Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Military history/Military land vehicles task force/Archive 1

This Military history WikiProject page is an archive, log collection, or currently inactive page; it is kept primarily for historical interest.

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

I have tagged the articles in this list for the task force, however there are a number of red links if anyone is looking for a project. Jim Sweeney (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

I noticed that the beige-on-beige tank image in the task force icon lacked contrast, so I created a gray derivative - also resized for better icon aspect ratio and removed labels. Unfortunately, I don't know how to make the change to the icon, can a coordinator please help? New image is Image:Mil Land Vehicle Icon.svg and looks like this:

Award image is in the works, but may take a little while due to non-voluntary wikibreak. Dhatfield (talk) 10:56, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Done. Kirill ^(prof) 11:15, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, not sure which icon was changed - I was thinking of the userbox icon, but I got over my dimness attack and changed it. Please comment if you preferred the old colours. Dhatfield (talk) 15:00, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion there's no difference in it except for the fact that it's uglier. But than that's just my opinion. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Just finished a translation of Gepanzerte Pioniermaschine from GerWP, with my handy-dandy Ger-Eng dictionary, which (I think) makes this the first new page under the TF. The page needs checking I didn't mangle things too badly, at the very least. Regards. TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 15:51, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

There appears to be no supportable citation for the definition of MBT generations used in this list. Can someone provide any evidence that it shouldn't be deleted? Thanks. —Michael Z. 2008-07-16 20:54 z

This is an interesting discussion and any way the list is presented one could argue "point of view". As you mention in the talk page of that specific list, the Soviets/Russians recognize at least four generations worth of tank design, while the West tends to recognize three generations of main battle tank generations, which may also refer to medium tanks - the early Patton series, then perhaps the

M60 Patton as a second-generation tank (even if it was technically a redesign of a first-generation tank) and then the M1 Abrams as a 3rd generation tank. I'm not sure if literature specific to the United States even specifies technological generations, since the United States missed one due to the Vietnam War. In my opinion the list should be redesigned to define generations by date, and therefore the "generations" would be specific to Wikipedia as opposed to one of the world's nation's idea of technological generations. JonCatalán (talk

) 02:10, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The first generation MBTs are tanks made immediately after WWII. The second generation MBTs have better sights in comparison to the first generation MBTs. Also second generation MBTs were the first ones to use laser sights and APFSDS rounds. The third generation consists of tanks armed with high caliber and velocity guns like M1A1 Abrams. Third generation tanks also use composite armour as well as armour made out of highly resistant sintered ceramic materials. Third generation tanks also have full stabilization system for the main gun. There tanks between second and third generations, like Soviet T-72 which has powerful gun which would classify it as a third generation MBT but at the same time the stabilization system is much too primitive for it to a third generation MBT. It also lacks engine power to be a third generation MBT and has ammunition with less quality. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 09:20, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

I'm asking for any verifiable evidence at all to support your opinion. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 17:19 z

What I wrote there is a translation of most important parts of MBT generations description from two websites: [1] and [2]. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 22:52, 28 July 2008 (UTC)

Some of that categorization is inconsistent. For example, APDS were put into service in 1944 and fin-stabilized APDS were not really viable until the advent of the smoothbore (which was introduced a lot earlier in Soviet tanks) - APFSDS in rifled guns were limited to a L:d length of 7:1 (see: Simpkin, Richard, Tank Warfare). Ceramic armor (which is not always sintered in modern tank armor - some ceramics cannot be sintered) was introduced, really, in the late 1940s. The German 12.8cm tank gun had about the same muzzle velocity as modern 12cm tank guns. If the T-72 doesn't make it as a third-generation tank then neither should the T-80, although it should be noted that hundreds of these types of tanks have been retrofitted with modern ballistic equipment. That's why I think we should go with our own system and define it in the article. JonCatalán (talk) 18:14, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

When we have to, we can break up articles about tanks by decade, or by historical events, by hard characteristics, or whatever. (We already have several lists including MBTs.) But it is against the principle of verifiability to make up our own tank generations and then create a list specifically to promote our original research. —Michael Z. 2008-07-27 17:19 z

Then I suggest the list be deleted, since it's not really veriefiable in the first place and any type of categorization would have clear POV. JonCatalán (talk) 01:04, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

We (illustrators) have a very hard time finding articles that need diagrams or illustrations to better explain the subject. Is there a template for this? Does this fall under supporting materials? Ideally, the relevant talk page should have a description of what type of diagram is needed and it's components / labels. I think this is an area where WP can improve dramatically, and we can lead the way. Thoughts?

