Talk:Schneider CA1

message: Any reason why Great War is used instead of World War I'? •Jim62sch•dissera! 18:24, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, it's a concept contemporary to the tank itself. The lead section is about to be rewritten, and I'll then add the term First World War.--MWAK (talk) 05:32, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: ?

message: There are some points User John and I have disagreed on. I'll give my interpretation of each issue:
#"Cancelled" versus "annulled": I still think the latter term is to be preferred from a purely legal point of view, even though there is a strong association with the annulment of a marriage. However, "cancelled" is acceptable. But the "hereby" is necessary: the later order replaced the older one. Perhaps we can agree on "was hereby replaced" or "this replaced the original order".
#"the War Ministry ordered the secret production" versus "the War Ministry secretly ordered the production": well, indeed the production too was as far as possible to be kept a secret, but one of the means of assuring this was to keep the order itself a secret. Only gradually it was divulged to other cabinet members and selected members of parliament.
#"and Schneider chose the shorter design" versus "afterwards a choice was made for the shorter type designed by Schneider": the point is here that, although Schneider could in principle have made a choice of its own accord, a consensus was reached to produce the shorter Schneider design.
#"Estienne's decisive rôle in getting the Schneider vehicle produced in mass has earned him a traditional position in history as the creator of the first French tank, although there had been a long prior development phase with the Schneider company; in January 1916 the project was entrusted to a ministerial bureau headed by General Léon Augustin Jean Marie Mourret, director of the Army automobile service. Mourret did not closely cooperate with Estienne, who was excluded from decisions of a technical nature." versus "Estienne's decisive rôle in getting the Schneider vehicle produced in mass has earned him a traditional position in history as the creator of the first French tank, but his actual involvement in its technical design was limited for not only had there been a long prior development phase with the Schneider company, already in January 1916 the actual completion was entrusted to a ministerial bureau headed by General Léon Augustin Jean Marie Mourret, director of the Army automobile service. Mourret did not closely cooperate with Estienne, who was basically excluded from decisions of a technical nature.": the source emphasises that the technical involvement of Estienne has been limited, that this was caused by his essentially (not formally) losing control of the actual design of the prototype as early as January 1916, and that this puts into perspective the importance traditionally assigned to him. My sentence is awkward but tried to express these causal relations. Perhaps we can replace it by "Although there had been a long prior development phase with the Schneider company, Estienne's decisive rôle in getting the Schneider vehicle produced in mass has earned him a traditional position in history as the creator of the first French tank. This is put into perspective by his limited involvement in its technical design; as early as January 1916 the actual completion was entrusted to a ministerial bureau headed by General Léon Augustin Jean Marie Mourret, director of the Army automobile service. Mourret did not closely cooperate with Estienne, who was essentially excluded from decisions of a technical nature."--MWAK (talk) 13:51, 2 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Some matters of dispute

message: Something that occurs to me is that the Schneider isn't actually, by the definition in Wikipedia and elsewhere, a tank. It's somewhere between an armoured fighting vehicle and a self-propelled gun. Come to that, the same applies to the Saint-Chamond, the A7V, . . . and all the British "tanks" of 1916-18. What should we do about that? Hengistmate (talk) 09:19, 17 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Nothing, the sources all call them tanks.GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:27, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Well, definitions are conventional and change through time. They cannot be "correct" or "incorrect", they can only be "current" or "incurrent". As an encyclopedia, we can't decide what definitions are reasonable, we can only reflect how they were applied at some time. Several sources make the point that the Schneider CA isn't a tank in the modern sense so we have to report that. It is also true that it is generally called the first French tank, so we report that too. Of course, there can be legitimate differences in emphasis between which to choose. If we first simply call it "the first French tank" and then explain that it is an assault gun by modern standards but for historical reasons has kept the status of tank, would that be acceptable to you?--MWAK (talk) 21:18, 12 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text:  And yet......Stridsvagn 103 is a tank....   DMorpheus2 (talk) 21:25, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

text: That definitions change is not something I propagate; it's a simple fact :o). But you are right that applying a modern concept would always be anachronistic in some respect and that it might be inappropriate to highlight it in the lead. Furthermore, as DMorpheus2 pointed out, there are in fact two modern definitions, one based on the construction of the tank, whether it has a turret or not, the other on its tactical function, whether a tracked vehicle is the main direct fire weapon system within its organisation. In view of that ambiguity, I'll make an attempt to adjust both lead and main text.--MWAK (talk) 05:59, 13 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: All fair. Thanks for your time and flexibility. This does raise a flag for me re something that might need further scrutiny; ie the various modern definitions of what a tank is. One thing I am certain of is that any definition of "tank" that does not embrace all AFVs that we know to be tanks prior its drafting is wrong or at least incomplete. --Chanelek (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Bit of a snag.

message: I think that Touzin is either wrong or misquoted here. Schneider and Renault declined to support Boirault and would not participate in or supply vehicles for his trials. Boirault's drawings show a completely new tank, designed by FAMH (Saint-Chamond) with double tracks and what appear to be 75s in turrets. His idea was for an amphisbaenic vehicle with a central power plant and tanks coupled at either end. When costs became prohibitive, he drew up an alternative using three existing or modified Saint-Chamonds. Malmassari covers it in some detail, and has made scale models of both designs. Hengistmate (talk) 11:45, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I can't recall this. Where exactly has Malmassari written about it?--MWAK (talk) 12:53, 26 February 2015 (UTC)

text: Good catch! I'll update the article immediately.--MWAK (talk) 15:16, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Boirault's 1917 Experiments. 

message: This is a bit of a rerun of Section 3 above, but it's been raised again by the exchange of edits on June 2nd & 3rd. It is true that the definition of "tank" on Wikipedia is a vehicle with, amongst other things, a revolving turret, caterpillar tracks, and a large gun. At the same time, many Wikipedia articles describe as "tanks" vehicles that are missing one or more of those components, including almost all First World War "tanks". That contradiction requires clarification. IMO an explanation such as MWAK's should be a footnote in all articles about "tanks" that are outside the modern definition. Otherwise, Wikipedia would be contradicting itself, and that would never do. Hengistmate (talk) 22:30, 3 June 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, apart from Wikipedia's coherence ;o), it is simply a point many books make and a relevant aspect. But perhaps there are good reasons not to mention this aspect. I invite user Chanelek to discuss them here so that we can reach consensus.--MWAK (talk) 06:53, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

text: He might a Frenchman who feels offended that the first French tank is demoted to a mere AFV :o). Quite possibly he isn't even aware of the talk page or the 3R rule. I'll invite him more directly.--MWAK (talk) 20:00, 4 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tanks or not. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion:
* 
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commons files used on this page or its Wikidata item have been nominated for deletion