Talk:A7V

This phrasing is odd and should be corrected by someone who's more sure of the intent: "The height varied up to three metres."

This phrase is most easily read as "The variation in the height was as much as three meters", but I think the intention was: "The height varied, but was never more than three meters", or perhaps "The height varied but was normally around three meters".

A7V-U not an exact copy.

It was an attempt to copy the characteristics of the British tanks, but by no means an exact copy - rather a reworking of the A7V. According to Hundleby and Strasheim, the prototype was completed in June 1918, but there is no reference to 20 production models being ordered. Instead they say that all work was stopped in September. Hengistmate (talk) 00:11, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Holts in Austria-Hungary

Contrary to widespread belief, there was no Caterpillar-Holt factory in Austria-Hungary. Holt had an agent there (Leo Steiner) and he proposed building Holts under licence, but the idea was dropped when the War broke out. Steiner had demonstrated Holts to the Austrian and German Armies, but neither purchased any. The Holts used to tow Austrian heavy mortars were civilian vehicles commandeered by the Army. Holt did not establish a manufacturing plant outside the USA at any time between 1892 (the official incorporation date of the company) and 1925 (when the company was acquired by Caterpillar Tractor Co.) Caterpillar's first manufacturing facility outside the USA was in the UK (1952). Source: Archives of the Caterpillar Company; Papers of Leo Steiner.

Hengistmate (talk) 13:21, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

"Moving Fortress"?

I have not come across this nickname in many years of studying the history of this vehicle. The phrase certainly describes it, but whether it was routinely used by troops is questionable. Many supposed nicknames turn out to be the inventions of journalists or historians. Those used by the troops tended to be short/derogatory/coarse. If the reference is claimed to be from Spencer Tucker's book, I can't find it in there at the moment. In any event, Mr. Tucker's book is rather shaky on a number of aspects of this period. Clarification would be much appreciated. Hengistmate (talk) 17:28, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for supplying the citation. As I say, I haven't come across this nickname in about 40 years. A citation is a citation, but what concerns me is that Mr. Biggs's article is wrong on two major points. It isn't true that only replicas of the A7V exist today, nor that Wotan was scrapped and rebuilt. As the Wiki article says, an original A7V survives in Australia, and the replica in the Munster Panzermuseum isn't a rebuilt Wotan; it's a scratchbuilt affair, based on a mixture of Wotan and Mephisto. This doesn't fill one with confidence as to the reliability of Mr. Biggs's knowledge of the subject. In view of the above and the fact that the ponderous nature of the vehicle is obvious, I'm not certain that the inclusion of the reference adds anything to the article. Hengistmate (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Have removed this sentence. The A7V's resemblance to a "moving fortress" is evident to the casual observer without the necessity of the highly suspect claim about the adoption of the expression by "the British", and the source that makes the unsupported claim http://www.howitworksdaily.com/history/the-a7v-tank-5-top-facts/ is flawed at such a fundamental level that I would maintain it cannot be considered reliable or authoritative. I have contacted the editor of the source in question, pointing out the errors and inviting comments, but there has been no response or acknowledgement. This does not smack of reliability. Hengistmate (talk) 16:54, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Draisines.

I should be most interested to see the source of the theory that draisines gave rise to the belief that A7Vs were used by Poland. The "Polish A7V" seems to have arisen at some point in the 1930s, and can be found in works by Heigl and Jones, Rarey, & Icks.AKAIK, Poland didn't capture any draisines from the German Freikorps, but purchased some from France. Actually, I think Wikipedia requires that we say something like, "However, no evidence has been found to support this view, and authoritative sources refute it." Regards, Hengistmate (talk) 13:21, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

A7V "Tentasie"

Sorry, but there was no A7V Tentasie. The Profile Publication shows a photo of an A7V captured by Australian troops, and captions it Tentasic.

