Talk:Flame tank

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry C‑class

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 a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force

PIAT[edit]

Not convinced PIAT should get a mention as a weapon with a range better than a flame thrower tank GraemeLeggett 16:20, 8 Feb 2005 (UTC)

While PIATs were fairly lame, I included them because they were the British & Commonwealth equivalent to the other weapons mentioned. A PIAT would also have a fairly good chance at 50m range, wouldn't it? The Land 14:17, 9 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The Crocodile range is quoted at somewhere from 80 to 120 yards (70 -110 metres). There's no particular need to mention specific examples at all. Its a specialist vehicle and only really used where the targets are known anyway. GraemeLeggett 16:35, 4 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I think it's fine the way it is. More info doesn't detract from the article. The key word is "like." Still, worth thinking about.-LtNOWIS 03:44, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

References and citations, please...[edit]

Hi All, this article seems quite good IMHO. Unfortunately references are not mentioned (especially writen ones), and also lacks relevant inline citations. Can the main editors of this article please help providing them?
Thanks & regards, DPdH (talk) 09:41, 18 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uhhh.. you.. you what?[edit]

From "Combat Effectiveness":

"due to the enemy tank's armor, your only and near-impossible hope being to continue hit the enemy tank with machine gun bullets, irritating the crew so much that they would want to bail out"

Seriously? Irritate the crew enough so they bail out? When did that ever happen? It's not a church fete, hardened soldiers don't get irritated out of cover. What are they planning to do, phone up and complain? Is there really any example of a crew being irritated into retreat? Captain deathbeard (talk) 09:06, 26 August 2009 (UTC) Not in the situation described. However it was occasionally used to force crews of immobilized tanks to surrender, so presumably yes hardened soldiers can be irritated enough by enemy's waste of ammunition to bail. A1s (talk) 10:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Clean up time.[edit]

There is little in this article that is verified, and it appears that little is verifiable at all. Whole sections are going to need to be re-written or deleted, but I will hold off on the editing for now, but if there is anything you see that you think is worth discussing please post it in either this section or create one of your own, if anyone can help look for citations on this subject, I might have some cookies in it for you if you do. Totally not a sock-puppet: (Thirdaccountlostagain (talk) 01:15, 28 August 2011 (UTC))[reply]

just wwii[edit]

there needs to be more then just world war two tanks in this article — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.24.167.213 (talk) 22:24, 28 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

minor error[edit]

during combat effectiveness it claims flame tanks were safer because infantry flamethrowers would explode if shot at, though this isn't the case as the gas would just blow back the guy with the flame thrower. someone with a citation should fix this if I'm not wrong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.177.255 (talk) 22:01, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Flame tank. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051210094011/http://davidszondy.com:80/future/war/flametank.htm to http://davidszondy.com/future/war/flametank.htm

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: 18 January 2022).

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.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]