Talk:Renault FT

message: The article states "The tank was widely used by the French and the Americans during the latter part of WW1". Does anybody know where and when the FT-17 was used in WW1?   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.8.85 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Basically in all major battles fought by the French in France after 31 May 1918, most notably the Battle of Soissons (1918) (not much of an article, that one...). I'll add some detail and numbers.--MWAK (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Where and when used?

message: I recall a rumor that in the 1970s, they found an FT-17 in Afganistan, where it was still used by some local warlord's private gang of thugs. Does anyone know if there's any truth to the myth? --Agamemnon2 22:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some FT-17s are present in Afghanistan. Their origin is uncertain. Very probably four were exported by France in the early thirties, which would explain how they escaped the official export lists of the twenties. Two of them, complete wrecks by then, were removed from Kabul, where they had served as monuments, to Fort Knox (Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor) by the Americans after their intervention of 2001. See http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/afghanistan/AFG-FT17-2-27-03FW.pdf-- That any of these vehicles would still have been operational in the seventies, seems highly unlikely. MWAK 05:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The last FT-17

message: Indeed, the very production was made a weapon in itself: a goal was set of 12,260 to be produced (4,440 of which in the USA) before the end of 1919.
This sentence makes no sense to me. Any suggestions on how to improve it? Does anyone know when this goal was set?
I think it should be changed to
A goal was set (in date or early/late 191X) to build 12,260, 4,440 of them by the United States,before the end of 1919.
Be Bold In Edits (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll change the sentence to make it more understandable and will try to determine the date of the decision, which is indeed of importance. But remember: though you should be bold, the headings should not ;o).--MWAK (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Service History - Made A Weapon in Itself ?¿?

message: *For many years an FT-17 was displayed in front of the Alexandria, Virginia Union Train Station, remaining there through at least the 1980s.  Does anyone know the disposition of this tank? Mark Sublette (talk) 03:31, 27 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Where did the tank go?

message: On 31 january 2011 I added the United Kingdom in the list of nations that used the Renault FT operationally. This is based on note n° 24387/GQG of 19 september 1919 to the Senatorial Army commission. It mentions that 24 Renault FT tank were delivered to the British Army.
In the same edit I removed the German Empire as to this date no published source have found any conclusive evidence of it being used operationally by the German Imperial Army. That captured examples were used for instruction as been mentioned, but there's still absolutely no record of combat service.
On 24 February I reverted an edited that added Canada to the list of users. The Canadian Army had no armoured units until 1930, and to this date I haven't found any mention of Renault FT tanks being delivered to it. As a note the Tank Corps did support the Canadian Corps on the Western Front in 1918 (notably at Amiens), but the Tank Corps is part of the British Army. Regards Don Durandal (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Service history: users

message: "Studies on the production of a new light tank were started in May 1916 by the famous car producer Louis Renault, for no apparent reason other than his wish to involve steel tycoon Paul Thomé in his business schemes."
This is not my understanding of Thomé's involvement. He had previously manufactured for Renault some aero-engine cylinder heads in cast iron that had proved superior to Renault's own. According to Thomé's diary, the two met after Renault had persuaded Colonel J-B. Estienne of the advisability of a small, light Tank, and Estienne had already placed an order. Renault asked Thomé if, in the light of his previous experience, he would be able to produce cast iron parts for the new vehicle since Renault did not have the capacity at his own foundry. Thomé agreed, and a company was set up with Renault taking a 60% share and Thomé's company ploughing back the 75,000 francs that Renault had paid him for the aero parts. It was simply a case of outsourcing parts that Renault could not produce in sufficient quantity for an order that had already been agreed.
Renault seems to have been working on a light tank before his second meeting with Estienne. Estienne was still pursuing the idea of tanks of a similar weight to the Schneider and Saint-Chamond, around 14 tons. Renault's insistence on a lighter vehicle appears to have been based on his view that no engine existed that would provide the necessary power/weight ratio for a medium tank. Some of Estienne's reports talk of a design for a light tank already in existence at Renault. Of course, the choice of a light tank would have tactical implications on the battlefield. To state that Renault's motivation was purely to benefit Thomé is far-fetched. Estienne was already considering some kind of command/reconnaissance tank, based on the Schneider CA.
Hengistmate (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, but from the account in Jeudy's Chars de France one gets the impression that Renault and Thomé had had a previous business contact in which Renault asked, for general purposes, to acquire Thomé's innovative cast steel (not simply iron) method but was put off by the latter's demand for a large personal remuneration. When becoming involved in several French armour projects in the Spring of 1916 — he was asked to develop another medium/heavy vehicle on the lines of the Schneider/ St Chamond — Renault would have realised that by involving Thomé, appealing to his patriotic feelings, in a joint venture to produce light tanks he basically could obtain the technique for free by making a profitable investment. Certainly, Renault's main motive was not to benefit Thomé :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Damn, rereading it, I notice what mistake I had made: I read autrement instead of autrefois, assuming the 75,000 gold franc had never been paid...And you're right about the fonte malléable also, the correct translation is malleable iron. The entire development history of the type needs to be rewritten and expanded.--MWAK (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

