Talk:M13/40 tank
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the M13/40 tank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Untitled
editIn the text of the article, it states that 111 rounds were carried for the main gun, in the box on the right, it says 104. Which is correct ? RASAM (talk) 23:35, 18 November 2007 (UTC)
- All external links say 104. --Sus scrofa (talk) 15:42, 19 November 2007 (UTC)
Photos
editKurt, I have tried leaving a message on your talk page but you deleted it. I would appreciate it if you cease removing the same photo from this page over and over. There's no good reason to remove it, and frankly your repeated actions in removing it are disruptive. Thanks. DMorpheus (talk) 17:29, 23 December 2007 (UTC)
Main gun and 'Used by'
editIn the box, it says "Primary armament 104-87 shells" What does this mean?
Also in the box, it has Nazi Germany down as a user; but there is no mention of this in the text. RASAM (talk) 20:32, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- "Primary armament 104-87 shells" is supposed to be the number of shells carried for the 47 mm main gun which is named on the line above "104-87 shells". Maybe it should be removed if that is unclear, I don't know. According to [1] the Germans took over 20 M13/40s.--Sus scrofa (talk) 21:53, 26 September 2009 (UTC)
- So should it read something like "104 x 47 mm shells"? I say "47" at the moment, it says "87".
- Also, its use by the Germans should, IMO, be mentioned in the text.
- RASAM (talk) 19:33, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
- No it's 104 or 87 shells as [2] differ a bit on how many were carried.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:10, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
Looking at it again, I think it's meant that the M13 carried 104 shells and the M14 87. Changing.--Sus scrofa (talk) 12:48, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Minor use of captured vehicles on an ad hoc basis by the British and Australians should not be claimed under "Used by" as that implys official use as an officially adopted, purchased and supported system. Especailly if these captured vehicles were destroyed "when their fuel ran out." Even if that seems unlikely to the extreme: the Commonwealth forces had no access to diesel fuel? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.127.154.20 (talk) 14:53, 18 February 2012 (UTC)
- At least three M.13/40's were used by the Egyptian Army against the Jewish kibbutzes during the 1948 Israeli War of Independence at the two Battles of Negba. http://ftr.wot-news.com/2015/02/27/the-last-battle-of-the-m-13-negba-israel-1948/#more-22477 69.124.68.175 (talk) 13:43, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
False statement
editthis "in the same age most German tanks were armed with 20mm or 37mm guns and the gun/armour race led to adoption of weapons of 50mm calibre only during 1942" is false the german tank pz III with the 50/42 gun is earlier just after the fall of france, was the most common tank for germans in Western Desert. Sorry for my bad English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.233.213.136 (talk) 20:13, 27 November 2012 (UTC)