Talk:Renault R35

message: From Moshe Givati - In their hands the steel was tempered [MoD 1998, p 38, 42]: 5 Syrian R-35s took part in the attack on Degania. All were disabled by PIAT rounds (so the defenders did have some AT weapons) and Molotov cocktail. One, hit by Molotov cocktail, was in a particularly poor state and was left where it was stopped (eventually the tank became monument; there are photos here: http://www.degania.org.il/eng/tour3.htm). One more was brought to kibbutz Mizra where an attemt was made to repair it. When the attempt failed, the tank was mounted on a heavy truck and was used in an attack on Meggido from the truck platform. The remaining three were brought to the Haganah workshop in Tel Litvinski (Tel HaShomer). One of those was quickly repaired, others "were disassembled and needed more work" (?). Later Givati mentions that the 8th Armored Brigade (82th battalion, light tanks company) had R-35(s) just before Operation Danny (July 1948), although doesn't say how many and if the tank(s) actually saw combat. 
According to Oleg Granovskiy - Names, Designations and Service Figures of IDF Armored Vehicles (Russian; http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/Armor/1948-1952_tanks.html), 2-3 tanks were adopted, all were retired in 1952. 
The tank in Latrun is not one of the captured Syrian ones, it was received from a French museum. The tablet near the tank says two Syrian tanks were captured (perhaps it means that two were used / adopted / made operational ?) Bukvoed 18:32, 10 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been told that the tank was shipped from Israel to the Musée des Blindés, having battle damage — I've seen it myself with the engine deck ripped open by an explosion, damage which I associated with the Degania fight — and was restored by the French in exchange for some Israeli materiel. But maybe I was misinformed.--MWAK 10:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... may be I was wrong... Where did this information come from ? Anyway, I'll try to check. Bukvoed 11:58, 11 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: From the officer showing me the tank. But perhaps he falsely assumed it came from Israel. Or perhaps donating a tank to Israel is alright, while openly restoring an Israeli tank would be too much of an involvement, given the political sensitivities :o).--MWAK 08:28, 12 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Saumur museum staff seemed quite happy to organize a special exhibit when they got their Merkava MkI - which I guess it arrived at the same time as the upgunned R35, in Spring 2004. PpPachy 15:32, 7 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Which upgunned R35 are you referring to, exactly?--MWAK 08:22, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  This one: http://www.wistiti.fr/Wistiti/FR_fr/asp/album/Album-photo-Galerie.asp?album=edbaaEFBT110520VMQYD&page=15 PpPachy 10:32, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Very interesting :o).--MWAK 17:43, 8 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: R35 in the IDF

message: So I'm thinking, might it be a good idea to merge Renault R40 into this page?  It seems to me that the R40 was a limited production variant of the main R35.  Also, the R40 article has no information in it that Renault R35#R40 and Projects doesn't have.  Howicus (talk) 04:58, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is certainly true that the R 40 was a limited production variant of the R 35. However, that is not very relevant within the mandatory policy about such issues, which is that of the Wikipedia:Summary style. In essence, the subject meets the notability criteria. And, contrary to what you state, the R 40 article does contain information not in the R 35 section of the parent article, one of the reasons it is about four times as long. Also the absolute length is sufficient. So in principle there should be a R 40 article. It is very likely that more information could be added, as there is much on-going research regarding French tanks. Furthermore, merging will with near certainty cause future users to again create a separate R 40 article, which then would have to be merged again, &c. &c. Stability is much served by the present situation.--MWAK (talk) 07:56, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merge r40? 

message: "I'd like to thank François Vauvillier for his clarification: we are honoured to be informed on this subject by a man who is generally recognised as one of the most distinguished experts in this field of knowledge! It is of course highly recommended to read Histoire de Guerre, Blindés & Matériel, if only because it is the most gorgeously laid-out and illustrated military magazine in the world!" - MWAK (talk) 13:11, 8 November 2011 
"Écartons bien sûr l'appellation <<FT 17>> qui n'a jamais existé dans aucun document militaire ou industriel français de l'époque et qui est, définitivement, à proscrire." - François Vauvillier, Guerre, Blindés, Matériel No. 99, January 2012.
Times change 
A while ago there was a perhaps unnecessarily long discussion about the name of the Renault and how it should be described on Wikipedia, bearing in mind that many people call it by a name that it was never given. The outcome was that it was decided, eventually and despite some unhelpful interventions, to call the article by the correct name and direct anyone who might use the wrong name to it, where they would learn the error of their ways. I think this is fine, because I want an encyclopaedia to provide me with facts, not tell me what a lot of people mistakenly believe. But that might be just me.
I infer from the removal of the word "or" that MWAK accepts that the use of it created an ambiguity. I notice, though, that he wishes to continue the use of "FT 17" on the grounds of its "still being the most commonly used name." Are there reliable sources for that assertion, or is it merely a suspicion of his own? We really require verifiability if we are to base our actions on such statements. It might be that, thanks to the Renault FT article on Wikipedia,  "FT 17" is now no longer the most commonly used name. Wikipedia has many mirrors.
If, however, the view persists that "FT 17" is the preferred appelation, then there are quite a few sites that require returning to the status quo ante. Hengistmate (talk) 15:15, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel you are confusing two separate issues here. We might agree that it is in general preferable to use the designation "Renault FT", as this is more formally correct and clearly a convention is establishing itself in the technical literature to refer to the type in this way. However, such formality should not become a vehicle for a desire to condition people to use the "right" name. The business of Wikipedia is not to educate people, merely to inform them. As there probably exists a not inconsiderable group of readers who know about the "FT 17" but are unsure what a "Renault FT" might be, simple clarity demands an explanation. You seem unwilling to tolerate the very mention of the term FT 17, even when its incorrectness is highlighted! Such sensitivity does not constitute a valid argument for removal :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:16, 29 October 2014 (UTC)

text: Yes, but the central point here is that by putting FT 17 in scare quotes, "FT 17", we already make abundantly clear that this designation is informal. What better way to point out that FT 17 is less correct? Now I don't claim that FT 17 is more commonly used; but we have to keep the simple fact in mind that it is commonly used, the very reason, after all, you are crusading against it ;o). Given that blatant truth, there are undoubtedly numerous readers who will benefit from a little clarification. What could possibly be against it? The analogy with the Mary Celeste and Reliant Robin fails because the "correct" name is so close to the usual one that any ambiguity is lacking. This is certainly not so in the case of the Renault FT which, we should admit to ourselves, is still a rather obscure concept.--MWAK (talk) 21:17, 25 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  FT/FT17?