text: Wikipedia has many mirrors; they will change with it. You can remove the incorrect clause; in any case, I'm now annoyed enough with the shortcomings of the article to start making the changes pretty soon :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Thomé's Involvement 

message: Having read this article very carefully, I would suggest the following amendments:
Service History: there is evidence that FTs were used after 1945, perhaps as late as the 1950s.
Production History: I think that Louis Renault should be credited along with Ernst-Metzmaier as designer.
Variants: I would distinguish between "variants" and "derivatives" (e.g. Fiat 3000).
Estienne: "the 'Father of the Tanks'" implies that he is universally acknowledged as such, wheres it is a predominantly French appelation.
radiator fan belt and cooling system problems were not confined to early models. I suggest this be altered or noted elsewhere.
Estienne's "swarm" theory was the result of Renault convincing him of the value of the light tank. He had originally been in favour of what would be termed Medium Tanks by the standards of the day.
Afghanistan: It is not thought that the Afghan FTs were bought from France. They were, more likely, a gift from the USSR. AFAIK there is no record of their use in combat by Afghanistan.
Variants: mention of the BS and TSF is repeated. Again, I would distinguish between variants and derived designs. The U.S. M1917 was a near-copy, not a copy. Numerous other late-War and post-War variants are not listed here (e.g. bulldozer, cargo carrier, fascine carrier, bridgelayer, searchlight carrier).
Surviving Vehicles: I am not sure that the fate of the Afghan FTs is accurately described here, and am happy to investigate further.
I await the consensus.
Hengistmate (talk) 00:21, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Most of these proposed changes seen unproblematic to me. Especially completing a list of variants would be a much-needed addition because recently much has been published about these. However, remember that information about the post-1945 use and the fate of the Afghan vehicles must be based on some secondary sources. It should not reflect completely new discoveries about the course of history by yourself alone! :o) You can always recount the essentials here, on the talk page ;o). That certain versions are mentioned both in the running text and in a list should not be changed. Ideally, the reader should be informed of the full content by normal narrative and lists should only subsume this.--MWAK (talk) 15:55, 12 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Some Drastic Revision

message: Silverfang77 has added some details about the U.S. M1917 in Canadian service. Since the M1917 is a variant of the FT, and has an article of its own in which the Canadian service is described, I would suggest that Silverfang's addition is unnecessary. I propose to remove it. Hengistmate (talk) 21:09, 29 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: unnecessary? The m1917 article is the place for detail coverage of Canadian use of that version of the Ft17. However there is no reason not to mention briefly that the US built tanks where not for US use alone. Consider it in the same form as a summary of a child article with a link to the full story. II recommend leaving it but polish the addition for stylistic match with the rest of the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 30 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  M1917 in Canadian service. 

message: Whoa, whoa, whoa. Whilst I'm a great believer in improving matters, and some of the syntax and grammar needed tickling up, this is rather over the top. In particular, the new version ignores Estienne's initial opposition to the FT, and also implies that he was Commander-in-Chief, which he wasn't. Some explanation of who Rodolphe Ernst-Metzmaier was is required. The chronology of the turret designs now has been confused. The sentence about use by France and the USA now implies that the latter used FTs from May 1918, which isn't correct. The line about the Fiat 3000 now includes a misplaced participle. The structure of the section on nomenclature was very carefully considered. After a lengthy discussion (see above) it was agreed that Wikipedia's ethos was best served if the misconception was first stated and then refuted. The alterations have changed the emphasis. The paragraph describing the change of name from mitrailleur to mitrailleuse is integral, and should not have been removed. The insertion of dashes before and after the reference to Estienne is grammatically unnecessary and, in any event, a dubious device.
Some of the punctuation has probably benefitted, and the syntax was a little "continental" in places, but the major edits have impaired rather than improved the article. Hengistmate (talk) 22:57, 16 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Copyeditting is first of all an attempt to improve form and style. Inadvertently factual errors can slip in; there is of course no objection to correcting these. I intend to considerably expand the French World War I tank articles and hope to remove all concerns.--MWAK (talk) 11:04, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

text: I was attempting to clean up the prose, as the article was tagged for copy edit. I do not have access to the sources. If you have spotted some factual errors please feel free to correct them.  -- Dianna (talk) 14:29, 17 April 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: As a point of interest, there is some peacocking and I am not sure that the description of the first revolving turret is clear enough; as it can mislead readers into thinking this was the first to use them, rather than just being the first to have a 360 degree rotation (Burstyn and others had designed tanks with rotating turrets). Chaosdruid (talk) 02:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits: 16th April, 2012. 

