Talk:Renault FT/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Where and when used?

The article states "The tank was widely used by the French and the Americans during the latter part of WW1". Does anybody know where and when the FT-17 was used in WW1? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.78.8.85 (talk) 19:17, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Basically in all major battles fought by the French in France after 31 May 1918, most notably the Battle of Soissons (1918) (not much of an article, that one...). I'll add some detail and numbers.--MWAK (talk) 20:00, 2 July 2008 (UTC)

Service History - Made A Weapon in Itself ?¿?

Indeed, the very production was made a weapon in itself: a goal was set of 12,260 to be produced (4,440 of which in the USA) before the end of 1919.

This sentence makes no sense to me. Any suggestions on how to improve it? Does anyone know when this goal was set?

I think it should be changed to

A goal was set (in date or early/late 191X) to build 12,260, 4,440 of them by the United States,before the end of 1919.

Be Bold In Edits (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I'll change the sentence to make it more understandable and will try to determine the date of the decision, which is indeed of importance. But remember: though you should be bold, the headings should not ;o).--MWAK (talk) 06:17, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The last FT-17

I recall a rumor that in the 1970s, they found an FT-17 in Afganistan, where it was still used by some local warlord's private gang of thugs. Does anyone know if there's any truth to the myth? --Agamemnon2 22:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Some FT-17s are present in Afghanistan. Their origin is uncertain. Very probably four were exported by France in the early thirties, which would explain how they escaped the official export lists of the twenties. Two of them, complete wrecks by then, were removed from Kabul, where they had served as monuments, to Fort Knox (Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor) by the Americans after their intervention of 2001. See http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/afghanistan/AFG-FT17-2-27-03FW.pdf-- That any of these vehicles would still have been operational in the seventies, seems highly unlikely. MWAK 05:34, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Two FTs were found in a scrapyard in Afghanistan in 2003. Mr. Charles Lemons, Curator of the Patton Museum (who restored one of them and has examined every inch of it) is of the opinion that these tanks were sold by France to Poland, captured by the Red Army in the Russo-Polish War, and presented to Afghanistan by the Soviet Union. This might have been part of the Treaty of 1919, under which the Soviet Union became the first country to recognise Afghanistan's independence. Two were displayed as museum exhibits until fairly recently (maybe until the invasion of 2001). The career of the pair that ended up in the scrapyard is unknown. It is not really conveiveable that any of these tanks saw service in recent decades, but they just might have fallen into the wrong hands. But the spare parts would become unavailable a long time ago. Hope this helps.

Hengistmate (talk) 16:27, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Service history: users

On 31 january 2011 I added the United Kingdom in the list of nations that used the Renault FT operationally. This is based on note n° 24387/GQG of 19 september 1919 to the Senatorial Army commission. It mentions that 24 Renault FT tank were delivered to the British Army. In the same edit I removed the German Empire as to this date no published source have found any conclusive evidence of it being used operationally by the German Imperial Army. That captured examples were used for instruction as been mentioned, but there's still absolutely no record of combat service. On 24 February I reverted an edited that added Canada to the list of users. The Canadian Army had no armoured units until 1930, and to this date I haven't found any mention of Renault FT tanks being delivered to it. As a note the Tank Corps did support the Canadian Corps on the Western Front in 1918 (notably at Amiens), but the Tank Corps is part of the British Army. Regards Don Durandal (talk) 21:08, 24 February 2011 (UTC)

The loan of FTs to the British was part of the deal arranged by Churchill. The British were to reciprocate by lending Heavy Tanks to the French. In the end the French received Mk V* Tanks, but none saw action before the Armistice. FTs were used as command/liaison vehicles with the Canadians, but with British crews.

There were 2 Canadian Tank Battalions in WWI. They trained at Bovington but the War ended before they could be sent to France.

Hengistmate (talk) 14:29, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Thomé's Involvement

"Studies on the production of a new light tank were started in May 1916 by the famous car producer Louis Renault, for no apparent reason other than his wish to involve steel tycoon Paul Thomé in his business schemes."

