Jump to content

Talk:Medium Mark A Whippet

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I don't see how it could be possible for the Leichter Kampfwagen to be based on the Whippet. The development of the Leichter Kampfwagen I started at least two months before the Whippets even became active for the first time - and the Leichter Kampfwagen II is basically the same design. Both Fletcher and Strasheim considered it a myth. Are there any new data showing otherwise?

MWAK-- 11:54, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Aberdeen maryland[edit]

I assume that the tank can be seen at the aberdeen proving grounds in aberdeen maryland, which is an american military base. I know for a fact that there isn't a Whippet in the middle of aberdeen. Eli H 21:09, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Your assumption is of course completely correct :o). I've expanded the text accordingly. The base is home to what is, among other things, the largest tank museum in the USA: the United States Army Ordnance Museum.--MWAK 07:21, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]


I think the engine was probably by Tyler, not Tylor. It may have been the same engine used in some of the 45 hp petrol-electric locomotives, see War Department Light Railways. Biscuittin (talk) 16:45, 24 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There was a J Tylor & Sons, that existed until 1974, and seemed to make everything, including fire engines and pumping equipment; perhaps it's them. Perhaps someone has a photo of the engine nameplate. (talk) 21:41, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Tylor company also manufactured some engines used in RNLI lifeboats, e.g., 45ft Watson-class lifeboat.

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Medium Mark A Whippet. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:05, 29 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Post-WWI service wrong.[edit]

The source is misinformed. Whippets took part in a few parades in Ireland. It rather flatters the occasion to call it "action." No British troops in North Russia or Manchuria. The latter event was by Whippets bought by Japan. Hengistmate (talk) 07:38, 17 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 24 February 2024[edit]

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: not moved. – robertsky (talk) 21:16, 18 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

– Per WP:MILMOS#TANKS – "all articles documenting tanks should include "tank" as a part of its title, generally appended at the end". Also for consistency. Please note the related RMs at Talk:T1 Light Tank#Requested move 19 February 2024, Talk:Heavy Tank M6#Requested move 21 February 2024, Talk:A7 Medium Tank#Requested move 22 February 2024, Talk:Ford 3-Ton M1918#Requested move 22 February 2024, and Talk:152 mm towed gun-howitzer M1955 (D-20)#Requested move 23 February 2024. Note the addition of "Hornet" for Mark C, like "Whippet" for Mark A. That difference is optional for me. Note that, according to Renault FT#Naming, the 'T' in "Renault FT" does not stand for "tank". —⁠ ⁠BarrelProof (talk) 20:36, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The British WWI tanks should stay as Medium Mark A Whippet etc., or be moved to Medium Mark A Whippet tank. But 'Medium' always came first. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:51, 24 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tank as an addition is only needed for disambiguation. Reliable sources should be consulted for names otherwise and WP:CommonName is also relevant;
    • So Oppose renaming St Chamond per disambiguation polices
    • T-28 should be if anything T-28 (Soviet tank) while T28 Super Heavy Tank should be T28 (American tank)
    • Oppose renaming Renault FT, Medium Mark B, and C and D, because that is what BT White and others refer to them.
    • No need to move T17 Deerhound, that's just a frivolous nomination
    • GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:59, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mixed bag The additional description of medium is not need (except if necessary for disambiguation). Don't see that it is required except for the mark tanks. T17 Deerhound is fine as it stands. Saint-Chamond tank is fine because of necessary disambiguation. The Renault FT is probably fine as it is. Google books search results for the Medium Mark X tanks are a bit misleading without delving into what they actually report. There is enough usage of Medium Mark B tank to support the addition of tank for this group of tanks. I don't know if the model C is all that recognisable by the name Hornet and that adding the name is a benefit? The model A is recognisable by the name Whippet but adding tank would potentially be consistent with the others of this group. So, for the model A, it is a bit of a toss. Support Type 10 tank and T28 tank per the discussion at MOS:MIL. Cinderella157 (talk) 03:26, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
FWIW Fletcher (The British Tanks 1915-1919) says the first Medium Mark C prototype was nicknamed "the Hornet", while White says "also known as 'Hornet'". Although 50 built, seems to have been relatively obscure. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:49, 26 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Type 10 as ambiguous. Oppose others as unnecessary. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:34, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Type 10 should continue to redirect to Type 10 tank if this move is carried out. Schierbecker (talk) 19:10, 27 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all. Even Type 10 can remain as is, because it hasn't been shown that it's not the primary topic for that term.  — Amakuru (talk) 19:01, 17 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.