Talk:Mark V tank - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) at 18:51, 22 June 2014 (→Dates of Service.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 18:51, 22 June 2014 by Andy Dingley (talk | contribs) (→Dates of Service.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Military history: Land vehicles / British / European / World War I Start‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

Start

This article has been rated as Start-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	British military history task force
	European military history task force
	World War I task force

Combat History.

It has not been confirmed that the Mk Vs in Berlin were involved in any fighting, only that they were present. See discussion here: http://en.wikipedia.org/Mark_I_tank#Combat_history

No Mk V tanks were used in Palestine/Gaza, only Mk I and Mk IV.Hengistmate (talk) 23:49, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

Amendments Feb 28th, 2012

Made multiple amendments to this. Mk V did not carry Vickers guns. Corrected details of rear cupola. Mk V* was not a purpose-built APC; that was the Mk IX. The room for troops was "a bonus" (Glanfield). Expanded lead section. Clarified tale of Mk Vs in Berlin, 1945. Etc. Hengistmate (talk) 16:48, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Collaboration on Epicyclic System

I notice that the link to the Walter Wilson section of the Preselector Gearbox article has been removed. There was, of course, no claim that the Mark V had a preselector gearbox; it was a link to a potted history of Wilson's involvement with the principle. Bit of a "straw man" argument, really, but never mind. On the other hand, it does raise an interesting point. There isn't a satisfactory description of Wilson's epicyclic system (as used for the Mk V onwards) on Misplaced Pages. Since it was (and remains) such a significant development, this would seem to be a regrettable omission. It would be excellent if there were an authoritative yet accessible article that could be linked with the numerous WWI tank articles and, doubtless, many others.

I've been gradually improving the WWI articles, but much remains to be done, and it is very time-consuming, what with one thing and another. I'm not trying to build an encyclopaedia, just trying to weed out some of the more obvious misinformation. It strikes me that someone with a consuming interest in little-known technologies would be the ideal person to produce the article required, and the name of Andy Dingley, a respected and valuable contributor, springs to mind. How about it? Something that explains in understandable terms how the system worked, and how it did the job previously done by the two gearsmen. It would be pro-active and the type of collaborative editing that Misplaced Pages encourages. More work than simply reverting edits, but possibly even more satisfying. RSVP Hengistmate (talk) 03:24, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Service History.

Is it realistic to say that the Mk V was in service until 1945? There is no reliable evidence that any were used in action in 1945. Does being towed to a site and dug in as a pillbox in 1941 count as service? IIRC the last confirmed date for Mk Vs in full operational order is 1923. Hengistmate (talk) 20:29, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

1920 would seem more reasonable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:36, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Bullock, Aksenov, & Sarson say that 19 Mk Vs served in the 3rd Tank regiment, along with new Soviet designs, as late as 1930. "By 1931 all civil war period tanks were in depots, various tank schools or academies, doing limited guard duty, or were on firing ranges." David Fletcher says something along the same lines, albeit in less detail. On the other hand, Bullock, Aksenov, & Sarson also say that the Mk Vs captured in Estonia by the Soviets "actively served in the defence of Tallin in August 1941", which is rather moot. Perhaps we should define our terms. Do you have any sources? Hengistmate (talk) 16:42, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Surviving Mk Vs

The Bovington Mk V hasn't been in running order for several years. The two images of the Mk V at Luhansk are of the same vehicle. As the German and Russian captions say, it is a "Composite", or "Hermaphrodite", with one Male and one Female sponson. Most, if not all, the Mk Vs sent to Russia were Hermaphrodites, usually with the Male sponson on the right. Will check on the other examples. Hengistmate (talk) 09:44, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

You may wish to comment on Commons:Category:Mk V tanks in Luhansk. The previous claim of a preserved hermaphrodite has been replaced by a claim that there are two (and two not on show), Male & Female. I remain unconvinced. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:57, 7 June 2014 (UTC)

Dates of Service.

Okay. This is the thing. It's already been quite carefully explained a couple of times that there's no evidence of Mk Vs being in action in 1945. Call it POV pushing, call it "a widely circulating view" - there's nothing that supports the proposition, particularly on the web page that is offered. No amount of reading it will reveal anything other than that the vehicles were present. Even if one thought that attempting to argue that vehicles that had been on a plinth outside Smolensk Cathedral for 20 years and then in the Berliner Lustgarten for another 4 would have been serviceable made any sense, it would be a waste of time; there is no WP:RS, a point about which some editors are very particular almost all the time. I have, therefore, taken the liberty of removing that reference.