This is not my understanding of Thomé's involvement. He had previously manufactured for Renault some aero-engine cylinder heads in cast iron that had proved superior to Renault's own. According to Thomé's diary, the two met after Renault had persuaded Colonel J-B. Estienne of the advisability of a small, light Tank, and Estienne had already placed an order. Renault asked Thomé if, in the light of his previous experience, he would be able to produce cast iron parts for the new vehicle since Renault did not have the capacity at his own foundry. Thomé agreed, and a company was set up with Renault taking a 60% share and Thomé's company ploughing back the 75,000 francs that Renault had paid him for the aero parts. It was simply a case of outsourcing parts that Renault could not produce in sufficient quantity for an order that had already been agreed.

Renault seems to have been working on a light tank before his second meeting with Estienne. Estienne was still pursuing the idea of tanks of a similar weight to the Schneider and Saint-Chamond, around 14 tons. Renault's insistence on a lighter vehicle appears to have been based on his view that no engine existed that would provide the necessary power/weight ratio for a medium tank. Some of Estienne's reports talk of a design for a light tank already in existence at Renault. Of course, the choice of a light tank would have tactical implications on the battlefield. To state that Renault's motivation was purely to benefit Thomé is far-fetched. Estienne was already considering some kind of command/reconnaissance tank, based on the Schneider CA.

Hengistmate (talk) 14:05, 3 March 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but from the account in Jeudy's Chars de France one gets the impression that Renault and Thomé had had a previous business contact in which Renault asked, for general purposes, to acquire Thomé's innovative cast steel (not simply iron) method but was put off by the latter's demand for a large personal remuneration. When becoming involved in several French armour projects in the Spring of 1916 — he was asked to develop another medium/heavy vehicle on the lines of the Schneider/ St Chamond — Renault would have realised that by involving Thomé, appealing to his patriotic feelings, in a joint venture to produce light tanks he basically could obtain the technique for free by making a profitable investment. Certainly, Renault's main motive was not to benefit Thomé :o).--MWAK (talk) 09:28, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Try as I might, I cannot arrive at that interpretation of jeudy's account. Renault paid Thomé 75,000 francs in gold for the cylinder heads to defray losses. Thomé uses the word "fonte", which is cast iron rather than steel; I should have thought that someone in his line of business would be precise in his terminology. Although Renault had a reputation for organising things to his advantage, particularly when it came to the avoidance of paying royalties, Thomé takes the trouble to point out that when the joint company was dissolved after the War Renault "as usual" took care to ensure that the terms were favourable to Thomé. As far as I can see, the only dealings between the two men before the FT order were to do with the cylinder heads.

But all the above is beside the point. What I am trying to indicate is that Renault did not conceive and champion the FT "for no apparent reason other than his wish to involve Thomé in his business schemes." The claim should be removed.

Hengistmate (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Damn, rereading it, I notice what mistake I had made: I read autrement instead of autrefois, assuming the 75,000 gold franc had never been paid...And you're right about the fonte malléable also, the correct translation is malleable iron. The entire development history of the type needs to be rewritten and expanded.--MWAK (talk) 13:36, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Not to worry. Can we remove it, then? The comment is already cloned all over the Internet. Hengistmate (talk) 16:52, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Wikipedia has many mirrors; they will change with it. You can remove the incorrect clause; in any case, I'm now annoyed enough with the shortcomings of the article to start making the changes pretty soon :o).--MWAK (talk) 19:57, 4 March 2011 (UTC)

Done that. Thanks. Also, I have no knowledge of Ernst-Metzmaier designing any of the FCM tanks, only a claim that Renault supplied an engine. Ernst-Metzmaier makes no mention of it in his memoirs.Hengistmate (talk) 23:47, 6 March 2011 (UTC)

This Tank Has Been Given The Wrong Name.

