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

As a point of interest, there is some peacocking and I am not sure that the description of the first revolving turret is clear enough; as it can mislead readers into thinking this was the first to use them, rather than just being the first to have a 360 degree rotation (Burstyn and others had designed tanks with rotating turrets). Chaosdruid (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi, Chaosdruid. It seems to me that describing the FT as "the first operational tank with a turret" covers that. It was the first tank to use a 360 turret. Burstyn's vehicle wasn't built and didn't have a 360 turret, the Mendeleev wasn't built, and the Vezdekhod wasn't operational. The first Delaunay-Belleville and several Schneider avant-projets incorporated a turret, but by that time the FT was well advanced. The specific mention of the Lincoln Machine is to head off anyone who might jump in at that point and say that it has been overlooked.

I'm not sure what you mean by "peacocking". One definition of it is a practice that I should find very distracting while editing Wikipedia. Could you clarify? Hengistmate (talk) 10:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Wooden Idler Wheels.

"A common misconception about the Renault FT is that the front idler wheels were made of wood. In reality the front idler steel wheels have six steel spokes that are hidden behind thick plywood panneling to keep mud and debris out." The consensus amongst students of the subject is that that is not the case. Photographs of surviving vehicles indicate that the idlers were indeed made of wood with a steel rim and axle-bearing, but no spokes. Is there a source for the claim about the spokes? Hengistmate (talk) 11:25, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

If there is "consensus amongst students of the subject", then this will be sourceable.

As examples still exist, then looking at photos isn't enough and it would be a basic minimum to go and study one of the survivors. Even though the tank had a remarkably long service life and changes may have been made to the wheels during this, that would be at least one solid example to go on. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:40, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

The situation in the real world is that the FT began with steel-rimmed wheels of laminated wood as described above. The arrangement of the wooden pieces can be seen on the FT at Bovington (that also sports the round turret upon which we are now, finally, agreed) as well as on numerous other examples. Later, a new type of wheel was introduced, but it was not as the prolific and anonymous editor 68.185.89.83 describes. It was a steel wheel with not six but seven spokes. The seven gaps created by the spokes were closed with sectors of mild steel, in an attempt to prevent fouling, and both patterns remained in use throughout and after the War. Although 68.185.89.83 offers the FT in the Musée de l'Armée as support for his six-spoke assertion, it can be demonstrated, using the technique of counting, that the number of spokes and sectors on each idler of that vehicle is seven.

But how can we meet the stringent requirements of Wikipedia and its editors? 68.185.89.83 does not supply - and, perhaps surprisingly, has not been asked for - any citation. In the absence of any other than the flawed observation of the FT in Les Invalides, I suggest that his remarks constitute original research. For my part, I cannot arrange to be in the vicinity of a Renault FT in the immediate future, as Mr. Dingley would prefer, and am sorry that the study of photographs is not, on this occasion, acceptable. It is comparatively recently that Mr. Dingley argued that a combination of "clear photographic evidence" and "a widely circulating view" satisfied Wikipedia's requirements, but he was dissuaded. See here. Nor do I have access to Louis Renault's or Rodolphe Ernst-Metzmaier's original drawings. However, if we combine the technologies of the camera and the printing press, what we can offer is a photograph of the constructor's drawing that has been reproduced in a reputable publication. (Renault ou la seconde naissance du char, Tank Zone Aug-Sep 2009, p32. Author: François Vauvillier) According to my interpretation of the letter and spirit of Wikipedia's requirements, that spells verifiability. And a section through the idler shows that it is constructed of wood around a steel hub.

However, I would add the following points:

To say that there is a common misconception about the Renault FT's idler wheels is to rather overstate matters. I'm not sure that interest in the subject is especially widespread. More importantly, 68.185.89.83 does not offer any citation, and I have a funny feeling that objections will be raised to mine. Since the matter is, in any event, far from controversial and of no great consequence, I suggest that, unless or until 68.185.89.83 produces an accurate citation that supports his/her assertion, the entire reference be removed.

Standing by. Hengistmate (talk) 11:40, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

By observation, there are at least three FT wheels in existence. The first example does indeed appear to be a segmented (not laminated) wooden wheel, like the Mansell wheel used in railway practice. Then the most common is the "thick" wheel, which does appear to be thin sheets (either disks or shallow cones) covering some other internal structure, presumably 7 cast-iron spokes. It's unknown whether this cover is plywood or sheet steel. A final pattern of wheel, on the M1917 at least, appears to be a solid steel disk, riveted between the rim flanges, with covering and no indication of spokes.

There are also some well-known photos of a knocked-out FT (or later derivative) in Yugoslavia early in WWII. This has thrown a track (claimed to be a rubbber-based continuous track, in Kegresse style) and the large rear drive wheels can be clearly seen to be 8-spoked. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:09, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Renault FT front idlers

• 
  Early, with segmented wooden wheels
• 
  7 spoked cast iron wheel, with cover
• 
  7 spoked cast iron wheel, with cover
• 
  M1917, and the thin disk wheel

Well, we're getting warmer. There were two types of FT idler, the predominantly wooden and the seven-spoked. The M1917 idler is the M1917 idler, and not under discussion. The Yugoslav casualty is, off the top of my head, an NC1 or NC27 - in any event, not an FT and therefore outside the scope of this article. The sectors (as the Dairylea-shaped panels are called) were steel. But whether they were steel or not is beside the point.