message: Not really sure why I should have to do this, but here we go. In the matter of a citation, the curious thing is that I and the anonymous editor 68.185.89.83 are offering the same source - French Tanks of World War I by Steve Zaloga (2010). The difference is that I am quoting what the source says, whereas the other party isn't. This is a difficult one; if someone offers a genuine source but misquotes or misrepresents it, how are we to know? Anyway, we are not faced with that problem, because the relevant details can be read here. The sequence of turrets is explained fully, as it is in most reputable works on the subject.  Mr. Zaloga's book is not without its errors, but he's correct on this one. A very nice chronology can be found on p34 of Tank Zone 6, Aug-Sept 2009, pub. Histoire et Collections. It is by Francois Vauvillier, who has already intervened to correct some misapprehensions connected with the article under discussion. It follows the sequence from the simple cylinder of the mock-up to the Girod, in the order as it appeared in the Wiki article before 68.185.89.83 began to alter it.
I'll leave it for a while so everyone can be satisfied, above all Mr. Dingley, and then we can get back to the historically accurate version. When time permits, I'll supply the correct information about the wooden idler wheels. Hengistmate (talk) 11:55, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: You don't "have to do it", you could simply have edited the article to fix the problem, rather than edit-warring around it and bloviating here on the talk page as to why it's so terrible that you're being asked to provide sources and why it's all a dreadful confederacy of dunces against you.  I've now made the simple sourced edit that either of you could have made some time ago. Andy Dingley (talk) 12:28, 18 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turrets 

message: We're having a few problems with this anonymous editor's participation. In under a month he's made something like 120 edits to an article that didn't seem to have much wrong with it in the first place. Much of it seems to be tinkering with the grammar, without necessarily adding any new information or improving readability. In fact, a good deal of it seems to be overelaboration of already perfectly agreeable English. Whilst matters of style and limits of content might be a question of opinion, more of a problem is the introduction of an increasing amount of misinformation. We've already had to go to a lot of trouble to sort out the questions of the turrets and the idler wheels, just to preserve the article's integrity. There's a lot of other stuff that is silly/unnecessary/wrong/unsupported. For example: Of importance and as a significant improvement over previous WW-1 tanks, the radiator's fan pulled all its air from the forward compartment thus providing the crew with constant ventilation ... That sentence is a garbled reference to Mourret's claim that the crew would asphyxiate, and Renault and Ernst-Metzmaier's explanation that the fan would draw in fresh air from the outside. But the same thing happened with the British Mks I-IV - it wasn't unique to the FT.
The person responsible for these changes has, so far, chosen not to create an account, so communication is rather limited. But this torrent of dubious edits is threatening the article's authority. In view of the sometimes slightly peculiar grammar, often poor punctuation, and interest in French military matters, I'm not even convinced that English is this person's first language. Certainly, edits need to be scrutinized more rigorously and citations demanded on a much more regular basis or this hard-won article will descend into nonsense. Hengistmate (talk) 00:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits by 68.185.89.83 

message: A part of archives shown here: http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Pages-d-Histoire-Artillerie/Artillerie-Speciale-chars-d-assaut/artillerie-speciale-formees-sujet_1472_1.htm is of interest in that it shows a contemporary use of the designation "Renault 1917". And a Schneider 1916 :o). --MWAK (talk) 15:20, 4 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Renault 1917

message: Mr Hengismate. Removing evidence that does not fit early misconceptions is just not professional. Sorry. We can and should do better than that. You do not own the French FT site. No one does. We are just trying to be accurate and documented. I once served in the French military and much later, became a personal friend of the legendary late colonel Aubry who made the Musee des Blides what it is today. Regards.   Gerard Demaison .  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.133.142 (talk) 20:03, 20 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Indeed, with sufficient documentation it should be possible to reach a consensus. In this respect I would like to point out this diagram in the Renault FT manual: http://po2260.perso.sfr.fr/FT17/Manuel%20du%20FT/MPFT17-PPlan01.jpg It is of the preseries, as shown by the early-style turret. In the top drawing we see in side view the structure of the wooden elements of the climbing wheel. What the inner structure of this wheel was, is revealed by the bottom drawing. In the left suspension a cross-section of the wheel is shown. It is apparently made of solid wood with the bolts going all the way through, connecting the circular outer attachment plate with the inner plate. There is no indication of any inner steel structure with spokes; this seems to be introduced with later wheel versions, completely made of steel.--MWAK (talk) 05:35, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Idler Debate Continues, Unnecessarily. 

message: I fear that this is a mistranslation and misunderstanding of the French phrase chenilles prenantes. Prenant means "gripping," in both the literal and figurative sense. In the case of the Renault FT, the expression is not used to describe the track assembly protruding in front of the vehicle and thus "getting a grip" on parapets and so on. It was not a novel concept - the British heavy and medium tanks were all constructed in such a way that the tracks preceded the body of the vehicle. The reason for the specific mention of this aspect in numerous descriptions is that the individual track shoes on the FT "gripped" - that is to say that they had a lip that bit into the ground - rather than merely spread the weight. That was not a feature of the French Saint-Chamond or of the British tanks. In fact, experiments were carried out with fittings that attached to the tracks of the Saint-Chamond, British Mks II and IV, and Medium Mk A in an attempt to increase the grip. The prototype of the Schneider CA had ordinary Holt track shoes, but the "gripping" type were introduced before series production began. How and when this happened is still being researched. The problem with both the Schneider and Saint-Chamond was that the body protruded ahead of the tracks, whilst in the FT it was vice-versa. However, that is not the distinction that the expression chenilles prenantes is making. Citation: Renault FT by Pascal Danjou, Editions Du Barbotin, 2009. Page 13. Hengistmate (talk) 11:37, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Protruding tracks." 