The name of this tank was the Renault FT. The suffix "17" is incorrect. AS the article article says, all Renault projects were given a two-letter job code. This was FT; the next one, a truck intended to transport it, was FU. Unfortunately, the habit of calling it the FT-17 has become commonplace. The title of Steve Zaloga's book (cited as a major source for this article) is The Renault FT, which should be a clue. Pascal Danjou's book is called The Renault FT. Jones, Rarey, and Icks (1933) call it the Renault FT. French military historian and author François Vauvillier calls it the FT. Louis Renault called it the FT.

I have altered as many instances as I could find, but I might have missed some. I also migh have cocked up a link and a photo caption. Sorry. FT-17 should be changed to FT throughout. The page title also needs amending.

In recent times, I have discovered that on Wikipedia being right is no guarantee of anything if you are outnumbered by people who are wrong. I hope that principle is not applied in this instance.

Hengistmate (talk) 17:35, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Author Steve Crawford says that the model name was FT and the variant FT-17 carried a 37mm Puteaux gun. I'll move the article. Binksternet (talk) 18:41, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

I'm afraid Mr. Crawford is wrong. The FT was the tank. If it had the Hotchkiss machine gun it was a char mitrailleur; if it had the 37mm gun it was a char canon. The confusion arises partly because there were several designs of turret (cast, polygonal) with different types of mounting for the gun, ending up with the omnibus, which could take either the mg or the cannon without modification. Renault farmed production out to several firms - Somua, Delaunay-Belleville, etc) and one of them (I forget which) started labelling the turrets "1918", but that was for their own purposes, nothing to do with Renault.

BTW, the first paragraph is highly contentious. Leading French military historians are not convinced about the Thomé theory; it's one of several possibilities. I think the author might have relied on a single source for that. The origins of this machine are very complicated. I'll try to get round to it.

In the meantime, thank you for your receptive approach. It contrasts favourably with that of the bloke who is doing the George S. Patton page.

Hengistmate (talk) 19:57, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Well, the situation is rather more complex.

First of all, in principle articles should be given the common name of their subject. As you yourself put it: "calling it the FT-17 has become commonplace".

Of course, a case can be made in every particular instance that the name should nevertheless be different for reasons of historical exactness. In this special case however, it is not unequivocal what "historical exactness" demands.

It is true, of course, that the Renault code name of the project was "FT". However, the "habit" of calling it the "Renault FT 17" (or, less authentic, "Renault FT-17") has its origin, not in some strange fancy, but in an official name the matériel once had, the Automitrailleuse à chenilles Renault FT modèle 1917. It was common at the time to abbreviate this to "Renault FT 17". Accordingly Pierre Touzin states in his Les Véhicules Blindés Français 1940-1944, page 115: Ce matériel garde la désignation de son constructeur : <<FT 17>>. Then again, it wasn't uncommon to drop the "17" as well and simply call it "Renault FT". But remember: both "Renault FT 17" and "Renault FT" were abbreviations. So you can't really say that either of them is more "official" or "exact". And to which of them was more common at the time, who knows? The most extreme reduction in this period resulted in a "FT 17" or a "Char FT".

Now, your changes in the article are rather inexact from an historical point of view. You have abbreviated the name even further into a simple "FT". I know, Danjou (inconsistently) did the very same thing — but then he had to pack a lot of information in a booklet of 62 pages, half of which is a translation of the other half. We have no such excuse :o). Certainly the historical name of the tank was never a mere "FT". In documents it is always preceded by "Char" (or "char" if the person writing it forgot, or never understood, it functioned as part of the name and should therefore be written with a capital). This is reflected by the English translation in Danjou's book which also mostly renders it as char FT (BTW on pages 29, 30 and 39 "FT17" is used!).

