Talk:Renault FT/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Turrets

Not really sure why I should have to do this, but here we go. In the matter of a citation, the curious thing is that I and the anonymous editor 68.185.89.83 are offering the same source - French Tanks of World War I by Steve Zaloga (2010). The difference is that I am quoting what the source says, whereas the other party isn't. This is a difficult one; if someone offers a genuine source but misquotes or misrepresents it, how are we to know? Anyway, we are not faced with that problem, because the relevant details can be read here. The sequence of turrets is explained fully, as it is in most reputable works on the subject. Mr. Zaloga's book is not without its errors, but he's correct on this one. A very nice chronology can be found on p34 of Tank Zone 6, Aug-Sept 2009, pub. Histoire et Collections. It is by Francois Vauvillier, who has already intervened to correct some misapprehensions connected with the article under discussion. It follows the sequence from the simple cylinder of the mock-up to the Girod, in the order as it appeared in the Wiki article before 68.185.89.83 began to alter it.

I'll leave it for a while so everyone can be satisfied, above all Mr. Dingley, and then we can get back to the historically accurate version. When time permits, I'll supply the correct information about the wooden idler wheels. Hengistmate (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

You don't "have to do it", you could simply have edited the article to fix the problem, rather than edit-warring around it and bloviating here on the talk page as to why it's so terrible that you're being asked to provide sources and why it's all a dreadful confederacy of dunces against you. I've now made the simple sourced edit that either of you could have made some time ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)

Okey dokey. I don't really know what more I could have done here. As I see it, someone who chooses not to identify himself has made about 100 changes to an article that, thanks to the efforts of several editors, and despite those of others, had become commendably accurate and very stable. It was only after 80-odd edits that it became obvious that some facts were being replaced by falsehoods, and I reverted one of the more glaring errors. At this point, an editor who had so far played no part in the proceedings demanded that I supply citations to support the status quo. A curious approach. It does not seem to have crossed this editor's mind that someone making wholesale changes might be expected to supply a citation or two, or even that changes on such a large scale might be vandalism. Anyhoo, the anonymous editor finally offered a citation; a source with which I am familiar and that contradicts his edit. Despite my explanations, he declined to acknowledge the contradiction. There seemed little point in two of us offering the same citation to both prove and disprove an assertion. So I provided a link to the source in question so that third parties might examine it and satisfy themselves as to its meaning. I even offered to leave the article alone for a probationary period, since I am aware that one editor in particular dislikes it if I make what he considers precipitate edits. You will notice that the anonymous editor is now not disputing the facts that entirely contradict his earlier claims.

But now I've done wrong again. The editor who chastises me for making changes now upbraids me for not making changes and leaving it all up to him. What's a girl to do? It reminds me rather of when the wife enters the room and announces pointedly that she has taken the rubbish out, when you were just about to do it, straight after the football. Anyway, the outcome is that a couple of examples of appreciable damage to the article's veracity have been repaired, and historical accuracy maintained. The anonymous editor has inadvertently provided us with a source that supports the original claims, even though that was not what he was trying to do. Ende gut, alles gut, but a lot of running to stay in the same place. I can't help but feel it could have been done differently.

Quite why Mr. Dingley is so cross, I cannot say. I noticed no confederacy of dunces, just one or two. I don't understand how the book to which he has linked relates to this topic; there doesn't seem to be anything about tanks in it. But if I might reciprocate, could I offer a reference from Through the Looking Glass that I think is appropriate? "When I use a word," Humpty Dumpty said, in rather a scornful tone, "it means just what I choose it to mean — neither more nor less." Hengistmate (talk) 18:04, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

It seems we are having the most enormous difficulty in conveying the gist of Mr. Zaloga's 2010 account of the chronology of the Renault's turret. It is explained with at least as much clarity in his 1988 work on the subject, and, indeed, in most reputable written accounts. The section as it stands at the time of writing is not totally correct but is close enough for our purposes. Why "68.185.89.83" should be so persistent in attempting to render it appreciably less accurate is beyond me. Short of reproducing Zaloga's description verbatim (which is, of course, prohibited), all I can suggest is that 68.185.89.83 read the relevant pages over and over again until the meaning becomes clear, and perhaps refrain from making further edits in the meantime. Mr. Zaloga writes in American English, and there should therefore be no language barrier. Hengistmate (talk) 12:57, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

Renault 1917

A part of archives shown here: http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Pages-d-Histoire-Artillerie/Artillerie-Speciale-chars-d-assaut/artillerie-speciale-formees-sujet_1472_1.htm is of interest in that it shows a contemporary use of the designation "Renault 1917". And a Schneider 1916 :o). --MWAK (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)

Oui, mais . . . by the Army, not Renault. :)Hengistmate (talk) 23:25, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

The Idler Debate Continues, Unnecessarily.

