lflage/wiki-talks huggingface dataset:
Talk:Vickers 6-ton

message: The image is incorrect. That is an image of a polish twin-turret version. When posting a tank it is generally a bad idea to post images of the tank's variant as the main image of the article  The image of the Polish varient should be replaced by an actual image of a vickers 6-ton tank. -TankSpecialstE419  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.68.169 (talk) 19:44, 9 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The text mentions 25mm (1") and 19mm (3/4") as thickness of the armour protection but the data section states only 13mm (1/2"). Can anyone clearify?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.79.12.164 (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Armour? 

message: Dear wikipedians, I read this article today and must confess that found difficult to identify variants of this vehicle. The information needs to be structured more clearly, and I'm having a go with this in the next few days. Additionally I found few citations for the amount of information, hence tagged as "refimprove" and reassessed as not meeting B-class criteria. Regards, DPdH (talk) 14:27, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean inline citations as to determine from which source the specific fact is taken from, or better sources in general? 
 BP OMowe (talk • contribs) 12:42, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reassessment - citations & better structure needed 

message: No source for Canadian use is given, and Canadian sites never mention use of the six-tonner. I've flagged that as dubious, but will delete it in a few days if no source given. DMorpheus2 (talk) 19:54, 22 May 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  Deleted today. I suspect the mistake is due to the fact that Canada used a few Vickers Mk VI light tanks. Perhaps someone mistook "Mk VI" for "six tonner", when they are of course completely different vehicles. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 14:22, 25 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canadian use? 

message: The article states that the engine is an Armstrong Siddley Puma, I believe this to be incorrect? The article correctly states also that the engine in the Vickers 6 ton is air cooled and capable of around 90hp. The Puma was a 6 cylinder “water cooled” aircraft engine rated at around 250hp and much to massive to be used in the Vickers 6 ton ( see Wikipedia page on this engine)  The engine in the Vickers was 4 cylinder air cooled and according to David Fletcher of Bovington Tank museum one half of an air cooled V8 previously used in the Vickers medium.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.18.150.29 (talk) 12:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine 

message: Are there any sources confirming use by Nazi Germany? German version of the article mentions that all captured Polish Mark Es were scrapped. This may be another confusion with Vickers Mk VI light tank. NatanStep (talk) 20:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use by Nazi Germany
Talk:M728 Combat Engineer Vehicle

message: From the article:
:In the post-war assessment, many armored unit commanders were in agreement that the engineers needed an M1 Abrams based chassis for heavy breaching and gap crossing equipment to keep pace with the Abrams.
So, did that ever happen?  Are plans in the works?  Was the project dropped?  The article says the M728 CEV was taken out of service after 2000.  What replaced it?  Has any of that been decided, or what?  It really feels like some information is missing here.  Something should be said, even if it's only 'No final determination has yet been made on what vehicle will fill this role in the future.'  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.8.90.128 (talk) 23:27, 24 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Successor 
Talk:Type 97 Chi-Ha medium tank

message: This article has a lot of good information in it, but it needs some references.  For instance, the assertion that the "Japanese sucessfully put air-cooled diesel engines into the practical use for first time in the world in 1934" cries out for verification. Anyone know the source of this fact, or authors/titles of texts from which the information in this article is culled from?  Geeman 21:14, 1 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This article makes it sound like it was Japan's first air-cooled diesel, not the world's first. If it hasn't already been changed, I'll do it sometime today, as I have to be to work shortly. Parsecboy 12:39, 10 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I just changed that. There were M3 light tanks in the Phillipines in 1942. There were no mediums of any type. DMorpheus 14:54, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree, I just flagged it. 800 tanks would be about 16 battalions' worth. IIRC there were four US divisions on Okinawa, so it is likely there were 3-5 tank battalions with them. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:27, 9 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly 800 is too many, but seeing as American tank losses on Okinawa amounted to around 150, the number might be higher than one would figure at first blush. By the way, six American divisions fought on Okinawa, four Army (7th, 96th, 77th, and 27th) and two Marine (1st and 6th) with a seventh (2nd Marine) in reserve.--172.190.68.60 (talk) 07:51, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: According to http://www.history.army.mil/books/wwii/okinawa/appA.htm each division had either an organic or an attached medium tank battalion, plus 20th Armored Group, which would be something like 2 or 3 additional medium tank battalions. So that would come out to about 8 or 9 battalions or 400-450 tanks. --Yaush (talk) 15:21, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Need References 

message: I note that the first line of the references is to the assembly instructions for a /model/ of the tank.203.129.57.221 11:04, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Removed this reference--MChew (talk) 07:24, 28 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suitability of sources
Talk:Wiesel AWC

