Talk:Tanks of the United States

Orphaned references in Tanks in the United States

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of Tanks in the United States's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Hunnicutt":

• From M4 Sherman: Hunnicutt 1978
• From M551 Sheridan: Hunnicutt, R. P. "Sheridan: A History of the American Light Tank." Volume 2, 1995, Presidio Press; ISBN 0-89141-570-X.
• From M48 Patton: Hunnicutt

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 23:20, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Name change

I would suggest moving this article to "Tanks of the United States" to match other names used on Wikipedia.--agr (talk) 23:26, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is done then Tanks in the Spanish Army should be moved as well (seems a little arbitrary though). username 1 (talk) 23:41, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Tanks in the Spanish Army is named as such because it deals only with tanks in the Spanish Army, not tanks in the Spanish Navy or tanks in the Spanish Air Force (the former actually does use tanks). JonCatalán^(Talk) 17:08, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

M1

In the section on the M1, there is a line that reads, "The M1A1 was vastly superior to Iraq's Soviet-era tanks. Most lacked night vision systems and rangefinders." I think that's supposed to mean, "The M1A1 was vastly superior to Iraq's Soviet-era tanks, most of which lacked night vision systems and rangefinders," not "The M1A1 was vastly superior to Iraq's Soviet-era tanks even though most M1A1's lacked night vision systems and rangefinders." However, I am not going to assume anything. Can the author provide some clarity? Thanks. Good Skoda (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Took a look at the M1 page, and it is supposed to be "The M1A1 was vastly superior to Iraq's Soviet-era tanks, most of which lacked night vision systems and rangefinders," so I will make it so Good Skoda (talk) 20:35, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

WWI, Patton, etc

George Patton was not at Cambrai in any capacity. He was at Champlieu, 75 miles away, when the offensive was launched. The nearest he got was, 10 days after the battle, a visit to British Tank HQ at Albert, 30 miles from Cambrai. The USA didn't have a Tank Corps, or any Tank crews, or any Tanks at the time of Cambrai. That should be obvious from what is stated two paragraphs previously. All this has been thrashed out in the srticle on Patton, from which much of this passage has clearly been copied before the alterations were made.

The US Heavy Tank Battalion trained in England. Eisenhower had no dealings with it.

Hengistmate (talk) 00:57, 12 September 2011 (UTC)

T-72 range finders and night vision

The line "The T-72s like most Soviet export designs lacked night vision systems and then-modern rangefinders, though they did have some night fighting tanks with older active infrared systems or floodlights—just not the latest starlight scopes and passive infrared scopes as on the Abrams"

Is wrong, Iraqi equipped its tanks with modern range finders bought from Belgium and also had night vision installed as well. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.181.103.83 (talk) 03:07, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

So, the exported tanks lacked the equipment, which was retrofitted after sale? So the current phrasing is correct? 62.49.63.203 (talk) 15:22, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Destroyed Israeli Pattons during Yom Kippur War

The photo in this article titled "Destroyed Israeli Pattons during Yom Kippur War" appears erroneous. The photo shows Arabic markings on the turret of the knocked out tank. not Hebrew. 98.118.62.140 (talk) 06:30, 21 October 2014 (UTC)

Mr. A.D. Monroe III's Edit, March 2015.

It is, of course, true that no nation entered WWI prepared for armoured warfare, but the difference is that by the time of the USA's entry, armoured warfare was a fact, which it had not been in 1914 and 1915. The concept had existed in theory since the late 19th century and in reality since the first tank action, in September 1916. That is the whole point of the sentence in question: that whilst two of the major combatants had developed armoured forces, and a third was belatedly trying to catch up, the USA was still in a 1914 state of readiness. That is a point worth making. In the same month that America entered the War, the French launched an attack supported by 132 tanks. As far as Pershing was concerned, armoured warfare was very real; in June 1917 he ordered a report into how the AEF could be equipped with tanks and other armoured vehicles. A little over a year later, the AEF was operating 144 tanks loaned by France, receiving support from French tank units, and operating tanks loaned by Great Britain. That was not a figment of someone's imagination.

Of more concern is the statement in the lead paragraph that US tanks were used in WWI. They weren't. Hengistmate (talk) 09:18, 25 March 2015 (UTC)