message: As for the "alternative theory" - I do not deny that Lt. Bursztyn's "Motorgeschütz" was an interesting project, especially for its time - but it was merely project, not an existing vehicle, and it had no direct influence on subsequent development of armour in the Great War and beyond. Perhaps it would be better to return to the former wording of the article, without mentioning the Bursztyn's proposal. Otherwise, I think if the Bursztyn claim is to be retained in the article, it would be quite disingenuous to not mention that the Motorgeschütz had never left the project stage.--Hon-3s-T (talk) 15:03, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  First modern tank claim 

message: The reference to the location of the  first action by FTs has been edited to read "Ploisy-Chazelles." Whilst there are several places in France called "Chazelles",  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chazelles none of them is anywhere near Ploisy. There isn't a place called Ploisy-Chazelle; there is a settlement called Ploisy, and Chazelle was absorbed by neighbouring Berzy-le-Sec in 1791, although it is still shown on some 19th century maps. "Ploisy-Chazelle" is like "Flers-Courcelette" - not a place, but an operational area.
I wonder why we have to endure this constant barrage of misinformed, disruptive, or inconsequential edits and the abusive and obscene comments of their author. I think  the time has come to look into this. Hengistmate (talk) 09:47, 11 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Yet more problematic editing. 

message: This was a proposal that was never put into production. Intended to carry 47mm gun for anti-tank role. Only reached drawing stage. Hengistmate (talk) 09:41, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "FT AC" 

message: As has already been discussed, the turret was fitted to armoured cars long before WWI. Gunther Burstyn's Motorgeschütz was designed with a gun turret, the British tank prototype Little Willie was fitted with a dummy turret, and several Russian tank designs incorporated a turret. Many types of armoured car, from the Austro-Daimler to the Rolls-Royce, were fitted with a turret before the FT was dreamed of, so Renault's inclusion of one on the tank can not be considered seminal. Even more relevantly, one armoured car that was not fitted with a turret was the 1915 Renault, as examination of plans and photographs of that vehicle will confirm. Reference removed. Hengistmate (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Turret Question Again, 1st October 2013. 

message: The FT was not the first armoured fighting vehicle to have its armament within a fully rotating turret. It was the first tracked armoured fighting vehicle, i.e. tank, to do so.
The reference provided for the description of the turret on the No. 1 Lincoln Machine does not make that claim. The editor has mistaken the Medium Mk A, or "Whippet", which did have a fixed turret on the production version, for the Lincoln Machine. See pp 62 & 63. Hengistmate (talk) 00:45, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  And Again. 

message: This might help Mr. Demaison. Hengistmate (talk) 23:10, 14 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  DiNardo 

message: The situation as I understand it is as follows: the two FTs found outside Kabul were both sent to Fort Knox in 2003. A third one was discovered by French forces south-east of Kandahar, and in 2007 sent to Saumur for restoration. The fourth had been on display within the Ministry of Defence compound in Kabul for many years, and was presented to the Polish Government by the Afghan Government in 2012. It is at present undergoing restoration in Poznan.
I am not at all convinced by the White Russian theory. Fort Knox concluded that these were FTs sold by France to Poland, captured by the Red Army in 1920 during the Polish-Soviet War, and presented to Afghanistan in 1923 or thereabouts. That is why the Poles were so interested in the 4th FT; they believe it played a part in winning Polish independence, and they didn't have a surviving example of their own. How thoroughly they have identified it, I'm still waiting to hear. As MWAK says, it would be very interesting to see the source for the White Russian theory. There is an account in Zaloga's 1988 Osprey book, but I can't see that there's anything conclusive. Looking forward to more info. BTW, don't be surprised if some more FTs turn up in that part of the world.
In any event, part of this section probably needs rejigging to bring the 4 Afghan FTs together and explain the connection. Hengistmate (talk) 22:52, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Surviving Examples & White Russian Theory, Oct 27 2013. 

message: Is the removal because it's an inline external link or because the website in question is in German? Either way, replacing it with a link to a non-existent article doesn't really improve things. The Burstyn site is, I agree, in German, but I should have thought that there are enough images there for the reader to grasp the point that is being made. As things stand, the link is meaningless. Is there a more instructive way of going about this? Hengistmate (talk) 14:59, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Remove per WP:UNDUE. It bears as much relation to the FT does as does the Netopyr or da Vinci's tank designs. Sure, the Motorgeschütz had a central turret. But the Motorgeschütz was also a paper pipe-dream with an implausible suspension. It was certainly far from being "an earlier tank" with a central turret. Even the Lincoln Machine (and its central turret) was closer to being a usable tank than this. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:13, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Now I think on it, it's certainly undue in the lede. Unless R.L. DiNardo (who he?) is in the same league as Zaloga. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:18, 1 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of link to Burstyn's Motorgeschütz site. 