Now to the actual verifiable dates of service: Fletcher (2011) describes, but does not display, a photograph of a Mk V allegedly in Tallinn in 1941. Examination of the photograph elsewhere reveals that Fletcher describes it correctly. It is this writer's view that he stops short of stating unequivocally that Mk Vs saw action in 1941, but it doesn't matter. We have a source that does: Eesti soomusmasinad : soomusautod ja tankid, 1918-1940 by Tiit Noormets & Mati Õun ISBN 9789985606926. So we no longer need to accommodate an info box that says 1945, without citation, and we can resolve the ambiguity of an editor offering (albeit invalid) references in support of 1945 but arguing elsewhere for 1920.

A question that remains unanswered is whether it is appropriate to say that a vehicle was "in service" when, in fact, it was a case of only a small number or a solitary example lingering on. Perhaps it is possible to find a method of categorisation that reflects the situation more helpfully. Hengistmate (talk) 01:15, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

There is considerable photographic evidence of a pair of wrecked Mark Vs in Berlin in 1945. It is merely you edit warring and trolling to argue otherwise. I note that you've yet again removed this, demanding sources, then when such sources are given you quietly remove the cite yet again. You are incorrigible, there is no point in attempting to discuss with you. I am only posting here to avoid your other favoured tactic, that of posting the insupportable and beyond credible comment, then when it fails to attract any such comment then later actioning it as "unopposed, therefore unanimous support". Andy Dingley (talk) 18:49, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry that it is necessary to explain this a fourth time. No one is disputing the presence of the vehicles in question. Neither of the cited sources, though, supports the assertion that the tanks took part in any combat. That is very clear. Such an assertion also causes the infobox to contradict the body copy. If you believe that the sources do support your assertion, or if you can find evidence elsewhere that does, please supply more specific details. Moreover, on p67 Fletcher does not support the contention that there were two tanks, which causes a problem, since it means that the reliable source is manifestly wrong.

Some additional matters:

Please concentrate on the editing and do not attack other editors as you have done here.
There is no edit-warring or trolling taking place. Please check on the definitions and refrain from using the terms gratuitously.
Please remember that Misplaced Pages's rules on both procedure and behaviour apply to everyone, even those who repeatedly remind others of them.
I am not aware of posting any "insupportable and beyond credible" material on Misplaced Pages. I always do my best to make sure that anything I offer is thoroughly researched and, to the best of my knowledge, accurate. That might be the problem here.
Misplaced Pages advises against repeated use of the word, "you".
Long-standing resentment should not be an influence when contributing to Misplaced Pages.
I cannot understand the last sentence.

Hengistmate (talk) 12:37, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

This is a bit awkward. I've explained that the sources don't support the assertion being made, and yet an "editor" has reinstated them, without addressing the points made above. It's rather like an incident a few months ago when someone was making a lot of quite significant changes to an article on a vaguely related subject. When he was asked to provide a citation or two (not by Mr. Dingley, in this instance) it turned out that if one read them closely, the sources actually contradicted the assertions being made. And so it is with these claims, I'm afraid. I really do feel that the content of the article should reflect what is actually known. Hengistmate (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

What is known is that two Mark Vs appeared on the streets of Berlin during the fall of Berlin. They were photographed there by multiple photographers. It's not clear where they came from, or just what use was made of them, but it's unlikely that they were just there for a parade. It's also clear that they were Mark V, not Mark IV and so were not WWI Beutepanzer.

Just what part of this do you disagree with? Andy Dingley (talk) 17:16, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Read. Hengistmate (talk) 18:11, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Thankyou for fixing your previous edit to make it clear that you're not an independent anon IP who conveniently supports your viewpoint.

There are two tanks here. One shows a male left hand side with 20mm(?) damage to it. Another shows a female right hand side with what looks like a shell hole and possibly a blow out from the internal ammunition racks. It has also shed both tracks. Now even assuming that both of these were already displayed in the Lustgarten pre-war, we have one tank that has been used for target practice by a Russian (not convincing for service, they probably shot up the post boxes too). The female though must have been moving to shed its tracks like that – either under power, or at least being towed. This indicates that they were seeing at least as much pillbox service as a MkV would have done in 1941 (which you're happy to keep claiming).

I have no idea what state these tanks were in in 1945. But they were being used, as were sewers and concrete drainpipes, as ad hoc defences. Maybe it was no more than a couple of Hitler Youth with rifles as old as the tanks, but something made them a military target. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:51, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Categories: