Talk:Infantry tank
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] Discrepancy
- Tank classification The idea for this tank was developed during World War I by the British and French
- Infantry tank The Infantry tank was a concept developed by the British in the years leading up to World War II.
Someone please fix that.
David Latapie (✒ | @) 09:17, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Several Inaccuracies
On the whole a very nice article, but there are a couple of assertions regarding the nature of British infantry tanks which are inaccurate. For example, the article states that Infantry tanks were usually larger than Cruisers, whereas in actual fact the opposite is the case. With the exception of the Churchill tank, Infantry tanks were universally smaller than the contempory cruisers and even the Churchill was dimensionally about the same as the Cromwell tank. Also, again with the exception of the Churchill, the Infantry tanks were not notably heavier than their Cruiser tank equivalents. Additionally, the implication that Cruiser tanks were not capable of fighting enemy tanks is incorrect. Cruiser tanks were actually expected to engage enemy tank formations and were armed accordingly. The trade off between Cruisers and Infantry tanks was exclsively one of armour vs mobility. The two types almost invariably had equivalent firepower. Also the equating of Cruisers and Infantry tanks to Medium and heavy tanks is misleading. I shall be making some edits to address these points shortly. Cheers, Getztashida 10:05, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
- Think to the start of the devlopment of the idea not the middle of the war, the Cruiser II and III were lighter than the Matilda II. And having read it I see no implication that cruisers wer enot suspised to engage other tanks. GraemeLeggett 10:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
- Your point on the Cruiser II and III overlooks that the contempory Infantry tanks was actually the Matilda I. The Matilda II was actually contempary to the Cruiser IV and only slightly ahead of the Crusader, both of which were larger and in the same weight class. As to the Implication that Cruisers were incapable of combatiing enemy tanks, the phrase I would like to edit is as follows;
- "the cruisers ended up meeting enemy tanks in combat, while the infantry tanks were the only ones present when a breakthrough was accomplished."
- While the sentence does not explicitly state that Cruisers were not intended to combat enemy tanks I feel that it does imply that that was the case, which is, of course, incorrect.
- Your point on the Cruiser II and III overlooks that the contempory Infantry tanks was actually the Matilda I. The Matilda II was actually contempary to the Cruiser IV and only slightly ahead of the Crusader, both of which were larger and in the same weight class. As to the Implication that Cruisers were incapable of combatiing enemy tanks, the phrase I would like to edit is as follows;
-
- Basically, what I'm concerned about is that the author has tried to equate the Cruiser and Infantry tank to other nation's Medium and Heavy tanks. To do so is to misrepresent the idea behind British WWII armoured doctrine, that being to have differnet tanks of approximately equivalent weight and size, optimised for either Infantry Support or Exploitation. I'm at work at the moment and don't have any reference books handy, but I'm happy to get back later with some facts and figures covering introduction dates, dimensions and weights which will back up my assertion that Infantry tanks were generally not larger than the equvalent crusiers. Getztashida 16:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
-
-
- I think you are correct in this. For other nations it was basically the same: a T-26 wasn't larger than a BT-7, nor was a R 35 larger than an AMC 35.--MWAK 17:11, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
-