Mr Hengismate. Removing evidence that does not fit early misconceptions is just not professional. Sorry. We can and should do better than that. You do not own the French FT site. No one does. We are just trying to be accurate and documented. I once served in the French military and much later, became a personal friend of the legendary late colonel Aubry who made the Musee des Blides what it is today. Regards. Gerard Demaison . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.133.142 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)

Indeed, with sufficient documentation it should be possible to reach a consensus. In this respect I would like to point out this diagram in the Renault FT manual: http://po2260.perso.sfr.fr/FT17/Manuel%20du%20FT/MPFT17-PPlan01.jpg It is of the preseries, as shown by the early-style turret. In the top drawing we see in side view the structure of the wooden elements of the climbing wheel. What the inner structure of this wheel was, is revealed by the bottom drawing. In the left suspension a cross-section of the wheel is shown. It is apparently made of solid wood with the bolts going all the way through, connecting the circular outer attachment plate with the inner plate. There is no indication of any inner steel structure with spokes; this seems to be introduced with later wheel versions, completely made of steel.--MWAK (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

MWAK, I made this point, perfectly clearly and at considerable length, in August last year. See above. Even Mr. Dingley was helpful. But it seems we have to repeat the exercise. As you say, the manual shows the wooden wheel. The patent shows the wooden wheel. In these photographs of surviving FTs, over 50% clearly have the wooden wheel. I was at Bovington a few weeks ago, and examined their FT. The idlers are wooden. Why this man will not accept the evidence and becomes abusive when invited to do so, I cannot say. If he can point out on the Bovington FT the six panels to which he repeatedy refers, I should be very interested. Nor can I explain why he cannot count to seven. But I can explain about the idlers.

For the moment, I am not at liberty to reveal sources or identify individuals or organisations, but the facts are as follows: for reasons that have not yet been discovered, Berliet decided to introduce a cast iron idler on the FTs they produced as subcontractors. As anyone - well, almost anyone - can see from the many surviving FTs, these idlers had seven spokes. This information will be published in a form acceptable to Wikipedia in due course. For the moment, though, it is not required. Demaison claims that the wooden idler did not exist. He cannot substantiate the claim, and it can be refuted by overwhelming evidence. Furthermore, the difference between six and seven is not a matter of opinion. The Berliet idlers have seven spokes. That is the situation. I hope it is clear to you, if not to M. Demaison. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 07:09, 21 April 2013 (UTC)

"Protruding tracks."

I fear that this is a mistranslation and misunderstanding of the French phrase chenilles prenantes. Prenant means "gripping," in both the literal and figurative sense. In the case of the Renault FT, the expression is not used to describe the track assembly protruding in front of the vehicle and thus "getting a grip" on parapets and so on. It was not a novel concept - the British heavy and medium tanks were all constructed in such a way that the tracks preceded the body of the vehicle. The reason for the specific mention of this aspect in numerous descriptions is that the individual track shoes on the FT "gripped" - that is to say that they had a lip that bit into the ground - rather than merely spread the weight. That was not a feature of the French Saint-Chamond or of the British tanks. In fact, experiments were carried out with fittings that attached to the tracks of the Saint-Chamond, British Mks II and IV, and Medium Mk A in an attempt to increase the grip. The prototype of the Schneider CA had ordinary Holt track shoes, but the "gripping" type were introduced before series production began. How and when this happened is still being researched. The problem with both the Schneider and Saint-Chamond was that the body protruded ahead of the tracks, whilst in the FT it was vice-versa. However, that is not the distinction that the expression chenilles prenantes is making. Citation: Renault FT by Pascal Danjou, Editions Du Barbotin, 2009. Page 13. Hengistmate (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)

First modern tank claim

As for the "alternative theory" - I do not deny that Lt. Bursztyn's "Motorgeschütz" was an interesting project, especially for its time - but it was merely project, not an existing vehicle, and it had no direct influence on subsequent development of armour in the Great War and beyond. Perhaps it would be better to return to the former wording of the article, without mentioning the Bursztyn's proposal. Otherwise, I think if the Bursztyn claim is to be retained in the article, it would be quite disingenuous to not mention that the Motorgeschütz had never left the project stage.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

I think we need to kill quite a few birds with one stone here.

It seems to be obligatory, almost ritualistic, to select certain aspects of the FT and describe them in a preordained fashion. The fact that it had a turret is to the forefront. But the point is that the turret was not a miraculous invention by Louis Renault in 1916, which is what articles tend to imply. Several tracked, armoured fighting vehicles had been designed with a turret prior to that date.

