Talk:Tanks in World War II

message: So all the British tanks are woeful death-traps, but the American tanks were amazing considering their development?? If you can find a single Sherman gunner who enjoyed facing any German tank with his pea-shooter, I'd love to meet him. VonBlade (talk) 19:04, 11 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I've just undone this paste by user:66.50.42.162, which appeared to be the text of German tanks in World War II pasted straight into here. Good faith maybe, but duplication isn't good encyclopedic authoring or editing. Nor was it sourced. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:17, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paste of [[German tanks in World War II]] 

message: I think this page has an incorrect title. In no way shape or form can this page carry the title "Tanks in WWII"
It might at a stretch carry the title "US Tanks in WWII" but without any mention at all of German, Russian and British, and to a lesser extent French, Italian and Japanese tanks then its nothing like what the title claims it to be.
I accept that its up to other contributors to add to the article but as it stands the titale needs changing.
Jonewer (talk) 18:07, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect title 

message: I think that the idea of telling a dozen of separate stories in one article is flawed. Obviously this article should be split into: Polish tanks in World War II, French tanks in World War II, etc. The best idea that comes to my mind right now about Tanks in World War II is a complete re-write, with a section about each campaign. This is the only way to actually tell the reader an interesting story - how the tank designs compared, how the strategies compared, how they fought tactically, what was the outcome, how the shocking discovery of e.g. KV-1 prompted introduction of Tiger, etc, etc. --Kubanczyk (talk) 00:06, 25 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I oppose a simple split. We might move content out into those articles, but we need to keep one single central article for Tanks in World War II, as it's an important topic. I'd agree that this current article isn't it though. The best way to achieve this will be to start with a blank-sheet concept for what that structure ought to be, then building that article - using as much of this as practical, but not forcing the re-use of something just "because it's there". If the idea of deleting great chunks is unappealing, paste diifs to these deletions on the talk: page. Anyone writing the sub articles can then find and re-use it. Andy Dingley (talk) 00:12, 25 January 2011 (UTC)

text: Nice bit of griping, but can you be any more specific? I certainly don't read this article as any whitewash about US tanks being any better than they were. As I assume that you're not in your 80s and you appear to be posting from an IP address in neutral Ireland, I wonder just how you lost your "tank virginity"? Andy Dingley (talk) 01:53, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Awful structure 

message: Per 92.251.222.149's comments re American tanks.
US tanks were designed and produced differently to those of Germany, the UK or the USSR - production was everything, not design. A known-bad design would be built, because it could be built (immediately and in volume), rather than waiting for something better. The M3 used a sponson-mounted main gun because this was the only way to produce a 75mm main gun tank in that timescale. The M4 was barely changed in response to its combat experience. Where it was changed was either to make use of available engines or to streamline production. The only real change as an improvement in performance was the Firefly, a British development. Combat experience was largely ignored deliberately, because it was recognised that this would affect production, and quantity was everything.  As the article says, given the poor starting conditions for the US, and how early on their final design was produced (the M4 was even in production in time for Tunisia, then spent the two years to Berlin with no significant improvement (ammo storage was about the only one)).
German, UK & USSR designs changed frequently, in response to changing conditions and knowledge gained. The Germans developed new designs, the Soviets improved, the British did the best they could with what they had. The best analogue to the US design process would be some of the British designs, the Challenger conversion and the Valiant, where inexperienced designers (typically railway heavy mechanical engineers) cooked up flawed designs that were even worse than usual. The M4 wasn't perfect, but it was no Valiant! In contrast, the Soviets had pencils but no spare manufacturing, so they designed good tanks because they couldn't afford to build anything that was less than good. British cludging even managed to make a useful tank out of the Churchill (after innumerable variants) and by the time of the victory parade the ghastly Cruiser had given rise to the excellent Comet. Andy Dingley (talk) 02:27, 11 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The vast majority of this article should be about the employment of tanks at the operational level, not the technical aspects of tanks themselves. There is nothing in the article about this.--92.251.128.18 (talk) 06:37, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  The design, production and availability of tanks in WW2 is inseparable from their service history - especially so for the British, who were hampered so much by the poor design quality of their tanks. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:33, 12 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  American tanks 

message: Removed this "The M36 Jackson with the powerful 90 mm gun also entered service in the fall of 1944 and could penetrate the glacis of a Panther at 600 meters." from the US section. It was in the middle of the M4 part of the article and did not seem to fit in well there. Also there are no other references to Tank Destroyers in the US Section. There are numerous statements in the US section that need citation. As a very new editor, I dont feel comfortable putting that many tags at one time.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ThreeSidedGolem (talk • contribs) 16:47, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  US Section Minor Edit 

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 16:45, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:T28 15.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: An image used in this article, , has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests May 2012 
;What should I do?
Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.
* If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
* If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant 
This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: File:Russischer t37.jpg Nominated for Deletion

message: I removed these gallery due to cluttering. 
File:T34 2.jpg|T-34 Model 1942 s ekranami (Russian for "with screens"), with appliqué armour welded to the hull, near Leningrad, 1942.
File:T-34-rocket-launcher-France.jpg|T-34 rocket launcher in France.
File:Hamburg Liberation 04.jpg|Sherman Firefly of British 7th Armoured Division in Hamburg, 4 May 1945.
File:Ronson flame tank Iwo Jima.jpg|A M4A3R3 used by the USMC during the Battle of Iwo Jima.
(MrNiceGuy1113 (talk) 17:26, 2 September 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Remove

message: This seems to be a serious aspect that has had too little attention.  One of the best WW II stories I have heard from a veteran was that the gun control on American tanks could be used to compensate for lighter armor and guns compared to some German tanks.  He said that he drove up and down hills and they fired on the move.  The German tanks, he said, had a crank for gun elevation and power only for turret rotation.  He said the American tank had a stabilized gun and could shoot while moving.
The B29 bomber had electronic (apparently analogue vacuum tube) sights for its remote machine guns, with stabilization and target lead calculation.  The target lead may be less important in a land vehicle (It was not introduced in the Bradley until the A3 version.) but stabilization is even more important, so the statement that late WW II US tanks had stabilized main guns is quite credible.
But I don't see anything written about it, either here or elsewhere.
David R. Ingham (talk) 03:04, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: US tanks certainly adopted stabilization early on (I think the M3 Grant was the first to see combat, with UK forces in the Western Desert). The value of this extra complexity was questioned, and defended, for the rest of the war. The idea of shooting "up hill and down dale" was certainly discussed, and might even have had some importance for the first US forces into Tunisia. In the desert though, many of the major battles were fought on the flat. In France and Germany, this type of cross-country driving was risky in a slow tank, as it meant losing some of the advantage of cover. What probably made more difference though was the rate of turret traverse. The Tiger's heavy turret made it infamously slow, even under power, and this certainly changed tactics. If stabilization really mattered, it was probably for the US high-speed tank destroyers and light tanks (lighter than a Sherman, thus faster). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:58, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gun and turret stabilization and drive 

message: Changed the calibre of the gun from 77mm to 76.2mm. If i'm wrong on this matter, please let me know, as this may have been the conversion in context, or some other matter that I am unaware of. Bayley Sherlock (talk) 18:02, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: You're correct, the previous value may have been due to confusion with the related Ordnance 77 mm HV as fitted to Comet. The 77mm was also 76.2mm - the name was chosen for differentiation GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:26, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ordnance QF 17 Pounder anti-tank gun 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:16, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion