# Talk:M22 Locust

TM 9-2800
TM 9-724
TM 9-1724A
SNL G148
Leland Ness (2002) Janes World War II Tanks and Fighting Vehicles: A Complete Guide, Harper Collins, ISBN 0-00-711228-9
Oleg Granovskiy - Names, Designations and Service Figures of IDF Armored Vehicles (Олег Грановский - Названия, обозначения и количества бронетанковой техники АОИ) at Waronline.org (in Russian)

The original specification for an air-transportable light tank was issued in May 1941, with a target weight of eight tons. Three companies were invited to submit designs, Christie, GMC and Marmon-Herrington. The Marmon Herrington design was selected for production with the designation T9. After the first vehicles were delivered in late 1941, it was found to be too heavy, and a number of alterations were made, such as making the main turret removable, and removing the gun stabilization and power traverse systems. The resulting vehicle was designated T9E1.
The resulting vehicle could be airlifted only by the C-54 Skymaster, and only with turret removed and placed inside the fuselage and the tank hull suspended below the wing. As the British had the Hamilcar glider which was big enough to carry the M22 ready for battle, they took over the vehicles. Of 1,900 Locusts ordered, only 830 were delivered. 
In a number of vehicles guns were fitted with a Littlejohn adaptor, which produced higher muzzle velocity. 
The British 6th Airborne Division used the M22 in March 1945 crossing the Rhine in Operation Varsity. After the war some Locusts were given to Egypt and were employed there until 1956, including in the 1948 Arab-Israeli War. Some tanks were captured by the Israel Defense Forces. Three of those were adopted by the IDF; all were retired by 1952.

This review is transcluded from Talk:M22 Locust/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Hi! I have elected to review this article against the Good Article critera, and should have my initial comments posted up within the next few hours. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 23:59, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

I have completed reviewing this article under the criteria, and am placing it on hold until my few concerns below are addressed. However, this is a very good article and very close to passing. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 01:45, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
GA review (see here for criteria)
It is reasonably well written.
a (prose):  b (MoS): 
An ndash (–) is required between date ranges used in the article, and between page ranges used in citations; most of these have been done, but there are a few that arn't.
I think I've done all of these!
"... during the Battle of France and was considered ..." --> "during the Battle of France and were considered ..."
"Its size limited the possible crew to three, a driver in the hull and a gunner and commander in the turret, and this was found to be too few crew members to effectively operate the Tetrarch effectively." This is slightly confusing, and could do with a slight re-word. Perhaps: "Its size limited the possible crew to three—a driver in the hull and a gunner and commander in the turret—which was found to be too few crew members to effectively operate the Tetrarch effectively."?
"This request was made by British Air Commission ..." --> "This request was made by the British Air Commission ..."
All above done!
A Non-breaking space should be used when refering to the size of a gun. Such as "... armed with a 37 millimetre ..." instead of "... armed with a 37-millimetre ..."
Not sure how to do this without deleting the template. Do you know how, by any chance?
Damn, I didn't realise a template was in place there (even though it is obvious, lol). I actually have no idea, so don't worry about this one. Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
"On 25 October the squadron received a shipment of seventeen Locusts, and during November the new tanks were issued to the squadron, replacing a majority of the Tetrarchs, although a small number of Tetrarchs fitted with a 76.2-millimetre (3.00 in) infantry support howitzer, which were designated as Tetrarch 1 CS (Close Support), were retained." - This sentence is a bit thick, and could do with some breaking up and a slight re-write.
Broken up and re-written!
It is factually accurate and verifiable.
a (references):  b (citations to reliable sources):  c (OR): 
My only concern in this area is that the majority of citations are from the same source (Flint). Would it be possible to substitue some of the Flint citations for another reliable source?
I wish. Flint is the only book to cover the Locust in any detail - the same for the Tetrarch which I'm putting up for ACR at the moment. I'm afraid that's all there is, really. Will that be a problem?
No problem; a number of other sources are still used. It is more about diversity than anything. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It is broad in its coverage.
a (major aspects):  b (focused): 
Would it be possible to expand on the tank's involvement/use during the 1948 Arab-Israeli War?
Same as above really; I was lucky to contact an editor who had a book giving that much small detail. I'm afraid there's no detail about what the Egyptians did with the Locusts during the conflict.
I suppose a mention is a lot better then nothing! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
It follows the neutral point of view policy.
Fair representation without bias: 

It is stable.
No edit wars etc.: 

It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.
a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales):  b (appropriate use with suitable captions): 

Overall:
Pass/Fail: 

Well, any and all of my concerns have been addressed and I'm satisfied that the article now comfortably meets the GA criteria. Congratulations on another Good Article! Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 08:04, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Notes etc below as usual. EyeSerenetalk 08:58, 19 January 2010 (UTC)


### Lead
### Background
Who did the British military make the request of? Was this a general "out to tender" contract?
Can we be more specific than "British military"? We Brits don't use the term "military" in the US sense as referring to our Armed Forces.
"A decision had recently been made by the War Office.." Can we put a date on this (or otherwise be more specific)?

The article states fairly clearly that the UK only took 260 of the 830 produced. However, a detailed 1950s breakdown of Lend-Lease shipments reports 420 sent to the UK (strictly "UK and British Empire except Canada"). Any idea what might explain the discrepancy - were 160 notionally assigned to the UK but never left the US? Andrew Gray (talk) 20:20, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Some items sent to the UK never arrived due to shipping losses.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.52 (talk) 10:23, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

Surviving Panzers is an unreliable WP:SELFPUB source and cannot be used. Schierbecker (talk) 07:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

There is another M-22 Locust at the MM Park museum outside of Strasbourg France 174.194.133.218 (talk) 06:09, 24 December 2024 (UTC)

even the M1 Abrams tank, around 10 times as heavy, only uses a 120mm main gun.
The standard US Army anti tank gun at the start of WWII was the 37mm gun M 3 -
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/37_mm_gun_M3, so how would a gun four times the bore diameter at 130mm, be appropriate for a tank small and light enough to fit in a Hamilcar Glider? DocKrin (talk) 18:06, 16 October 2025 (UTC)