The fact that Burstyn's design was not manufactured was not his fault. He designed a tank as Wikipedia defines it, with a turret. Whether it had any influence is irrelevant. Turrets were not unknown before 1916, and Burstyn's original inspiration was IIRC a torpedo boat.

This is without even touching on the Russian Vezdekhod, which was built, was trialled in mid-1915, and appears to have had a number of types of turret during its existence. The Mendeleev tank, improbable though it was in many ways, also incorporated a turret, before 1914.

In France, plans for tanks with one turret or more were produced by Abel Ferry and Delaunay-Belleville in 1915, before the FT saw the light of day.

As regards the No.1 Lincoln Machine, I do not understand your concern. If you require a citation, there is no problem. On page 40 of The British Tanks 1915-19 by David Fletcher there is a photograph of the vehicle. Men are working on the turret, in which can be seen an aperture for a gun. The fact that it was a dummy is also irrelevant. It was of the correct weight, and it was part of the design. The vehicle was intended to have a turret. Similarly, the first two wooden mockups of the FT had dummy turrets, the first a simple cylinder even more rudimentary than that on the Lincoln Machine. But I think what you are actually seeking is an explanation.

Unfortunately, David Fletcher has been uncharacteristically inaccurate in this matter. Apart from the fact that Wilson and Tritton were hardly likely to design a turret that was impossible to operate, DF has misunderstood the situation. Albert Stern was referring to "the gun in the turret" being on rails, not the turret itself. You can read the relevant letter to Tritton here on page 32 of Stern's autobiography. You will also see from the photographs here and here of the interior of Little Willie that there was ample room for the crew to man the turret without having to stand on the engine. It was designed that way.

So Mr. DiNardo's view is perfectly legitimate. Its inclusion meets Wkipedia's criteria, which is more than can be said for a great many recent edits to this article. That's without dragging the Vezdekhod and all the rest into it. To say that the FT was "the first operational tank to have its armament within a fully rotating turret" describes the situation precisely and puts matters in their true perspective. If anyone wants to know more about Burstyn's machine, links are provided to an external site and to a Wikipedia article (which is in dire need of improvement).

We must also consider that, Wikipedia being what it is, if the reference to the Lincoln Machine's turret is removed, it will be only a matter of time before someone does a bit of reading, comes across the turret, and argues for a reference to it. By leaving the reference in, and even expanding on it to include other examples of pre-FT turrets, we forestall that. It gives the impression that Wikipedia has a depth of knowledge.

I hope my point of view is now clearer. Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 02:42, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Yet more problematic editing.

The reference to the location of the first action by FTs has been edited to read "Ploisy-Chazelles." Whilst there are several places in France called "Chazelles", http://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Chazelles none of them is anywhere near Ploisy. There isn't a place called Ploisy-Chazelle; there is a settlement called Ploisy, and Chazelle was absorbed by neighbouring Berzy-le-Sec in 1791, although it is still shown on some 19th century maps. "Ploisy-Chazelle" is like "Flers-Courcelette" - not a place, but an operational area.

I wonder why we have to endure this constant barrage of misinformed, disruptive, or inconsequential edits and the abusive and obscene comments of their author. I think the time has come to look into this. Hengistmate (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Your last personal statement above could pass in some people's eyes as, perhaps, well ...regrettable but I am not shocked. It all started with the front wheels of the long obsolete WW-1 Renault Ft tank ? Now we know that there are two types of French- made Renault FT front idler wheels, including one type with steel spokes, so some progress has been made, which is what counts. Mr Hengistmate, it is clear that you have been researching and working for years on this historic Renault FT tank, so you deserve respect and consideration . You certainly have mine, for I know this FT review is not an easy job at all. I own several of the key French specialized tank military history books published in Paris in the 1920-30s, and I can find contradictions between some of them !!! Malmassari's, whom you quote, is perhaps the best documented RECENT French WW-1 tank book (in French) for figures and facts. Regards and please let us forgive and forget. Gerard D. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.133.142 (talk) 20:15, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

"FT AC"

This was a proposal that was never put into production. Intended to carry 47mm gun for anti-tank role. Only reached drawing stage. Hengistmate (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