message: I still think it necessary to put the turret business in its true perspective. The implication persists that Louis Renault or someone in his employ invented the rotating turret or had the idea of putting a gun in one, which we know not to be the case. As I have pointed out on more occasions than perhaps should have been necessary, turreted armoured cars had been in use since ten years before WWI, and several tank projects (see above, somewhere) had included turrets. Happy to agree that the FT was the first with a 360 degree turret to enter service.
DiNardo does not say that "the first modern tank" could be applied to Burstyn's Motorgeschütz. He applies it. Amen and amen.Hengistmate (talk) 12:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turrets Syndrome. 

message: I think the claim that the T18 was derived from the Fiat 3000 is a misunderstanding.  Ryabushinski obtained a licence to build the Fiat, but it didn't get off the ground. His workshops were taken over by the Soviets during the civil war and used to repair tanks and other afvs. The Russkiy-Renault was derived directly from the Renault FT, although it did have a Fiat 45hp engine. I should, of course, welcome any source that supports your view.
This is a complicated area, and I can't remember all the details off the top of my head. There are some incorrect accounts in the system. I shall try to dig out the info. Hengistmate (talk) 09:57, 10 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits July 10. 

message: Would appreciate a reliable source - a genuinely reliable source - for use by Egypt in the 1948 War. I have been unable to find one. The best I can do is a small number used by Lebanon. Anyone have anything concrete? Hengistmate (talk) 10:08, 29 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use by Egypt? 

message: There has to be a limit to the number of times that this vehicle's turret is mentioned. There is a section devoted to it, made necessary by 71.95.133.142's insistence and which had to be corrected by others because 71.95.133.142 repeatedly inserted incorrect information, and ample mention is made throughout the article. We get the picture.
What is, unfortunately, necessary to repeat is that two vehicles that did not have a rotating turret were the armoured cars (automitrailleuses) manufactured by Renault and Peugeot. Some French armoured cars did, but not these two. This has been carefully explained to 71.95.133.142 in the past. I don't really see how it can be made any clearer. Hengistmate (talk) 06:44, 16 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edits August 16th, 2014. 

message: The point about this is not the length of time that elapsed between the mock-up and the trials. There is nothing to say that that would not have been the same irrespective of when the mock-up was presented. The point is the amount of time that elapsed between Renault agreeing to Estienne's second request and the appearance of the mock-up, which some authors speculate shows that Renault had been working on the idea, at least in broad terms, during the interim. At this stage, government orders are nothing to do with it.
To say that Renault had been considering the matter between December 1915 and July 1916 is not the same as saying that he "had given top priority to implementing the idea without waiting for a government order." We can report that certain authors state that the chain of events leads them to conclude that Renault continued to work on the idea. No one says anything about what priority he gave it. I fear this is another example of this "editor's" rather reverential approach to L. Renault and all his works which has shown itself on a number of previous occasions. Hengistmate (talk) 09:43, 2 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Time-lag misunderstanding. 

message: From Gerard Demaison to Hengistmate with cordial regards:
There is an "Artisan Charron, Roues en Bois" in France called Alain Monpied , advertised on the French internet.( by typing Alain Monpied). He is a specialist in the reproduction of ancient wooden wheels of historic significance ( e.g. he has produced the wooden wheels of a  repro "Cugnot's Fardier" ). The published photographs on his site show how he created two replica WOOD FRONT IDLER  (TENSION) wheels for a Renault FT .  Several photos on Monpied's web site do display the steps he followed in order to accurately reproduce the original FT wood idlers. Those had been found to be in a state of partial decay on the subject Renault FT tank undergoing renovation. 
Again with best regards 
Gerard Demaison
PS You probably have seen Monpied's ad before I did. But I thought his wood idler replica work was excellent ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.95.133.142 (talk) 04:11, 20 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Wheels Within Wheels

message: It comes to my notice that there are several difficulties with the production figures cited in the article. At present, the figures for vehicles supplied to individual users don't tally with the total, although that could be a typo (3,841 v 3,814).
On the other hand, recent edits by editor 71.95.133.142, executed in the customary fashion,  reduced the total to 2,622 then raised it to 3,187. As is traditional, no reference is provided for these alterations. The whole thing is rather ambiguous, with some uncertainty as to what exactly the figures apply to. The claim that the US received 514 FTs is made, but this is a number for which I can't recall seeing any evidence in many years. If any can be provided I should be most interested, but my understanding is that only sufficient FTs to equip IIRCC two battalions, 144+, were handed to the AEF.
The most reliable and complete account I have found is a report to the French Senate of May, 1920: "On 11 November (1918),  3,187 (FT) tanks had been taken into account by the War Ministry.  The Assault Artillery Subdirectorate proposed to stop production at 3,500. But the Reconstruction Ministry . . . was unable to halt production.  The definite number of tanks received by the War Ministry is 4,517. But deliveries to Allies or abroad went on. They amount on 1 July 1919 to: Poland 120, Great Britain 24, Italy 4, Finland 30, Spain 1, America 231." That gives a total of 4,927. A couple of small problems remain, one being that FTs were supplied to Great Britain before the armistice but do not appear in British inventories after the War. One assumes they were handed back, in which case they might have been counted twice. And the figure for FTs taken to the USA is usually 209. However, these figures don't materially affect the total. (The figure for Spain is correct; more were purchased after the publication of the report.)
Being an open-minded and consensual chap, I'll leave these figures here for interested parties to study. M. Demaison might care to comment, although I probably ought to suggest that any opposing argument be supported by a reference of one kind or another, something that is not his normal practice. Funny that no one has challenged him very much. Anyway, je suis Hengistmate (talk) 16:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, this matter has been treated by HGBM 99 of January 2012. The French production of all types seems indeed to have been 4517 until 1921. The 3187 number reflected the 11 November 1918 data in the administrative account kept by the French Ministry of War, which, as the Dutch say, was "running behind the facts" as already on 8 November 3246 tanks had been delivered. However, the number of 4927 is too high as most deliveries to other nations had in fact been taken from the 4517 stock. Remarkably, between 1921 and 1927 an additional number of tanks seems to have been produced, about 250 of them, for the benefit of costumers desiring brandnew vehicles.--MWAK (talk) 09:32, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production figures. 