It's been a long, hard slog to get back to where we started, but we have reached the point where we know that 68.185.89.83's assertion is not only unsupported but demonstrably untrue (assuming that looking at photos is now acceptable). It is also, imo, in a rather strange place within the article. Nice to see Mr. Dingley doing some collaborative and constructive research. Looking forward to more of it. In the meantime, what happens to 68.185.89.83's contribution? A rewrite, or not worth the trouble and bin it? Unfortunately, we are not in a position to discuss things with the author, since he/she declines to open an account, and I am reluctant to act unilaterally in case another editor should feel that I have acted improperly.Hengistmate (talk) 13:55, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

"Nice to see Mr. Dingley doing some collaborative and constructive research."

Back off with the patronising abuse. I'm tired of it, and your own recent edit-warring puts you in no position to lecture others. Enough. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:05, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edits by 68.185.89.83

We're having a few problems with this anonymous editor's participation. In under a month he's made something like 120 edits to an article that didn't seem to have much wrong with it in the first place. Much of it seems to be tinkering with the grammar, without necessarily adding any new information or improving readability. In fact, a good deal of it seems to be overelaboration of already perfectly agreeable English. Whilst matters of style and limits of content might be a question of opinion, more of a problem is the introduction of an increasing amount of misinformation. We've already had to go to a lot of trouble to sort out the questions of the turrets and the idler wheels, just to preserve the article's integrity. There's a lot of other stuff that is silly/unnecessary/wrong/unsupported. For example: Of importance and as a significant improvement over previous WW-1 tanks, the radiator's fan pulled all its air from the forward compartment thus providing the crew with constant ventilation ... That sentence is a garbled reference to Mourret's claim that the crew would asphyxiate, and Renault and Ernst-Metzmaier's explanation that the fan would draw in fresh air from the outside. But the same thing happened with the British Mks I-IV - it wasn't unique to the FT.

The person responsible for these changes has, so far, chosen not to create an account, so communication is rather limited. But this torrent of dubious edits is threatening the article's authority. In view of the sometimes slightly peculiar grammar, often poor punctuation, and interest in French military matters, I'm not even convinced that English is this person's first language. Certainly, edits need to be scrutinized more rigorously and citations demanded on a much more regular basis or this hard-won article will descend into nonsense. Hengistmate (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

The word "ane pretentieux" in French can translate as pompous ass. I bet you cannot even read or speak French and have never visited the Saumur tank museum and talked to the knowledgeable people there. Your insistence that the front wheels of the FT were made of wood betrays your complete ignorance of the subject. . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.185.89.83 (talk) 04:05, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, âne prétentieux does translate as "pompous ass", but I think you are speaking figuratively rather than of an actual ass, so imbécile prétentieux ou pompeux is probably what you're after. Anyway, it's good that you've decided to make contact. Now we can have a sensible discussion. I must stand by my criticisms, I'm afraid, and whilst some might be a matter of taste, the outright factual errors have to be weeded out.

If, for example, you remain convinced that there were no wooden idlers on the Renault FT, what you must do is provide reliable, verifiable evidence. At first, there was no mention in the article of the idlers being of wood or steel - that's totally neutral, so no action is required. You then asserted that there were no wooden idlers, only steel ones with six spokes. If you make an assertion like that, you must provide reliable evidence to support it, but you didn't. In fact, the evidence indicates that the opposite is the case. There is no sign of the six-spoked wheel (only the seven-) and plenty of evidence of the wooden wheels. For the time being, then, your assertion cannot be included. If you can back it up, it can. Don't be afraid to ask for advice.

The turret business is another matter. My word alone is no proof that I speak, read, and write French. I can only suggest that you contact Mme Arlette Estienne-Mondet (the general's granddaughter), the Ernst-Metzmaier family, François Vauvillier, or various other people who can give you an impartial answer. Again, that's an assumption you made without any evidence. But the problem is not with a foreign language. The details of the turret that you had repeated difficulty in interpreting are in English. You changed a correct account to tally with your misreading of the source, so, obviously, that had to be reverted. Luckily, Mr. Dingley was kind enough to study the source, read it properly, and produce an account that is very nearly correct.

I shall be honest. IMO the article has deteriorated sharply over the last month and is now repetitive and clumsy. The rather over-detailed references to George S. Patton Jr. would, I believe, be better placed in the Patton article. But at least the more serious inaccuracies have been nipped in the bud. I think that even my fiercest critic would say that to accuse me of suffering from "complete ignorance of the subject" is a little harsh. Anyway, I hope this explains why your edits are being treated with some caution. We'll keep on top of things. Hengistmate (talk) 22:34, 22 August 2012 (UTC)