USA POV

I'm a little concerned that this article is beginning to take on an unnecessarily American POV. I am by no means sure that in the section entitled "Manufacturers" details of the manufacture of the Renault FT in France should take second place to details of the manufacture of a different tank in the USA. In "Service History", the early and highly detailed introduction of George S. Patton Jr. seems altogether out of place. We don't really need to be told Patton's age before we get to the matter of the FT's 30 or so deployments between May and September. The Light Tank Brigade's actions were relatively minor in comparison to those of the French. Also, there are articles on Patton and on the M1917 that can be linked to for anyone interested in knowing more. I propose to make edits that will restore the appropriate emphasis. It is proving rather hard work to ensure that this article retains its authority. Hengistmate (talk) 00:41, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

The US tank existed and has a visible footprint in history afterwards. It needs to be mentioned here, if only to clarify that it didn't have a greater role than it actually did. Your repeated removal of it might be correct in making this article a closer match to history, but it's unhelpful because that produces an article that's less readable, and more likely to leave readers with the wrong impression - especially because US readers might already have seen examples of the tank in museums and so will tend to associate them (incorrectly) with WWI service - a misunderstanding that we have to correct.

An important editorial task in any historical explanation is not to make the article the closest match to history, but to try and make the retained learning of our readers afterwards a close match to accurate history. That often involves an apparent over-emphasis on debunking. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:10, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

I HAVE A QUESTION FOR ANONYMOUS "HENGISMATE" : Please let us know in what country do you live and where and when you have actually inspected in any detail a REAL Renault FT tank . Thank you. Gerard Demaison. 10/17/2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.133.142 (talk) 21:35, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Bonjour M. Demaison. A quoi sert cette question? Je ne vois pas sa pertinence. Cordialement,Hengistmate (talk) 21:06, 4 November 2012 (UTC)

American POV? On an English language wiki page covering French military history? Quelle surprise! Everyone already knows the general contempt the average American has for French military history, which they would happily go on about indefinitely if they didn't have to stop speaking long enough to stuff their mouth with freedom fries. A word to the wise for any reader that has the sense to investigate this far behind the article: the English version of Wikipedia is generally terrible when dealing with French military history, best to look elsewhere.204.195.156.74 (talk) 15:03, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

The Turret Question Again, 1st October 2013.

As has already been discussed, the turret was fitted to armoured cars long before WWI. Gunther Burstyn's Motorgeschütz was designed with a gun turret, the British tank prototype Little Willie was fitted with a dummy turret, and several Russian tank designs incorporated a turret. Many types of armoured car, from the Austro-Daimler to the Rolls-Royce, were fitted with a turret before the FT was dreamed of, so Renault's inclusion of one on the tank can not be considered seminal. Even more relevantly, one armoured car that was not fitted with a turret was the 1915 Renault, as examination of plans and photographs of that vehicle will confirm. Reference removed. Hengistmate (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

And Again.

The FT was not the first armoured fighting vehicle to have its armament within a fully rotating turret. It was the first tracked armoured fighting vehicle, i.e. tank, to do so.

The reference provided for the description of the turret on the No. 1 Lincoln Machine does not make that claim. The editor has mistaken the Medium Mk A, or "Whippet", which did have a fixed turret on the production version, for the Lincoln Machine. See pp 62 & 63. Hengistmate (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)

DiNardo

This might help Mr. Demaison. Hengistmate (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Surviving Examples & White Russian Theory, Oct 27 2013.

The situation as I understand it is as follows: the two FTs found outside Kabul were both sent to Fort Knox in 2003. A third one was discovered by French forces south-east of Kandahar, and in 2007 sent to Saumur for restoration. The fourth had been on display within the Ministry of Defence compound in Kabul for many years, and was presented to the Polish Government by the Afghan Government in 2012. It is at present undergoing restoration in Poznan.

I am not at all convinced by the White Russian theory. Fort Knox concluded that these were FTs sold by France to Poland, captured by the Red Army in 1920 during the Polish-Soviet War, and presented to Afghanistan in 1923 or thereabouts. That is why the Poles were so interested in the 4th FT; they believe it played a part in winning Polish independence, and they didn't have a surviving example of their own. How thoroughly they have identified it, I'm still waiting to hear. As MWAK says, it would be very interesting to see the source for the White Russian theory. There is an account in Zaloga's 1988 Osprey book, but I can't see that there's anything conclusive. Looking forward to more info. BTW, don't be surprised if some more FTs turn up in that part of the world.