message: a) There seems to be no point in including 2 sets of production figures, one in Development and one in Manufacturers, especially since they don’t tally. In fact, the sources disagree considerably. I think it is sufficient for the article to report that the sources differ, rather than state figures that can be endlessly challenged. Perhaps we will be lucky enough to see interested parties working collaboratively to establish what figures it is appropriate to state.
b) There is a quite adequate article on the M1917 derivative. There is no point in overburdening this article with info about the M1917 when it can be linked to. I'm taking out what is superfluous.
c) An additional benefit is the removal of the unusual method of citation that has appeared recently.
A lot more needs to be done to restore this article's credibility. Hengistmate (talk) 23:58, 24 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pruning this article. 

message: Actually, I can think of few better examples of one: Person A believes one thing, whilst Person B believes another. I agree that the reference to diNardo as it stood was rather clumsy, but it had a purpose: to offset the adulation of one "editor" for Louis Renault and all his works. It's a problem that runs through the whole article. It is entirely fair to describe the FT as "the first modern tank," but it was the first modern tank to be manufactured. The basic layout had occurred to Burstyn a decade before and to Wilson a year before. The turret was not Renault's invention; it was in use on the armoured cars of many nations. Delaunay-Belleville had designed a tank with the same configuration, Schneider had drawn up several designs using the layout, and Charles de Poix had designed something very similar by November 1915, before Estienne had shown his very rough designs to Schneider.
And whilst it can be shown by argument that there is a case for disagreeing with Steve Zaloga, it can also be shown by reference to reliable sources: DiNardo in Military Affairs, Daniela and Ewald Angetter in Gunther Burstyn (1879-1945): Sein 'Panzer' - Eine bahnbrechende Erfindung zur falschen Zeit am falschen Ort, plus Strasheim, Schneider, Hundleby, and for what it's worth, the Austrian Army website.
One "editor" suggested the reference be removed "per WP:UNDUE," but, you see, we judge notability by what independent sources say; I am told that rocking up at a sourced article and saying, "It's just not notable" doesn't change this.
Steve Zaloga might hold that the FT was "the first modern tank," but there are two problems with that for Wikipedia: a) he is not infallible (see his 2010 French Tanks of World War 1), and b) a reliable source (a professional military historian writing in a WP:RS) offers a contradictory view. (Actually, diNardo's article contains a sizeable error, but that just means they are both fallible. In that respect, DiNardo is in the same league as Zaloga).
I suggest that what is needed here is a lead - indeed, a whole article - that is rather less of a hagiography than one "editor" would like. One that makes it clear that Renault didn't dream up this arrangement all on his own and that the idea had antecedents, whilst still affording the FT its rightful place.
I'll put a few words together in the next few days and run them up the flagpole. I know some people will be really looking forward to reading them. Hengistmate (talk) 01:18, 25 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Zaloga v DiNardo - "not actually a difference of opinion." 

message: This article is about the FT and is not concerned with details of M1917 manufacture in the USA during or after the War. As I had occasion to observe some time ago, it's a different tank, in a different country, and it didn't arrive. Once the AEF decide to give up on the M1917 and approach the French for FTs, the former is irrelevant to this account. Subsequent events are described at length in the dedicated article.
The reverence that is a feature of so many of M. Demaison’s interventions makes it difficult to preserve the objectivity of both the FT and M1917 articles. Attempts to put a gloss on the failed M1917 programme and give the impression that because it was no more than 8 months behind schedule and only just missed the War it was more or less a success can perhaps best be summed up by citing The French Army's Tank Force and Armoured Warfare in the Great War (Dr. T. Gale, Ashgate Publishing, 2013, , p115-6): "The US light tank programme was a disaster."
Now, the figure of 514 FTs allegedly acquired by the AEF: Zaloga does indeed state that "The US Army received 514 Renault FTs during the course of the war," both in his 1988 work and in his more recent French Tanks of World War I (New Vanguard, 2010, p38). The same claim is made in U.S. Military Tracked Vehicles (Crismon, F; Motorbooks International, 1992; ; p52 ). It is a myth.
It doesn’t appear anywhere except when quoted from Zaloga. It is contradicted by a large number of detailed histories, and there is no indication where it came from. It is one of those “facts” that are frequently regurgitated but rarely examined. 
There is a figure that can be found that is far higher than the well-documented provision of 144 FTs to the AEF, and it is the result of a well-intentioned but much misinterpreted point made by Dale Wilson. He counts the total of tanks available to the AEF at Saint-Mihiel and Meuse-Argonne – of all types. That includes the two battalions of American-crewed FTs, the three battalions of French-crewed FTs, and assorted Schneiders and Saint-Chamonds. The total comes to 419, comprising Patton’s 144 FTs, 24 Schneiders under French Major Charles Chanoine, 216 French-operated FTs, and 35 Saint-Chamonds under Commandant Auguste Herlaut. Some sources have mistakenly concluded that the total figure refers to US-crewed FTs only.
If required (though I shouldn't really have to) I can supply WP:RS for the above. The gist, though, is this: although there is some variation in the figures, it does not remotely approach the difference between 144 and 514.
I have also removed the duplicate link to the M1917, the customary interminable tinkering with syntax, tautology, etc. I've presented the facts. We are in the familiar territory of wondering whether M. Demaison will acknowledge them. Hengistmate (talk) 20:49, 8 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  FTs in Use by AEF: Recent Edits. 