What can we conclude from all this? I personally would say that the best solution would be to remain as close as possible to the more original name and thus use "Renault FT 17" (without the hyphen, which the French rarely inserted) in the main text. When sentences threaten to become overloaded, for reasons of style "FT 17", "Renault FT" or "Char FT" are quite acceptable alternatives which could be used interchangeably to make clear to the reader that using them is normal. "FT" is ahistorical and had better be avoided. It is unwise and unnecessary to change the article name, but if it is changed (has just been done, I notice) "Renault FT 17" is superior.--MWAK (talk) 20:50, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

Do you propose to have two articles, one named Renault FT 17 and one named Renault FT 18? Binksternet (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)

No, because "FT 18" was apparently never used in an official name. Both the vehicles equipped with a cannon and those fitted with a machine gun were subsumed under the designation "Renault FT 17". It is apparently not clear where and when the idea originated that a "FT 18" existed. Jeudy explains it as a mistake, occasioned by the HP output of the engine!--MWAK (talk) 07:57, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Then it appears that Renault FT 17 should be the article's name. Binksternet (talk) 16:18, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

That seems best to me. However, perhaps user Hengistmate has some information or argumentation that is superior to mine...He seems uncommonly well-informed (and well-writing) and is hereby heartily invited to contribute to the article which indeed — largely because of my laziness — is rather limited.--MWAK (talk) 20:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your very kind remarks. I am struggling for time at the moment, so I can't thrash this out here and now. Please bear with me and I'll try to knock it into shape in the near future. Very briefly; I would be opposed to the title "FT 17", since even the proposition that it was a nickname seems unlikely. It's even possible that it is a misunderstanding that arose in the 1970s and has been perpetuated by authors. Those are the earliest uses of the term that I can find. It doesn't differentiate one model from another - the first batch ordered comprised both mg-armed and 37mm-armed, so the Puteaux argument isn't correct. As I mentioned, some of the later turrets were termed 1918 by their manufacturer, but that was purely an internal matter and applied only to the turret.

Most unhelpfully, the Germans renamed the Renaults that they captured in 1940 and used for anti-partisan operations the Panzerkampfwagen FT 18. I suspect that that was to distinguish it from the other marks of Renault that they captured, and 1918 was the first year in which the German Army encountered them. So they probably saw it as the "FT tank of 1918". More about this later.

I wouldn't describe "FT 17" as an abbreviation; it's more of a contraction, and there are few abbreviations that are longer than the original. The machine was, indeed, sometimes referred to internally as "the 18hp Renault FT", not the "FT18". My view is that the engineers at Renault had a project that had the job number FT. Their caterpillar artillery porteur was the FB, the 12-ton truck was the FU, and so on, with no suffix. The description was, as you say, Automitrailleuse à chenilles Renault FT modèle 1917 , meaning literally "machine-gun vehicle with tracks Renault FT Model 1917". Of course, French grammar doesn't help matters, nor does the fact that terms don't translate neatly and exactly, so you could translate that as, say, "Renault FT Model 1917 tracked machine-gun vehicle" or, more militarily, "Renault FT tracked machine-gun vehicle, Model 1917". Whichever way you slice it, the FT and the 17 keep their distance. (During the draft stages the project has several working titles - "Patrol Tank" (Louis Renault), "Reconnaissance Tank" (Col. Estienne)and "Machine-gun tank" (on which they eventualy agreed) - and was given the job number FT when the avant-projet was approved for a full drawing.

As far as I can tell, French authors (Touzain, Gurtner, Jeudy, Malmassari, Vauvillier) refer to it consistently as the FT. I must admit I hadn't noticed the inconsistencies in Danjou. I shall check. Most French experts I speak to are adamant about it, and you know how particular they are about the language.

I am fortunate enough to have a copy of the relevant part of Rodolphe Ernst-Metzmaier's memoirs, very kindly sent to me by his son, who is still with us and living in Paris They are a long-lived strain, it would seem: Rodolphe made it to 98. At his great age, I'm afraid his son cannot be relied upon for such details, but Rodolphe refers to the vehicle throughout as "char FT", with no capital. That again is a French thing - part of M E-M's way of speaking. It's only like the difference between saying "Sherman" or "Sherman tank". But you wouldn't write "Sherman Tank" all the time. The word "char" is not an integral part of the machine's title; it depends on the context.