I agree, although I'm a horrible illustrator. Perhaps I can make diagrams from my photographs? JonCatalán (talk) 21:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I suppose you could ask some of the folks at Commons who have uploaded the images in Category:Aircraft line drawings... though I think they are just copying from Air Force websites. Either way, those diagrams would be so useful to us that I don't see why we shouldn't ask. bahamut0013♠♣ 04:59, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

Do units whose primary mission include the use of land vehicles (such as tanks) fall under the scope of this task force? I've been tagging a number of articles, and then I bumped into the Soviet Tank Corps... I'd have thought yes, and tagged it so. bahamut0013♠♣ 11:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Same issue with sciences and tactics, such as armoured warfare. bahamut0013♠♣ 14:49, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Everything that is related to land military vehicles is under the scope of this task force therefore use of land vehicles, sciences and tactics all fall in that category. Regards. - SuperTank17 (talk) 14:55, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

Sweet. I think I've doubled the current count of tagged articles. Hope to double that before the weekend. bahamut0013♠♣ 02:38, 31 July 2008 (UTC)

Does anybody care if I leave notifications about articles relevant to this task force going through an A-class review, peer review or FAC on your talk pages? JonCatalán (talk) 21:22, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I would prefer no notice unless I've edited the article. I do check the wikiproject talk pages occasionally, and will pick and choose those article which are more appropriate for me to comment on. bahamut0013♠♣ 11:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

The navigation templates for AFVs need some coördination and refurbishing.

Examples are listed at

1. Organize these into coordinated template categories
2. Base them all on {{military navigation}}
3. Make them all consistent in style
   • Use the default style instead of “wide”?
4. Resolve any conflicts or omissions
   • Add {{Cold War tanks}}, or convert the APC and tank templates into “Post-WWII” ones?

What else needs to be done here? —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 01:43 z

There is another template, although it's only for the portal, which you can see here - {{

Nahuel

.

I think there should be separate templates for 'Post Cold-War Main Battle Tanks' (the main battle tank distinction is important, otherwise why not include modern light tanks? And this refers to light tanks for their role, not for their weight class - the TAM, for example, can be classified as a near light tank for its weight, but it is a main battle tank in role), 'Cold War Medium Tanks' (for tanks such as the

T-55, T-62, T-64, et cetera), and others. The Cold War template, in my opinion, is necessary to link these tank articles together and ease navigation. Tanks which may not make the cut for said template would be like the Spanish Lince

, which was never mass produced or put into service.

On that note, would anybody contest me starting a template for Spanish tanks? There aren't that many of them, and it would be used to link the currently existent articles

Verdeja. In the near future it will also link AMX-30E, Trubia light tank and whatever else I can find sources on. I'm not sure about adding the Panzer I and T-26, since those articles already have a number of templates in them. That said, I do like that some templates are "wide" and some are the width of the infobox, since it allows these to be spread apart, without really bunching the article. JonCatalán (talk

) 01:59, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Please see my sandbox for an example of a Cold War Tank navigation box. I included four heavy tanks. JonCatalán (talk) 02:10, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good. The default templates stack nicely under the infobox, and will be collapsed if there's more than one, right? Some may still be much too tall, though, so perhaps we should stick with the wide format for the bottom of an article (which most of the navigation boxes already do use)?

Should we break up AFVs into Cold War and post-Cold War, or unify them all into post-WWII? Of course we'd have to include light and heavy tanks going back to 1945. MBT kinda has two definitions: one meaning a country's main tank, and the other a more functional definition—if we accept the latter, then the TAM might be considered a “medium tank,” in which category I've also seen it placed. —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 02:10 z

Accessibility

There's a problem with the navigation boxes under the infobox - they do not fall under MoS guidelines, and when they do they create a whitespace. For example, the SpanishTanks template had to widened and moved to the bottom of the page. JonCatalán (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2008 (UTC)

Which MOS guideline is the problem?

For now, I propose we stick with the style=wide navboxes for the bottom of an article. If we use the Mil Nav templates, they are flexible enough to easily change the location and style later.

[Aside: couldn't this be fixed by designing the infobox to accept a navbox as an inclusion, putting them both into one table or div?].— Preceding unsigned comment added by Mzajac (talk • contribs)

See

Wikipedia:Layout and the discussion on SandyGeorgia's talk page. JonCatalán (talk

) 02:17, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's definitely something new; campaignboxes have been using that layout for years, and nobody has complained about accessibility issues with them. If that argument sticks, we may need to totally rework the whole navbox stacking design project-wide. Kirill ^(prof) 03:04, 28 August 2008 (UTC)

There was some discussion about navboxes at

WT:ACCESS#Military history campaignboxes. —Michael Z.