message: M. Demaison has made over 40 edits to the section entitled Manufacturers. As is customary, there are no citations to substantiate any of his alterations. Lest a third party be tempted to contribute at this point on some matters of procedure, I would point out WP:BURDEN. The combination of convoluted English and a welter of figures make this section barely comprehensible.
Despite several requests, M. Demaison declines to provide citations, to use the sandbox, or to adopt a username. His edits to this article are in the region of 1,000, scarcely any of them adding any value. In fact, the points about which he has been most insistent - the wooden idlers, the development of the turret - are those about which he has proved to be most wrong; in fact, completely wrong.
I don't care if M. Demaison ironed General de Gaulle's underpants; his interventions rarely fail to damage the article. I think a case can be made for invoking the Competence rule. In the meantime, I shall continue, when time permits, to reverse his edits until he comes up with some that are correct, relevant, supported by references, and intelligible. Hengistmate (talk) 21:19, 17 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  M. Demaison's Edits, May 17th, 2015. 

message: This FT has an M1917 mantlet, if not an entire M1917 turret. Will check. In the meantime, since there are plenty of images of FTs with Berliet or Girod turrets I've removed the image to prevent any confusion. Hengistmate (talk) 15:15, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Image of FT at Fort George G. Meade. 

message: As explained, an FT and an FT TSF are undergoing restoration at this charitable organisation. Interested parties might like to view this aspect of the project. It concerns scientific examination of the wooden idler wheels, which, you will recall, we were recently invited to believe did not exist.  https://www.wealdfoundation.org/Inside-Track As I mentioned a while ago, there are still FTs the existence of which is not public knowledge. Hengistmate (talk) 15:26, 10 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  FTs at The Weald Foundation. 

message: "Involving or causing a complete or dramatic change." It might be a bit over the top, but not prohibitively so. It signalled the beginning of the end for the existing types. "It's almost the first tank design in existence, there was almost nothing before it." Then if it was almost the first, it wasn't the first, and if there was almost nothing before it, then there was something before it, namely the Mk I, II, III, IV, Schneider, and Saint-Chamond. MWAK's response is, IMO, uncharacteristically brusque, but we all have off days. Actually, I have no strong feelings about this. Hengistmate (talk) 13:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: If there were almost no tanks before it, go figure how revolutionary it must have been to be called so ;o). The point is of course that "revolutionary" is an adequate reflection of the text of the source.--MWAK (talk) 15:43, 15 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Revolutionary"? 

message: "Revolution" is necessarily applied to something exiting (eg. the ancien régime). Nothing exited before that tank though. (Yes the Mark I is a bit older, but nothing from that is revolutionized.) - 91.10.4.162 (talk) 02:58, 16 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revolutionary? 

message: Bonjour.
Some points for your consideration.
"Afghanistan (4 tanks captured in 2003, probably shipped from a White Russian or Chinese warlord)"
These vehicles weren't captured. They were, shall we say, encountered in 2003. Two were derelict in a military junkyard and were shipped to the USA. French and US special forces came across a third, again in a derelict condition, when they took over a former Afghan army base in the border town of Spin Boldak. That was taken to France and restored to running condition at the Musée des Blindés at Saumur, where it can still be seen. The fourth was on display in the Afghan Defence Ministry compound in Kabul. In 2012 it was presented as a gift by the government of Afghanistan to the government of Poland. The purpose behind this was that Poland wanted to commemorate the part played by the FT in the  Polish–Soviet War of 1919-21, but none had survived in Poland. At least two of these FTs are believed by the reasonably well-informed to have been sold by France to Poland and then captured by the Soviets in the Polish war. The clue is that the two vehicles sent to Fort Knox have modifications that are known to have been carried out by the Poles. By 1923 the Soviets were building their own tanks and had no need of the Renaults. They therefore presented them to Afghanistan in exchange for the latter's official recognition. I don't know where M. Tracol has got his information from, but no White Russian or Chinese warlords were involved. Hengistmate (talk) 17:20, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: "Captured" was a typo I made, sorry. About the Russian or Chinese origin, I don't know M. Tracol's sources and he just made suppositions in his article.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

text: Ok. I added "allegedly". Some picture there by the way: .--Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I agree with your suspicions. I added a  tag.--Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)

text: I don't know, I just trusted the source. --Le Petit Chat (talk) 19:16, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Le Petit Chat edits, Feb 2019. 