message: "Protection agianst small arms only" isn't saying the armor thickness. Can someone try to get better information? Thanks.   — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:245:C101:6BCC:0:0:0:382 (talk) 16:59, 17 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: armor description

message: I wonder how come 2.75 ton Wiesel weghts less than 2,680 kg (curb weight) Humvee. --Tigga en (talk) 10:30, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The attached map has the US highlighted as a user, something I missed in the article? 204.106.234.244 (talk) 00:54, 5 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  US listed as a user on map
Talk:FV101 Scorpion

message: I wish I could find a reliable source for this, but one story told at the Bovington Tank Museum is that, while in the Falklands, the commander of one of these jumped out and found himself rapidly sinking into the bog he hadn't realised they'd driven into. Even without wearing an infantry pack, his feet had higher ground pressure than that of the Scorpion. Lovingboth (talk) 12:18, 29 March 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Low ground pressure
Talk:FV102 Striker

message: FV102 Striker is the same vehicle, and seems to be the more well developed article. Hohum (talk) 19:29, 12 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I will start merging now. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 14:00, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Merge complete and talks also moved. Redirects in place. ·Add§hore· Talk/Cont 14:06, 14 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge with FV102 Striker
Talk:FV103 Spartan

message: Details of exports are needed.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:48, 28 March 2010 (UTC)
Talk:FV104 Samaritan

message: Will this be ever more than a stub?  --91.10.23.172 (talk) 11:28, 9 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should be merged 

message: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtNKtCZuf1Q
Although mostly for more detail on carrying capacity.©Geni (talk) 16:46, 19 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Possible source
Talk:Ariete

message: The original article was just the showcase on army-technology.com with an infobox added.  I'll be spending some time today fixing it. \\ 3R1C 21:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Replacing uncited source material

message: With the major cleanup and the addition of an image, I feel that it is worthy of b-class as stated by the Quality Scale \\ 3R1C 21:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I would be inclined to agree with you.  Unfortunately, this article does not meet B-class criteria if only because it's accuracy cannot be confirmed, as it has no citations. JonCatalan 19:30, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Upgraded Class

message: Have just done a general copy-edit of the article and removed the tag. The following needs someone with some knowledge on the subject to reword:
*In addition it provides War Kit And PKO Kit it will be able to reinforce the Front armor and the side Armor with an optional package.
Have also temporarily removed the following paragraph, becuase in its current form it makes absolutely no sense and no general copy-editor can help. If someone can reword this then please put it back in the document. JenLouise 03:13, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copy-edit 
Talk:L6/40 tank

message: 'Production history' says from 1941, but the main text says it was produced from 1939. I would change it myself, but the name of the tank is L6/40, meaning it was adopted in 1940 - not sure if that also means production started that year. Can you fix either the 'production history' section or the main text so that they do not conflict? --KägeTorä - (影虎) (TALK) 17:41, 16 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conflict
Talk:T-70

message: One of the anecdotes provided in this article is a gross distortion of the facts. There was indeed a Hero of the Soviet Union named Pegov who took out two panther tanks, but his name was really Grigoriy Ivanovich Pegov, he was a junior lieutenant (not a sergeant) in the 5th Guards Tank Army, 31st Brigade (not the 3rd Guards), the battle took place in October of 1944 (not February) and he was commanding a platoon of T-34s at the time, not a lone T-70. His crew is indeed credited with knocking out two Panthers, as well as 3 guns, a mortar battery and two half-tracks, capturing 25 other vehicles and wagons, and killing or wounding 150 soldiers and officers of the enemy. He may or may not have used APCR, but it would have been in a different calibre than this wikipedia article insinuates.
Below you will find a photo-facsimile of the decree for his award.
https://podvignaroda.ru/filter/filterimage?path=VS/001/033-0793756-0036/00000470.jpg
https://podvignaroda.ru/?#id=46761542&tab=navDetailManAward
The other story, of Boris Vladislavovich Pavlovich, also turns out to be a story of a T-34 commander and not a T-70.
https://podvignaroda.ru/filter/filterimage?path=VS/124/033-0682526-1583%2b112-1582/00000064.jpg
https://podvignaroda.ru/filter/filterimage?path=VS/124/033-0682526-1583%2b112-1582/00000009.jpg 
142.181.180.123 (talk) 20:22, 22 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  T-70s knocking out Panthers 

message: "Curiously, even after the T-70's production line was redesigned, SU-76 self-propelled guns started to be built with the same unsatisfactory unsynchronized two-engine layout, and all of them were later recalled for factory rebuilding as SU-76Ms"
That is not what the article on the vehicle itself says. It says the original SU-76 had two engines driving a common shaft which caused resonance and mechanical failure. It says nothing about independent engines driving different tracks. It's not clear what it is talking about, but it's obviously not that. Idumea47b (talk) 20:02, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  SU-76M
Talk:Cruiser Mk III

message: Does anyone know if there are surviving examples of the Cruiser? DMorpheus (talk) 14:36, 9 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any surviving examples?