However, this a misreading of the photograph. The name painted on the front of the vehicle is Mephisto. That can be confirmed by studying the photograph, and IIRC the misinterpretation is mentioned in the corrigenda of the compilation of Profile mags published by Cannon Books in 1994. It's an optical illusion. I have, therefore, removed the reference. Hengistmate (talk) 20:42, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

You're welcome. Hengistmate (talk) 11:13, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

"Polish" A7Vs

I don't have Hundleby and Strasheim to hand at the moment, but their refutation of the notion that any A7Vs saw Polish service is in there. If anyone has a copy, perhaps they could check on the page number in the meantime. John Foley's 1967 document is very unreliable and has long since been overtaken by events. It's he who misidentifies Mephisto as the non-existent Tentasic, which does not inspire confidence, and the article in general is sprinkled with inaccuracies. The Polish theory was begun in the 1930s by a German historian, and, like many such, refuses to die. Wikipedia could play an important part in making sure it does. It's rather like the idea that Patton was somehow involved in the Battle of Cambrai - plenty of sources that say he was, but they all suffer from the disadvantage of being wrong, which puts Wikipedia in an awkward position.

Anyway, the informed view is that there were no Polish A7Vs, but I suppose that to meet Wikipedia's requirements we must respond to the request for a citation, and hope that the historically verifiable one be allowed to prevail over all the misguided ones. The cited source is Hundleby, Maxwell; Strasheim, Rainer (1990). The German A7V Tank and the Captured British Mark IV Tanks of World War I. Haynes Foulis. ISBN 0-85429-788-X. I'll supply the page numbers asap, unless a good Samaritan wants to step in.Hengistmate (talk) 09:55, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

Foley is a cite that there are reports of them being used, he doesn't say that they were used. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:05, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's almost entirely what he does say. The Wikipedia article says there are reports. Foley's article says, "surplus A7Vs were acquired by Poland, and these played a brief and undecisive (sic) role in the Russo-Polish war of 1920 (sic). Five are reported to have taken part in the Battle of Warsaw. The A7V remained officially in Polish service until 1921." With one exception, those are assertions. Most unfortunately, they are incorrect assertions. But the citation can remain, as long as it is balanced by a historically accurate reference. The citation I offered is for the source that refutes Foley's assertions, which are in any case regarded as obsolete by modern students of the subject. As I say, I shall provide the page number when I am able to, unless you would prefer to check it yourself. Hengistmate (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

The Trouble With Foley . . .

The problem with using John Foley's A7V Profile as a source is that it is roughly 45 years old and contains much information that is out of date. It can be downloaded, or it can be read here: http://www.scribd.com/doc/75213051/Armour-in-Profile-No-7-A7V-Sturmpanzerwagen The "Tentasic" incident is one example of the mistakes in the booklet, and there are plenty of other inaccuracies. This book dates from the same period when Ellis and Chamberlain were able to state that it was "not known whether there are any surviving WWI German tanks." Things have moved on since then. The works by Hundleby and Strasheim are much more reliable. I would treat Foley with extreme caution.Hengistmate (talk) 18:37, 3 January 2013 (UTC)

On second thoughts . . .

. . . I wouldn't use Foley as a source at all. In the 1998 Cannon Publications compendium of Profile articles, a number of edits have been made to the 1967 text, not all of them for the better. The 57mm Belgian gun becomes a 57mm Russian gun. In fact, these guns were captured in both Belgium and Russia, and they were British-made. A minor consolation is that the description of the Überlandwagen is an improvement on the 1967 version. On the other hand, the more recent edition claims that the Germans formed an Abteilung of captured Whippets, which is entirely untrue.

However, there is a major problem with the operational history. Foley's version is unaltered in the 1998 version, and differs substantially from that of Hundleby and Strasheim. Most importantly, the action of October 8th that Foley describes in dramatic detail involved only Mk IV tanks on either side, so I don't really see why it's included in an article on the A7V. It can be established independently that British Mk V tanks never encountered enemy tanks, whether A7V or captured Mk IVs. Apart from the April 24 engagement, the only other tank v tank encounters of any kind were at Niergnies and Séranvillers on October 8th, when British Mk IVs of 12 Bn came across captured Mk IVs of Abteilungen 15 & 16. 12 Bn had not been equipped with the Mk V because lack of machines. A7V actions around that time were on the 7th, at Saint-Etienne-à-Arnes, and the 11th, at Iwuy.

Mr. Foley's account is so shaky on so many points that I wouldn't use it as a reference. Hundleby & Strasheim are much superior. Hengistmate (talk) 22:41, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Edits March 12th, 2013.

