Talk:Crusader tank

message: Why? GraemeLeggett 16:30, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Crusader tank is more common and it will put it in line with the other vehicles (Cromwell tank, Churchill tank, Valentine tank... etc.) Oberiko 21:20, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Move/Rename

message: The quoted armour thickness for the MkI and later versions are, I believe, wrong. Both the Crusader and Covenanter were specified to a '30mm armour standard' - a curiously british phrase which specified that the thickness of the armour should be equivelant to a vertical plate 30mm thick. Naturally, an angled plate could be thinner for the same protection and both designs took advantage of the fact. However, both the Covenanter and the MkI Crusader were actually built to a 40mm armour standard and as the front plate of the Crusader I's turret was at a small angle from the vertical it was, roughly 39mm thick whih is quite a bit thicker than the 26mm quoted in the article. The MkIII Crusader had a turret built to a 50mm armour standard and as it's front plate was vertical it was of the full 50mm thickness.
"British and American Tanks of World War TWO" () Chamberlain and Ellis gives maximum armour thickness for the MkI, MkII and MkIII Crusaders as 40mm, 49mm and 51mm respectively.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.213.184.67 (talk) 16:16, 1 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Armour Details

message: Added pic illustrating it, provided rationale in pic's page (in this WP, don't know how to use "Commons"), and added written source for this SPG. Once I can get "physical" access to the mentioned source will try to expand a bit.  Regards, DPdH (talk) 04:59, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Argentinian SPG on Crusader chassis 

message: Other than UK and Argentina (the local SPG version), which other countries have used this tank, and when? Shouldn't there be a section explaining this?  Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 05:08, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Users of this AFV? 

message: I don't know enough wiki syntax, correct links and names to files and such; but I'm 100% sure that Wikipedia's style says that the Canadian flag in operators should be the old Red Ensign used before 1967. Can someone fix it? 96.54.76.154 (talk) 23:36, 12 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor Issue, please help 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Crusader tank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080331201042/http://www.wwiiequipment.com/crusader.aspx to http://www.wwiiequipment.com/crusader.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 01:06, 15 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I get why the work (August 2017) has been done to align the photo's with the correct section, and a lot of work has clearly gone into it.  Unfortunately it's added a lot of white space, which (on the mobile platform at least) doesn't look great.  In some cases it takes a lot of scrolling.  I don't want to arbitrarily undo this without chatting it through here though, so can we discuss whether the captions alone are adequate to ID the photo's, or whether they also need to be aligned with the section that mentions them.  Lkchild (talk) 20:14, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: Keep the positioning. It looks fine for me on the mobile site, from a PC, a phone and a tablet. Whitespace isn't toxic. Andy Dingley (talk) 20:27, 22 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Picture edits 

message: . 129.126.35.155 (talk) 02:30, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bro what happened to the page