message: I was just looking at the image of Crusier mk III on its article and it appears the main image seems to look exactly like crusier mk IV. A completely different image of Crusier mk III that is a side view of the tank that bears no resembalence to the main image which is the correct crusier mk III can be seen further down the page which makes me almost certain the main image of Crusier mk III is actually crusier mkIV. I have also regularly looked at images of crusiers and I am certain that the main image is crusier mark IV or a13 mk II and not of Crusier mark III or A13 mk I which in my experience has a far less flat turret and is more angled and looks like the side image further down the page.For these reasons at some point when I have time and gotten a bit more experience in wikipedia as I am new I will change the main image of Crusier mk III to what I am certain is the correct image from all the media of the tank I have seen. I realise how people got confused in the tank chat when David fletcher talked about the A13 and somebody thought it was crusier mk III as that is its specification number but the A13 specification number applies to both crusier mk III and IV and the one in the tank chat is definately crusier mk IV and not mk III which is what the page is supposed to be about.If anyone wants to challenge me on this put your post hereAnonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 12:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Main Image of Crusier mk III appears to be of Crusier mk IV 

message: Changed the main article image from the Bovington tank museum Crusier mk IV (which is what I believe it is) To a actual Crusier mk III that was abandoned at Calais probably during operation Dynamo(Dunkirk evacuation). Image came from wiki commons and it was provided to the site by the German federal archive. I hope the new image will avoid confusion between Crusier mk III and IV which I believe would have been the case with the previous image being of Crusier mk IV on the article for Crusier mk IIIAnonymous contributor 1707 (talk) 10:47, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed main article Image
Talk:Humber Pig

message: At the time of the start of 'The Troubles' (c1969/70) the standard APC in use with the British Army was the FV432, but it was regarded as politically 'unacceptable' to use these in NI, as, being tracked, it was thought that the press and other media would undoubtedly have referred-to them as 'tanks', e.g., 'Tanks on the Streets of Northern Ireland...', so it was made a matter of policy that only wheeled AFVs would be deployed - hence the use of the obsolete wheeled Pigs and Saracens. Ian Dunster 16:15, 20 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Northern Ireland Use

message: The article doesn't explain the derivation of the 'Pig' name, which seems an odd choice compared to other British official military vehicle names. Can anyone add info about this? Ef80 (talk) 13:42, 7 April 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Origin of the name
Talk:M103 heavy tank

message: There is (or was) an M103A2 version (Reg No. 233026, MFG 2-65) located in the vehicle extrication training area at Ft. Sam Houston, TX.
I was there and stole the data plate from inside it and am holding it in my hot little hands right now.
Rakkasan (talk) 23:25, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surviving examples 

message: The M58 is just a L1A1 with different ammo 68.117.198.47 (talk) 00:40, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Hm, the Conqueror article says about the L1A1 gun: "'The new, larger-calibre gun design was American, the same as used on the US M103 heavy tank;[5] with separate charge and projectile, as would also be the case in the Chieftain that followed.". And since that is sourced, we should stick with it. Alexpl (talk) 12:23, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Allegedly it's gun was the same one as in Conquerer 

message: According to the article, there was an M103 at the Military Vehicle Technology Foundation. That museum is now closed and many of the vehicles that were there have been moved to another museum.  Did the M103 move to the new museum?  DMarti (talk) 20:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Museum exhibit
Talk:Mark IX tank

message: Article reassessed and graded as start class. --dashiellx (talk) 16:29, 2 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008 

message: "....the world's first specialised armoured personnel carrier (APC)." not so world's "first" "specialised" considering and other constructors of armored personnel carriers before 1917  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 119.235.251.172 (talk) 06:26, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What types are you referring to exactly?--MWAK (talk) 07:47, 18 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  a comment
Talk:Daimler Armoured Car

message: We can now add Iraq to the list of countries which used these vehicles after the Second World War. There is a photo of at least two of them in a parade taken in Baghdad sometime in the late 1940s or early 1950s. This is a photograph that can be found on page 10 of Iraqi Army Equipment 1930-2017 in the Internet Archive. SASH155 (talk) 14:16, 31 July 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Daimler Armored Cars in Iraq
Talk:Humber Armoured Car

message: IMHO the photo shows Mk III, not Mk IV. The original caption on IWM site was Mk III, and the gun mask seem like that of Mk I to III, not like that of Mk IV. Bukvoed (talk) 09:13, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: [[:File:IWM-MH-3709-Humber-Armoured-Car.jpg]] image caption
Talk:AEC Armoured Car

message: Horseguard's Parade is a place, not a ceremony.  Does the author mean that the vehicle was presented on Horseguard's? 87.114.139.108 (talk) 17:26, 21 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  ''During'' Horseguard's Parade? 