In any event, part of this section probably needs rejigging to bring the 4 Afghan FTs together and explain the connection. Hengistmate (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)

I was stationed outside of Kabul, Afghanistan in 2001-02, and played a role in identifying two of the FTs that were in a "Tank Graveyard" and near an old Afghan repair facility. Present was an incredibly old military dump outside the village of PolE Charki. The two FTs were missing armaments, and one had a turret missing. A circular search pattern was successful in locating the 2nd turret, roughly 75 meters from where the tanks were left, one upright, the other on it's side. Grid coordinates were determined, photos taken, and information and an email was sent to then curator of the Patton Museum, Mr. Charles Lemon. I was able to later see the two tanks in Fort Knox, and at that time was informed that they held an interesting history, and that meticulous service records had been maintained supposedly by the German military after their capture in France. (this information is different than a sale to Poland by France, but this was passed to me by Mr. Lemon of the Patton museum, sometime around 2006-2008 Supposedly another example was on display somewhere in Kabul, perhaps that was the example sought by Poland.) §SFC Holmgren vikingwarrior64@yahoo.com 19 March 2020

Removal of link to Burstyn's Motorgeschütz site.

Is the removal because it's an inline external link or because the website in question is in German? Either way, replacing it with a link to a non-existent article doesn't really improve things. The Burstyn site is, I agree, in German, but I should have thought that there are enough images there for the reader to grasp the point that is being made. As things stand, the link is meaningless. Is there a more instructive way of going about this? Hengistmate (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Remove per WP:UNDUE. It bears as much relation to the FT does as does the Netopyr or da Vinci's tank designs. Sure, the Motorgeschütz had a central turret. But the Motorgeschütz was also a paper pipe-dream with an implausible suspension. It was certainly far from being "an earlier tank" with a central turret. Even the Lincoln Machine (and its central turret) was closer to being a usable tank than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Now I think on it, it's certainly undue in the lede. Unless R.L. DiNardo (who he?) is in the same league as Zaloga. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC). Amen and so mote it be !

Turrets Syndrome.

I still think it necessary to put the turret business in its true perspective. The implication persists that Louis Renault or someone in his employ invented the rotating turret or had the idea of putting a gun in one, which we know not to be the case. As I have pointed out on more occasions than perhaps should have been necessary, turreted armoured cars had been in use since ten years before WWI, and several tank projects (see above, somewhere) had included turrets. Happy to agree that the FT was the first with a 360 degree turret to enter service.

DiNardo does not say that "the first modern tank" could be applied to Burstyn's Motorgeschütz. He applies it. Amen and amen.Hengistmate (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC) .

References to Renault Whippet made in 1918 support generic use of the "Whippet" name at the time for light tanks

Far be it from me to dive in and edit this well researched Wiki entry, but I was reading a report called "Some Notes on the French Tanks" in the Motor Cycle magazine of 3rd October 1918 ("Motor Cycle" followed the MMGS and Tank activities quite closely as it had been in part responsible for recruiting 10,000 motor cyclists into the Mobile Machine Gun Service many of which migrated to tanks later). This report mentions Schneider and Saint-Chamond tanks, then goes on to say they "preceded by one year the appearance of the Renault light tank - "Whippets" as we call them in the British Army."

Then goes on "The Renault Whippet did not appear on the field of battle until about 2 months ago and immediately made good. It was an armoured vehicle equipped with a machine gun and a 37mm gun. ...... The crew consists of two men - the driver situated in front, and the gunner who is seated or stands in a turret situated in the middle of the vehicle. The engine room is protected from the rest of the vehicle so as to lesson the risk of fire. The French Whippet can climb exceptionally formidable gradients, worse then 45deg, according to conditions of the surface, and the turret can revolve in a complete circle, so the machine gun, or gun, can sweep the whole horizon...."

So I think it might be worth mentioning in the Wiki that for a while the term Whippet was applied to the Renault, possibly as a generic term for a light tank. Note that in all cases the name Whippet was capitalised. This could help avoid confusion when reading reports of actions in which Whippets were deployed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Oldnoccer (talk • contribs) 10:50, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

It's certainly true that at the time "Whippet" was used a generic term, also applied to the Renault FT. If a more modern and indirect source can be found referring to this, this fact should be mentioned.--MWAK (talk) 12:33, 22 May 2014 (UTC)

Oldnoccer - "Far be it from me to dive in and edit this well researched Wiki entry": don't worry; it doesn't stop some people. But don't confuse "well researched" with "long and much-edited."

"Whippet" was Tritton's name for it, but the Army's was "Medium Mk A." There appears to have been some indiscriminate use of the word to include the FT - there's a mention to that effect in the Whippet article - but there's no evidence that it was widespread. The Medium Mk B was also sometimes called a Whippet, as if the word was a generic term for the Mk A and its descendants (and maybe similar types if there had been any). There are also newspaper reports of the FT being in a class of AFV known as "mosquito tanks," but I don't think any of these is statistically significant. It's one of those "they call them" nicknames that one suspects has been made up by the author. Maybe worth a line, but I wouldn't worry about it. Hengistmate (talk) 14:04, 23 May 2014 (UTC)

Edits July 10.