Now here is a most interesting point. In the 1930s the French began officially adding the year of entry into service as a suffix to their tank names: Renault R 35, Hotchkiss H 35, AMC SOMUA S 35, FCM 36, AMX 38, Hotchkiss H 39, Renault R 40, and so on. This was clearly necessary once mahufacturers had produced more than one mark. But in 1917 there was only one Renault. I suspect that some authors have accidentally backdated this practice to 1917. And since the Germans needed to distinguish between their captured Renaults, which included many R 35s, they gave the FT the 18 for admin purposes.

So I would come down firmly against FT 17. I think it is an accident, like "Marie Celeste" and some others I can't think of at this time of night. You get what I mean.

I need to let my head cool down now. This was only going to be a quick holding manoeuvre. Until I can have a good think about it, I would suggest that the article be headed "The Renault FT Light Tank", and as brief a summary of the above as can be arrived at incorporated in the opening remarks. I'm too tired to do anything just now.

Hope this helps. If you want to put something together I'll have a look at it as soon as I can. If you're violently opposed, we'll have to think again.

BTW, just to show how complicated it can be, mitrailleuse means either a machine-gun or an armoured car with machine-gun; automitrailleuse means an armoured car with machine-gun; a mitrailleur is a machine gunner. So the version armed with a mitrailleuse was a char mitrailleur. Why didn't they realise all the trouble they would cause?

As regards the origins of the FT - I lean towards the view that the idea was L. Renault's rather than Estienne's. Probably a mixture of technical practicality and business acumen that, remarkably, had tactical consequences. We can do that another time.

Thank you for your kind attention.

Regards.

Hengistmate (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

It's very interesting you can access Ernst-Metzmaier's memoires! It would be very important that they be published — or published about! Or has that been done already? Should you want to write an article about it, I can more or less guarantee publishing space in The Netherlands (though not in a prestigious magazine I'm afraid :o).

As regards the issue at hand, I feel quite sure that you underestimate the age of the "FT 17" combination. Certainly it's been around for quite a bit longer than the seventies: I've been myself and I can vouch for the fact that it had already become the common name shortly after WW II. And didn't the Germans also use the designation Panzerkampfwagen FT 17? However, you might be quite right in assuming that the "FT" and the "17" originally kept their distance — or at least approached each other from an unexpected direction. In Heigl's Taschenbuch der Tanks (1934 edition) the type is called the "Renault M.17 F.T.". The "M.17" designation is apparently from Renault export brochures of the twenties (though I doubt these used "F.T." instead of "FT"). It seems the company referred to types that were still in the developmental stage with just the letter combination, adding a year model when they became available for production. Interestingly, already in Heigl a separate Renault M. 18 is mentioned, indicating the version with the rounded turret. That could be a purely German invention though. You also might be correct in suggesting the "FT 17" designation had its origins in the French usage of the thirties of combining a letter with a number to indicate tank types. However, the most simple explanation would then be that already in that period a "FT 17" was the result, perhaps in contradistinction to a (modified) FT 31? That it had become normal to refer to the type as the Renault FT would then explain why "R 17" wasn't chosen.

"The Renault FT Light Tank" or "Renault FT Light Tank" might be an excellent name for a book chapter but it is less than ideal for a Wikipedia article because it is even less common than "Renault FT" and there is an element of original research in the translation from the French Char Léger.

Considering the question of whether "FT" is a name by itself it might be useful to realise that it is but a code letter combination used to indicate a chronological order. That means it basically has syntactical problems standing by itself: it has to qualify something. In this it isn't any different from a number code. Just as it would be awkward to contract "T-54" to just a "54", using just a "FT" creates an absence that has to be filled by something; hence the French always put a char in front of it. Of course there was in this a certain amount of analogy felt with the possibility of qualifying a tank name by also putting char in front of it, as with char Sherman, which is perfectly correct French. But there is a fundamental difference in that in the latter case char is the qualifier. You can omit it: just Sherman is also good French. But you can't as easily eliminate char in front of char FT because in this case char is the thing qualified and removing it leaves nothing for the "FT" part to qualify. This means that in essence the whole functions as a name and had best be written as "Char FT". Will not always be done of course, as orthography is a complicated and confusing subject ;o).--MWAK (talk) 09:59, 31 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello there. Thank you for your very kind, considered reply.