message: We appear to be overstating it:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YF4vkZTo3eE
at 2:25 and 7:56 the Chieftain with a tapemeasure suggest 1.25 inch as maximum thickness on the hull and 1.5 on the turret.©Geni (talk) 03:34, 7 January 2024 (UTC)
thread_title: Armour thickness
Talk:Type 87 self-propelled anti-aircraft gun

message: Are there any English-language sources on this system (since this is on the English Wiki)?  Also, there are some dead links here.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dpenn89 (talk • contribs) 07:27, 5 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: The romanization "hati-nana-shiki-jisou-kousya-kikan-hou" is slightly wrong. It should be "hachi-nana-shiki jisou-kousha kikan-hou". (75.65.220.111 (talk) 02:08, 28 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Romanization
Talk:M42 Duster

message: The 500 HP out of a gasoline, aircooled 6 cylinder engine seems a bit ridiculous, I tried researching it and only found private websites with same figure. Modern day 6s do not produce as much power as that without being seriously cooled and tuned. That's my 2 cents.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.198.15.117 (talk) 13:05, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

message: This vehicle doesn't use the hull of the M41 Walker Bulldog, but the hull of it's predecessor, the M24 Chaffee. As the article correctly states, the US Army was phasing out obsolete M24 tanks, but then it wrongly states that the M19 turrets with 40mm guns were mounted on M41 hulls, which makes no sense and is plain wrong. Change it, please. No I don't have any sources, just take a long, good look at the hulls of the M24 and M41, then look back at the M42.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.187.100.141 (talk) 16:51, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I did, the first thing I see is: the Chaffee has its drive wheel at the front, the Walker Bulldog at the rear- same as the M42 (they also have the same exhaust system). Next thing I can compare: the sizes of all 3 tanks. The M24 is narrower and shorter than M41 and M42, which have- surprisingly- the same size. There is a good site in the internet, not a source of course, but good for information anyway: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ Check here again and you will also see that the M24 Chaffee is completely different to the M41/M42. --Peettriple (talk) 10:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  M42 wrong hull 

message: Cannot enter into service before entering production, need a source to determine correct dates for entry into production and entry into service. 
DramaticExit (talk) 00:27, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Entry into service date
Talk:Alecto (SPG)

message: In the past I have seen some mention on forums by an ex-tankie who served with the KDG. 
    'The 1st Kings Dragoon Guards decided in the Western Desert that they needed an SP troop to back up their armoured cars. I believe they received their Alectos in Palestine in early 46 and I had them in Barce (Libya). I know we left them to the 13/18th. Hussars there in early 48 and later were handed over to the 16/5th. Lancers, I guess they were left in Libya, but I have never tracked them down after that, I must have a word with Mr.Gaddafi!!! I do have manual details and pics of the Alecto but probably not good enough to post.The photo below are them at Barce 47/48.
The hard to see pic is from Regimental Journal Jan.47. with two Gun Troop pics.'
      '1st.KDG had Gun Troop in the desert and in Italy to support the armoured cars. Marmons originally. The original Gun Sqd. had French 75mm's mounted in halftracks...They are in fact Alectos of [C Sqn of] the 1st.KDG in the Sea of Gallalee in 47..... Had very loose tracks that steered by wheel movement, came off easily as did the one pictured in Lake Gallalee, had to have LAD tow out.... Been trying for years to see what happened to these unique vehicles, we left them to 13th/18th. at Barce, who left them to 16th/5th Lancers, I suppose Mr Gadaffi got em in the end.... The Alecto's came in early 46 in Palestine, take it from me we had them in service......  I'll find out some pics from our Regt. Magazine of the Alecto's firing a salute for some dignitary....' 
The photos seem to have disappeared, though. Hopefully one day more detail will appear in print. Keith H99 (talk) 12:52, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: King's Dragoon Guards

message: Seriously? ALL tracked vehicles have skid steering, it is the only way to steer with conventional tracks. Why do you think it is called skid steering? Because it involves applying the brake on one side, and forcibly skidding the wheels or tracks onto a new course. The name skid steering is most associated with wheeled vehicles, which are more commonly able to steer conventionally. The fact that this vehicle actually has steerable tracks means they were attempting to design an AFV that didn't use skid steering, which could actually be steered like a wheeled vehicle. I'm going to assume that whoever wrote this has confused turn-in-place ability with the term 'skid steer'. They are not the same thing.
64.223.159.140 (talk) 08:38, 22 April 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Skid steering