 2008-08-28 15:39 z

A screen-reader user replied and said “they're not much of a problem,” with a brief comment. —Michael Z. 2008-08-29 15:04 z

That's good to know. Kirill ^(prof) 18:25, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

List of templates

See

Note that some tanks will have both navboxes, but they are collapsible to save space. The only problem is that IFVs and APCs are not also clearly divided into the two eras. —Michael Z. 2008-08-11 02:27 z

One of the issues is how one interprets the role of a tank. For example, the TAM in role is a main battle tank (it's designed to fight against other tanks, provide infantry support, et cetera), even if in weight class it may not be up to par with other tanks (it's handicapped by the government's weight requirements and cost requirements). Apparently, some don't see it like this. So, it's only natural that we debate until consensus is reached. On the other hand, the edit wars which sometimes arise over the template are pointless - there should be something to promote discussion on the template's talk page. I'm afraid of re-including the TAM because I feel that it will be taken off again, without the editor even discussing it on the talk page (or now this page). However, we need a clear definition of the type of tank which fits within the scope of the template. That way editors have a clear idea of what they can add and what they can, and then we will successfully avoid the majority of the arguments that the template talk page gets.

Regarding the two templates, I believe they should be separate. It's OK if they overlap, although I don't think they will. I think the current post-Cold War Tank template is fine, although perhaps we should rename it to moderntanks, because most of the tanks listed in the template began production prior to the Cold War. In that sense, what we're really doing is splitting tanks up by generations. I also think we should leave IFVs and APCs out of the template, and later on create templates for these. Navigation should be easy and huge, confusing lists should be avoided. JonCatalán (talk) 03:29, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to rethink it all from the top down. I'll state right now that every type of AFV should be represented in the navigation templates. The TAM belongs in there with other tanks, and so do a lot of the other ones which have been left out, including older tanks in service, refurbs, etc. I don't know yet whether this means adding subdivisions to the tank template, or something else.

The problem is this: WWII AFV navigation has been subdivided into templates by country, by long-standing consensus. For post-WWII AFVs we have a mix of by country (British, Soviet) and by class (tanks, IFV & APC). There isn't a comprehensive set of post-WWII AFV nav templates, so why shouldn't we shift gears and follow the WWII example? —Michael Z. 2008-08-28 00:01 z

Progress

I've converted many of these templates to use template:Military navigation. Like the campaignboxes, they will show up in the narrow style by default, and wide if given the parameter style=wide, so they can be used below the infobox or at the bottom of an article. —Michael Z. 2008-08-30 00:55 z

Too large (taken from this

talk page

)

OK, we tried a lot of different ways to collapse this HUGE box. We need to take action though!!! What do you think of this one?

E.g.

This is a notice to let you know about

.

If you are already subscribed to Article Alerts, it is now easier to report bugs and request new features. We are also in the process of implementing a "news system", which would let projects know about ongoing discussions on a wikipedia-wide level, and other things of interest. The developers also note that some subscribing WikiProjects and Taskforces use the display=none parameter, but forget to give a link to their alert page. Your alert page should be located at "Wikipedia:PROJECT-OR-TASKFORCE-HOMEPAGE/Article alerts". Questions and feedback should be left at Wikipedia talk:Article alerts.

Message sent by

here

.

Thanks. —

WP Physics

} 09:25, 15 March, 2009 (UTC)

U.S. military vehicles of World War II at wrong capitalisation.

Shouldn't the following article be in lowercase?

• M2 Light Tank
• M2 Medium Tank
• M2 Half Track Car
• M3 Half-track

Patton^t/c 10:00, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Unknown Artillery Piece ?

Hi can any one identify what this AFV is ? I found it in commons --Jim Sweeney (talk) 16:55, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Grille Ausf. H (http://www.wwiivehicles.com/germany/self-propelled/bison.asp, http://www.achtungpanzer.com/panzerkampfwagen-38t.htm). Bukvoed (talk) 08:39, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 20:36, 23 March 2009 (UTC)

Category:Panzer commanders and aces

Category:Panzer commanders and aces has been proposed to be split into Category:Panzer commanders and Category:Panzer aces. See Category talk:Panzer commanders and aces#Split.