I think the claim that the T18 was derived from the Fiat 3000 is a misunderstanding. Ryabushinski obtained a licence to build the Fiat, but it didn't get off the ground. His workshops were taken over by the Soviets during the civil war and used to repair tanks and other afvs. The Russkiy-Renault was derived directly from the Renault FT, although it did have a Fiat 45hp engine. I should, of course, welcome any source that supports your view.

This is a complicated area, and I can't remember all the details off the top of my head. There are some incorrect accounts in the system. I shall try to dig out the info. Hengistmate (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)

Use by Egypt?

Would appreciate a reliable source - a genuinely reliable source - for use by Egypt in the 1948 War. I have been unable to find one. The best I can do is a small number used by Lebanon. Anyone have anything concrete? Hengistmate (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)

Edits August 16th, 2014.

There has to be a limit to the number of times that this vehicle's turret is mentioned. There is a section devoted to it, made necessary by 71.95.133.142's insistence and which had to be corrected by others because 71.95.133.142 repeatedly inserted incorrect information, and ample mention is made throughout the article. We get the picture.

What is, unfortunately, necessary to repeat is that two vehicles that did not have a rotating turret were the armoured cars (automitrailleuses) manufactured by Renault and Peugeot. Some French armoured cars did, but not these two. This has been carefully explained to 71.95.133.142 in the past. I don't really see how it can be made any clearer. Hengistmate (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Time-lag misunderstanding.

The point about this is not the length of time that elapsed between the mock-up and the trials. There is nothing to say that that would not have been the same irrespective of when the mock-up was presented. The point is the amount of time that elapsed between Renault agreeing to Estienne's second request and the appearance of the mock-up, which some authors speculate shows that Renault had been working on the idea, at least in broad terms, during the interim. At this stage, government orders are nothing to do with it.

To say that Renault had been considering the matter between December 1915 and July 1916 is not the same as saying that he "had given top priority to implementing the idea without waiting for a government order." We can report that certain authors state that the chain of events leads them to conclude that Renault continued to work on the idea. No one says anything about what priority he gave it. I fear this is another example of this "editor's" rather reverential approach to L. Renault and all his works which has shown itself on a number of previous occasions. Hengistmate (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)

Wheels Within Wheels

From Gerard Demaison to Hengistmate with cordial regards: There is an "Artisan Charron, Roues en Bois" in France called Alain Monpied , advertised on the French internet.( by typing Alain Monpied). He is a specialist in the reproduction of ancient wooden wheels of historic significance ( e.g. he has produced the wooden wheels of a repro "Cugnot's Fardier" ). The published photographs on his site show how he created two replica WOOD FRONT IDLER (TENSION) wheels for a Renault FT . Several photos on Monpied's web site do display the steps he followed in order to accurately reproduce the original FT wood idlers. Those had been found to be in a state of partial decay on the subject Renault FT tank undergoing renovation. Again with best regards Gerard Demaison PS You probably have seen Monpied's ad before I did. But I thought his wood idler replica work was excellent ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.133.142 (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Production figures.

It comes to my notice that there are several difficulties with the production figures cited in the article. At present, the figures for vehicles supplied to individual users don't tally with the total, although that could be a typo (3,841 v 3,814). On the other hand, recent edits by editor 71.95.133.142, executed in the customary fashion, reduced the total to 2,622 then raised it to 3,187. As is traditional, no reference is provided for these alterations. The whole thing is rather ambiguous, with some uncertainty as to what exactly the figures apply to. The claim that the US received 514 FTs is made, but this is a number for which I can't recall seeing any evidence in many years. If any can be provided I should be most interested, but my understanding is that only sufficient FTs to equip IIRCC two battalions, 144+, were handed to the AEF.

The most reliable and complete account I have found is a report to the French Senate of May, 1920: "On 11 November (1918), 3,187 (FT) tanks had been taken into account by the War Ministry. The Assault Artillery Subdirectorate proposed to stop production at 3,500. But the Reconstruction Ministry . . . was unable to halt production. The definite number of tanks received by the War Ministry is 4,517. But deliveries to Allies or abroad went on. They amount on 1 July 1919 to: Poland 120, Great Britain 24, Italy 4, Finland 30, Spain 1, America 231." That gives a total of 4,927. A couple of small problems remain, one being that FTs were supplied to Great Britain before the armistice but do not appear in British inventories after the War. One assumes they were handed back, in which case they might have been counted twice. And the figure for FTs taken to the USA is usually 209. However, these figures don't materially affect the total. (The figure for Spain is correct; more were purchased after the publication of the report.)