message: The figure of 200 is wrong. Zaloga gets things wrong (for instance, the AEF didn't receive 514 FTs from France). In this case he's merely a little unclear.
Beware of sourced content, especially if the source doesn't support what you're saying. Remember that until quite recently Wikipedia could produce large amounts of sourced content to prove that Captain George Patton won the Battle of Cambrai with his American tanks. With a little effort and much abuse, it was possible to demonstrate that this sourced content was wrong. When sources are wrong, it does put Wikipedia in rather an awkward position.
In this instance, Zaloga is a little ambiguous. 501 RAS did comprise about 200 Renaults, but they were "committed to action", which doesn't mean they were all sent into action. 
Jones, Rarey, & Icks, 1933, The Fighting Tanks Since 1916, p64: "Since every available means was required to halt the German advance, the three battalions of Renault tanks of the 501st Tank Regiment then ready were sent to General Mangin to support his counter-attack with six infantry divisions on May 31. The long move by the tanks necessary to reach their positions in the Forêt de Retz was made hurriedly by truck, tractor, and under their own power.* Only one company, the 305th, had reached its detrucking point at Saint Pierre-Aigle on the night of May 30th and it still had to go to Calvaire that night. A part of the 304th and 305th Companies arrived on May 31st, at 11 a.m. The attack was ordered for 12 noon. . . . in order to join the infantry, these 30 tanks had an approach march of about 1600 yards . . .the six platoons of five tanks each were divided into two groups, one to support the attack on Chazelle, and the other to aid in the capture of Ploisy."
*("by truck, tractor, and under their own power" - that addresses another 'Citation needed' btw.)
No further actions involving Renaults took place until June 2nd, The first time 200 or more Renaults went into action was at Soissons in July. 
Les Chars de la Grande Guerre, Lt-Col Paul Malmassari, 2009, p 98: "31 mai 1918; Premier engagement des chars Renault; 30 chars Renault, attaque improvisée."
The French Army's Tank Force and Armoured Warfare in the Great War, Tim Gale, 2013, p 138: "Only five tanks had been permanently lost out of the 31 that had gone into action."
Les chars français au combat by Jurkiewicz, p 65 says the same thing at great length. 
Chars de France, J-G Jeudy, 1997, p 38: "Le premier engagement du FT a lieu le 31 mai 1918. Trente chars dont vingt et un seulement peuvent être mis en ligne sont jetés dans la bataille pour tenter d'arrêter l'ennemi qui débouche de Berzy-le-Sec, près de Soissons."
This figure of 30 is pretty well-known, and it's taken up quite a bit of time to refute your claim of 200. Please cross-check with other references rather than relying on a single source. Hengistmate (talk) 16:21, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your sources, I made a mistake by relying only on Zaloga (I did not have access to any of your references). --Le Petit Chat (talk) 17:03, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  First action of the FT - Le Petit Chat 

message: I think we do. It failed. The first thing to bear in mind is that American production of the FT was nil. Gale (2013) p 116 says, "the US light-tank programme was a disaster". Easy, simple, and clear. After all, Dale Wilson devotes an entire chapter to the failure.
What this subsection describes is the attempt by the USA to manufacture the FT, in a modified form, that failed. That surprising failure is decidedly notable, and the subsection's title alerts the reader to the fact that that's what it's about. Hengistmate (talk) 16:57, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  "I don't think we need to specify that the US production was 'failed' or 'attempted'". 

message: To help things along, here's M. Tracol's account translated from French, April/May 2012:
In 2003, American G.I.s in Afghanistan discovered four Renault FTs, two of them in fairly good condition. Their origin remains a matter for debate: some say that they were captured in 1919 by local fighters during the Third Afghan War, against the British, who had received 24 FTs from the French in 1918, but it seems unlikely that they sent these tanks to India after WWI. Two other explanations seem more likely: these Renaults  could have travelled via the Baltic States, Ukraine, or Russia, which were then in full civil war and where the White Army  had been supplied with FTs by the British and French allies. The second possibility is that Chinese warlords had sold their own tanks to tribal chiefs or to the Afghan National Army in the 1920s. In fact next to nothing is known about the actual number involved or of their operational use, but the surviving examples tend to prove that they served for a long time after being fixed: one of them stood as a war trophy in front of a local chieftain's house and was rearmed with a long 6-pounder gun. After being restored, these machines were offered to France and the USA "for services rendered."
I think its deficiencies are obvious. Hengistmate (talk) 15:01, 29 April 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Xavier Tracol source, Batailles et Blindés No. 48. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:36, 1 May 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:
* 
You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion 

message: There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Medium Mark A Whippet which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RMCD bot 21:03, 24 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move discussion in progress