76.66.196.218 (talk) 11:20, 21 April 2009 (UTC)

Naming of "Matilda tank"

There is

a requested move for naming the second Matilda tank at the moment. This also touches upon the naming of the first British Infantry tank. GraemeLeggett (talk

) 10:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Changes to popular pages lists

There are a few important changes to the popular pages system. A quick summary:

• The "importance" ranking (for projects that use it) will be included in the lists along with assessment.
• The default list size has been lowered to 500 entries (from 1000)
• I've set up a project on the Toolserver for the popular pages - tools:~alexz/pop/.
  • This includes a page to view the results for projects, including the in-progress results from the current month. Currently this can only show the results from a single project in one month. Features to see multiple projects or multiple months may be added later.
  • This includes a new interface for making requests to add a new project to the list.
  • There is also a form to request a change to the configuration for a project. Currently the configurable options are the size of the on-wiki list and the project subpage used for the list.
• The on-wiki list should be generated and posted in a more timely and consistent manner than before.
• The data is now retained indefinitely.
• The script used to generate the pages has changed. The output should be the same. Please report any apparent inconsistencies (see below).
• Bugs and feature requests should be reported using the Toolserver's bug tracker for "alexz's tools" - [3]

-- Mr.Z-man 00:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Nominations open for the Military history WikiProject coordinator election

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process has started; to elect the coordinators to serve for the next six months. If you are interested in running, please sign up here by 23:59 (UTC) on 12 September!

Many thanks,  Roger Davies ^talk 04:18, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Just a reminder but, with about 18 hours to go until nominations close, you'll need to get your skates on if you're thinking of standing as a coordinator. The election is based on self-nominations, so please don't be shy in putting your name forward. The last elections will give you an idea of what to expect.

Otherwise, voting starts tonight at 00:01 (UTC). Any member of the project may support as many of the candidates as they wish. You should cast your votes here.

 Roger Davies ^talk 06:46, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Test your World War I knowledge with the Henry Allingham International Contest!

As a member of the

Operation Great War Centennial

, the project's commemorative effort for the World War I centenary.

If you would like to participate, please sign up by 11 November 2009, 00:00, when the first round is scheduled to begin! You can sign up here, read up on the rules here, and discuss the contest here! Abraham, B.S. (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Light tanks of the United Kingdom

I can't believe we have article on this in four different languages. Needs to be moved to Tanks of the United Kingdom.

talk

) 22:02, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

FV101 Scorpion opinion needed

Hi I have been tinkering with the FV101 Scorpion article and one thing that seems to stand out reading books and the internet. Is that as well as being one big family of vehicles, the Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) range have all the same early history of development etc. What I am thinking of doing is making the CVRT article bigger with the FV101 Scorpion, FV102 Striker , FV103 Spartan, FV104 Samaritan, FV105 Sultan, FV106 Samson, FV107 Scimitar and Sabre articles sections of CVRT and redirects. Does anyone here have any thoughts, support or oppose just looking for opinions. Thanks --Jim Sweeney (talk) 13:02, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

I think that I'd prefer to see it done rather like a ship class article. The main article talks about the design and general development history plus brief paragraphs on each version while the specific vehicle pages cover that variant in much greater detail, including users, combat use and the specific details of that vehicle's development that really would stretch a single article into an unreadable length.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 15:10, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

see how far you get expanding the CVR(T) article, but you'll still probably need Infoboxes for each of the individual vehicles as well as separate service histories so I would oppose the idea of making them all one single article.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:27, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) now open

The peer review for Combat Vehicle Reconnaissance (Tracked) is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄ 01:30, 18 January 2010 (UTC)

WP 1.0 bot announcement

This message is being sent to each WikiProject that participates in the

CBM · talk

) 03:36, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Identifying a World War I Era Tank

Moved from

WP:MILHIST

talk.

I was looking into restoring this image. However, for it to be nominated for featured picture it needs to be definitively ID'd. The original caption on Library of Congress is "Tank ploughing its way through a trench and starting toward the German line, during World War I, near Saint Michel, France. However on commons the caption is "A French World War I Renault FT-17 tank, ditching." Does anyone have any materials that could fairly definitively ID this tank? Thanks NativeForeigner ^Talk/_Contribs 05:15, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Given the gun barrel design I suspect it may be a

Renault FT-17, but that would need to be confirmed. TomStar81 (Talk

) 05:26, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

You are right, Tom, it is a FT-17. And the symbols painted on the turret might be able to identify a unit or at least a nationality. But you'd have to ask at the specialized AFV boards to find somebody who might know, I expect.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 05:51, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Naming of Panzer VIII / Maus article.

Interested editors are asked to spend a moment to give their opinion at Talk:Panzer VIII Maus to decide the most relevant name for the article. (Hohum ^@) 19:26, 17 June 2010 (UTC)

Peer review for

GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle

now open

The

GCV Infantry Fighting Vehicle is now open; all editors are invited to participate, and any input there would be appreciated! Thanks! -MBK₀₀₄

21:37, 3 August 2010 (UTC)