Talk:Ram tank

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Ram tank article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

	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 lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.
Start	This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (general topics): Military technology and engineering task force Weaponry task force Associated task forces (nations and regions): Canadian military history task force Dutch military history task force Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): World War II task force

Not made any changes as i do not know its wrong, but under combat history the centurian is claimed to have been leased by the us government. I was not aware this tank was ever purchased by the us. - Rich tea man.

I think what was meant was that the US Government leased (in effect, hired) the Centurions (presumably from Britain) for the use of the Dutch. The Netherlands was still recovering from five years of occupation and was probably in no position to pay for them Ian Dunster 13:56, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

Well, the USA purchased the Centurions from the British in order to lease them to the Dutch under a MDAP-agreement. Of course technically the owner is the leaser and the recipient is the lessee. Indeed in the Fifties a full half of the Dutch materiel budget was paid for by the USA. All of the equipment remained US property. Most people were unaware of this arrangement. In the late Sixties part of the Centurions were sold by the USA to Israel. In October 1973 the USA ordered the Dutch to deliver as many Centurions as they could do without to Israel, to bolster the Israeli tank fleet during the Yom Kippur War. Arab nations saw this as an affront by the Dutch and included The Netherlands in their oil boycott. In 1986 the Dutch materiel bureau tried to sell the remaining Centurions to Austria — applying Dutch (Continental) law under which the USA after 30 years lost ownership — only to receive a polite but insistent notice from its US counterpart asking them when they ever had got permission to do so. The original agreement after all stipulated Common Law was applicable! The deal went on but the money flowed into the US treasury! :o)--MWAK 09:23, 5 January 2006 (UTC)

That's very interesting. With a reference or two, that would make a good addition to "Centurion tank". —Michael Z. 2006-01-6 15:46 Z

I'm in the (slow) process of expanding the Dutch (i.e. the nl:) Centurion article. When I'm finished, I'll mention some interesting tidbits in the English one.--MWAK 07:36, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

As I understand it the Ram in the picture looks like a MKI. Ram IIs were made with no sponsoon doors and no front left machinegun turret. That picture has both. One thing that is not mentioned is that in 1941 the Ram made it to the Maryland US proving grounds where it was evaluated. Some changes were suggested like a recessed turret ring and of course a 75 and turret to match. If you look at a right angle view of the Ram I or of a Ram II without the machinegun turret it looks like a what? The Ram was a predecessor to the British named Sherman tank.(Brocky44 10:13, 19 October 2006 (UTC))

I fuck it you mean the info box picture? It's an early production MkII, there was some overlap in features between marks. It does have a 6pdr Mk3 tank gun, which is basically what makes a Ram II.

With reference the to similarities of the Ram and Sherman. As I understand it the T8 prototype (which became the M4) was developed completely independantly from the Ram, and their similarities were down to their common ancestry and design briefs. However, the Ram was evaluated alongside the T8 at one point. Getztashida 12:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)