Being an open-minded and consensual chap, I'll leave these figures here for interested parties to study. M. Demaison might care to comment, although I probably ought to suggest that any opposing argument be supported by a reference of one kind or another, something that is not his normal practice. Funny that no one has challenged him very much. Anyway, je suis Hengistmate (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Well, this matter has been treated by HGBM 99 of January 2012. The French production of all types seems indeed to have been 4517 until 1921. The 3187 number reflected the 11 November 1918 data in the administrative account kept by the French Ministry of War, which, as the Dutch say, was "running behind the facts" as already on 8 November 3246 tanks had been delivered. However, the number of 4927 is too high as most deliveries to other nations had in fact been taken from the 4517 stock. Remarkably, between 1921 and 1927 an additional number of tanks seems to have been produced, about 250 of them, for the benefit of costumers desiring brandnew vehicles.--MWAK (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Pruning this article.

a) There seems to be no point in including 2 sets of production figures, one in Development and one in Manufacturers, especially since they don’t tally. In fact, the sources disagree considerably. I think it is sufficient for the article to report that the sources differ, rather than state figures that can be endlessly challenged. Perhaps we will be lucky enough to see interested parties working collaboratively to establish what figures it is appropriate to state.

b) There is a quite adequate article on the M1917 derivative. There is no point in overburdening this article with info about the M1917 when it can be linked to. I'm taking out what is superfluous.

c) An additional benefit is the removal of the unusual method of citation that has appeared recently.

A lot more needs to be done to restore this article's credibility. Hengistmate (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Zaloga v DiNardo - "not actually a difference of opinion."

Actually, I can think of few better examples of one: Person A believes one thing, whilst Person B believes another. I agree that the reference to diNardo as it stood was rather clumsy, but it had a purpose: to offset the adulation of one "editor" for Louis Renault and all his works. It's a problem that runs through the whole article. It is entirely fair to describe the FT as "the first modern tank," but it was the first modern tank to be manufactured. The basic layout had occurred to Burstyn a decade before and to Wilson a year before. The turret was not Renault's invention; it was in use on the armoured cars of many nations. Delaunay-Belleville had designed a tank with the same configuration, Schneider had drawn up several designs using the layout, and Charles de Poix had designed something very similar by November 1915, before Estienne had shown his very rough designs to Schneider.

And whilst it can be shown by argument that there is a case for disagreeing with Steve Zaloga, it can also be shown by reference to reliable sources: DiNardo in Military Affairs, Daniela and Ewald Angetter in Gunther Burstyn (1879-1945): Sein 'Panzer' - Eine bahnbrechende Erfindung zur falschen Zeit am falschen Ort, plus Strasheim, Schneider, Hundleby, and for what it's worth, the Austrian Army website.

One "editor" suggested the reference be removed "per WP:UNDUE," but, you see, we judge notability by what independent sources say; I am told that rocking up at a sourced article and saying, "It's just not notable" doesn't change this.

Steve Zaloga might hold that the FT was "the first modern tank," but there are two problems with that for Wikipedia: a) he is not infallible (see his 2010 French Tanks of World War 1), and b) a reliable source (a professional military historian writing in a WP:RS) offers a contradictory view. (Actually, diNardo's article contains a sizeable error, but that just means they are both fallible. In that respect, DiNardo is in the same league as Zaloga).

I suggest that what is needed here is a lead - indeed, a whole article - that is rather less of a hagiography than one "editor" would like. One that makes it clear that Renault didn't dream up this arrangement all on his own and that the idea had antecedents, whilst still affording the FT its rightful place.

I'll put a few words together in the next few days and run them up the flagpole. I know some people will be really looking forward to reading them. Hengistmate (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

FTs in Use by AEF: Recent Edits.

This article is about the FT and is not concerned with details of M1917 manufacture in the USA during or after the War. As I had occasion to observe some time ago, it's a different tank, in a different country, and it didn't arrive. Once the AEF decide to give up on the M1917 and approach the French for FTs, the former is irrelevant to this account. Subsequent events are described at length in the dedicated article.

The reverence that is a feature of so many of M. Demaison’s interventions makes it difficult to preserve the objectivity of both the FT and M1917 articles. Attempts to put a gloss on the failed M1917 programme and give the impression that because it was no more than 8 months behind schedule and only just missed the War it was more or less a success can perhaps best be summed up by citing The French Army's Tank Force and Armoured Warfare in the Great War (Dr. T. Gale, Ashgate Publishing, 2013, ISBN 978-1-4094-6661-1, p115-6): "The US light tank programme was a disaster."