Have been going through the section on Combat History, trying to get the details straight, and made one or two other improvements. Quite a lot of Foley's info is inaccurate and imprecise. Hengistmate (talk) 18:18, 12 March 2013 (UTC)

"Elfriede" edit.

Elfriede wasn't captured by Australian troops, whatever the caption says. She was captured by French troops, some of whom can be seen in the background of the photo. Lots of photos were taken of other troops with the vehicle. See here. Have reverted the edit. Hengistmate (talk) 00:49, 21 May 2013 (UTC)

Undid revision 743222068 by 46.143.134.171 (talk) Undo of vandalism/advertisement

Clear advertisement and vandalism, we should keep an eye on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BobdurKerman (talk • contribs) 00:52, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

A7Vs v Whippets?

There are competing claims by the German tanks and artillery for the damage done to the Whippets. A7V Siegfried claimed 3, whereas a 7.7cm artillery battery claimed all 4. Hengistmate (talk) 09:59, 6 February 2017 (UTC)

Naming.

In the History section, the name is given as "Allgemeines Kriegsdepartement, Abteilung 7 Verkehrswesen". In the Naming section, it's given as "Allgemeines Kriegsdepartement, 7. Abteilung, Verkehrswesen". Anyone care to clarify?

I've discussed this, and the first one is preferable. Abteilung 7 comprised two branches: A7V (Verkehrswesen - transport) and A7L (Luftfahrt - aviation). On some official documents the V and L are printed in lower case. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.81.159.211 (talk) 20:07, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

Naming the Committee, etc.

The Abteilung 7, divided into A7V (Verkehrswesen) and A7L (Luftfahrt), predated WWI and was part of the Prussian War Ministry. Zaloga says that A7V stood for "7th Transport Department", which is wrong. It stood for "7th Department: Transport".

What the article says at the moment - that the Department was formed in 1916 - is wrong. What Zaloga correctly states is that what was formed in 1916 was a committee to operate under the auspices of the Department. It was in some ways similar to the Landship Committee - a collection of technical experts and automobile designers. Alles klar? Hengistmate (talk) 19:35, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

"Female" A7V

There wasn't one. The Germans didn't use the terms "male" and "female" when talking about the A7V. Gretchen was just a tank briefly without a 57mm. What's mildly interesting is that Gretchen was fitted with a 57mm for exactly the opposite reason that the British "female" was created, but then some "females" were fitted with a 6 pounder for the same reason that Gretchen was fitted with a 57mm. Hengistmate (talk) 11:39, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Image added 21.11.2017

This caption is debatable. Mephisto was abandoned by its crew and lay behind German lines for three months before its location was occupied by Australian troops of the 28th Battalion. Recovery was carried out by two Gun Carriers, 23 men of the (British) 1st Gun Carrier Company, and 13 men of the 26th Australian Battalion.

The full caption on the AWM site https://www.awm.gov.au/collection/C1261?image=1 is more complicated:

"A German tank captured by the 26th Australian battalion, at Monument Wood, near Villers-Bretonneux, in France, on July 14th, 1918, and subsequently salved for the Australian War Museum by the 5th British Brigade of Tanks" (Official caption). At the 5th Tank Brigade demonstration ground, Vaux-en-Amiénois, France, Australian soldiers inspect Mephisto, a German A7V tank (kampfwagen). After being bogged and abandoned on the battlefield it was recovered on 14 July 1918 by the 26th Battalion and a British Royal Armoured Corps unit." Hengistmate (talk) 11:26, 21 November 2017 (UTC)

Image of replica Wotan.

This replica gets appropriate coverage in the relevant section. There doesn't seem any point in putting up a picture of a replica, particularly when the replica is based on a vehicle other than that of which it is supposed to be a replica. There is a photo of the real Wotan on German Wikipedia, if anyone is feeling public-spirited. https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:A7V_Wotan2.jpg Hengistmate (talk) 22:26, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

"Large front overhang"?

What large front overhang? the front of the hull is level with the front of he tracks. Maybe not quite as good as a Mk.IV, but much better than your average 4x4 truck. I feel like someone is taking a comment that mostly applies to the St.Chamond and Schenieder and mistakenly applying it to the A7V. Obviously the A7V had many shortcomings, but I don't see how "long front overhang" is one of them. 64.222.85.235 (talk) 10:53, 9 May 2022 (UTC)