Now, the figure of 514 FTs allegedly acquired by the AEF: Zaloga does indeed state that "The US Army received 514 Renault FTs during the course of the war," both in his 1988 work and in his more recent French Tanks of World War I (New Vanguard, 2010, p38). The same claim is made in U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles (Crismon, F; Motorbooks International, 1992; ISBN 0-87938-672-X; p52 ). It is a myth.

It doesn’t appear anywhere except when quoted from Zaloga. It is contradicted by a large number of detailed histories, and there is no indication where it came from. It is one of those “facts” that are frequently regurgitated but rarely examined.

There is a figure that can be found that is far higher than the well-documented provision of 144 FTs to the AEF, and it is the result of a well-intentioned but much misinterpreted point made by Dale Wilson. He counts the total of tanks available to the AEF at Saint-Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne – of all types. That includes the two battalions of American-crewed FTs, the three battalions of French-crewed FTs, and assorted Schneiders and Saint-Chamonds. The total comes to 419, comprising Patton’s 144 FTs, 24 Schneiders under French Major Charles Chanoine, 216 French-operated FTs, and 35 Saint-Chamonds under Commandant Auguste Herlaut. Some sources have mistakenly concluded that the total figure refers to US-crewed FTs only.

If required (though I shouldn't really have to) I can supply WP:RS for the above. The gist, though, is this: although there is some variation in the figures, it does not remotely approach the difference between 144 and 514.

I have also removed the duplicate link to the M1917, the customary interminable tinkering with syntax, tautology, etc. I've presented the facts. We are in the familiar territory of wondering whether M. Demaison will acknowledge them. Hengistmate (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

P.S. Even Spencer Tucker gets this right. Hengistmate (talk) 22:48, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

M. Demaison's Edits, May 17th, 2015.

M. Demaison has made over 40 edits to the section entitled Manufacturers. As is customary, there are no citations to substantiate any of his alterations. Lest a third party be tempted to contribute at this point on some matters of procedure, I would point out WP:BURDEN. The combination of convoluted English and a welter of figures make this section barely comprehensible.

Despite several requests, M. Demaison declines to provide citations, to use the sandbox, or to adopt a username. His edits to this article are in the region of 1,000, scarcely any of them adding any value. In fact, the points about which he has been most insistent - the wooden idlers, the development of the turret - are those about which he has proved to be most wrong; in fact, completely wrong.

I don't care if M. Demaison ironed General de Gaulle's underpants; his interventions rarely fail to damage the article. I think a case can be made for invoking the Competence rule. In the meantime, I shall continue, when time permits, to reverse his edits until he comes up with some that are correct, relevant, supported by references, and intelligible. Hengistmate (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

Image of FT at Fort George G. Meade.

This FT has an M1917 mantlet, if not an entire M1917 turret. Will check. In the meantime, since there are plenty of images of FTs with Berliet or Girod turrets I've removed the image to prevent any confusion. Hengistmate (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

FTs at The Weald Foundation.

As explained, an FT and an FT TSF are undergoing restoration at this charitable organisation. Interested parties might like to view this aspect of the project. It concerns scientific examination of the wooden idler wheels, which, you will recall, we were recently invited to believe did not exist. https://www.wealdfoundation.org/Inside-Track As I mentioned a while ago, there are still FTs the existence of which is not public knowledge. Hengistmate (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)

Where did the tank go?

• For many years an FT-17 was displayed in front of the Alexandria, Virginia Union Train Station, remaining there through at least the 1980s. Does anyone know the disposition of this tank? Mark Sublette (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)Mark SubletteMark Sublette (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

According to Amtrak officials,the tank was removed to aVFW museum in Huntington,West Virginia in the early1980s where it was restored torunning condition. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.199.169.61 (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

References

"Revolutionary"?

"Involving or causing a complete or dramatic change." It might be a bit over the top, but not prohibitively so. It signalled the beginning of the end for the existing types. "It's almost the first tank design in existence, there was almost nothing before it." Then if it was almost the first, it wasn't the first, and if there was almost nothing before it, then there was something before it, namely the Mk I, II, III, IV, Schneider, and Saint-Chamond. MWAK's response is, IMO, uncharacteristically brusque, but we all have off days. Actually, I have no strong feelings about this. Hengistmate (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

If there were almost no tanks before it, go figure how revolutionary it must have been to be called so ;o). The point is of course that "revolutionary" is an adequate reflection of the text of the source.--MWAK (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)

Revolutionary?

"Revolution" is necessarily applied to something exiting (eg. the ancien régime). Nothing exited before that tank though. (Yes the Mark I is a bit older, but nothing from that is revolutionized.) - 91.10.4.162 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)