Firstly, M Ernst-Metzmaier sent me the material (and a photo of his father driving an FT in the 1980s) as a personal favour. At the moment I should not like to abuse his kindness. I do hope you understand. Perhaps as part of a larger work in the future.

didn't the Germans also use the designation Panzerkampfwagen FT 17? Not to my knowledge; sometimes as the PzKfw 18R 730(f).

in Heigl a separate Renault M. 18 is mentioned, indicating the version with the rounded turret. That's the point I made earlier; it applied to the Girod (IIRC) turret and has contributed to the misunderstanding about the existence of an FT18. Heigl has his moments of confusion. He seems to have been resposible for the origin of the myth about A7V tanks serving with the Polish Army after WWI. It misled a lot of people (including Jones, Rarey, and Icks) and still resurfaces today.

Perhaps "FT17" does go back further than the 70, but post-WWII is not 1917. I respectfully suggest that it only acquired the suffix after other Renault tanks appeared and it became necessary to distinguish one from another. Maybe it originated in the French Army. Perhaps troops, mechanics, and so on referred to them as the "17" and the "35". I know this is speculation, but I think it's worth the exercise.

However, something of which I am confident is that "FT 17" has no official status. Here's why:

Renault had no history of using such a system of nomenclature. During WWI they added the E, F, and G series, to their pre-War output. These included:

EG 4x4 heavy artillery tractor
FB caterpillar porteur
FS liaison car
FT, the tank in question
FU, 7 ton 4x2 heavy truck, especially designed to transport the FT light tank
GZ 3,5 ton 4x2 standard truck

No Renault product code contained any numerals. So as long as "17" does not appear in the name of this tank, I'm happy.

"First of all, in principle articles should be given the common name of their subject. As you yourself put it: "calling it the FT-17 has become commonplace". Commonplace and wrong. With respect, the common name is not the same as an incorrect name. A lot of people I know say, for example, "infer" when they mean "imply", or "concede defeat" when they mean "accept defeat" or "concede victory", or "criteria" when they mean "criterion". That doesn't mean that the dictionary should change its definitions because the incorrect expression has become commonplace. The dictionary should (as does Cassell's, for example) show the correct definition along with a Usage Note, such as, "Often confused with 'imply'". It seems to me that that's exactly how Wikipedia should work.

And so to char. It isn't a problem. It just means "tank". It was part of the description of the FT, not of the name or title. Char léger Renault simply means "Renault light tank". The French don't always put char in front of the name. I've got a shelfful of books that happily refer to "le Schneider" or "le Renault" - even "les Saint-Chamond"; what they don't do is pluralise the name, just as they don't pluralise family names. If you were writing in English, though, you would use English grammar and pluralise it. We don't say, "Keeping up with the Jones," and Morrissey wasn't in a band called The Smith. OK, you might inset "tank" to establish the meaning. To introduce them into a narrative you would most probably say "Sherman tanks . . . " but thereafter you'd say "the Shermans . . " Or the T-54s. Or the FTs. The English and French grammar aren't directly transferable.

Look at the article on the Russian BT Tank. The title of the article is tautology - the 'T' already stands for Tank, but the article isn't in Russian. Sometimes one has to make the best of things.

And, naturally, one would not contract "T-54" to just a "54", because it was produced as the T-54. The Renault tank (char, char d'assaut, blindé, char blindé, cuirassé, however it was described) was never produced as the FT17.

Amicalement, — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengistmate (talk • contribs) 03:44, 1 February 2011 (UTC)

It certainly is a disappointment that the many new insights the memoires could provide are for the moment denied us! But at least it is good to know that they exist.

That the article name should be the common one, is not so much my personal opinion as standing Wikipolicy. See: Wikipedia:Article titles. The basic point is that it should be completely unambiguous to the reader that the page he is reading, is about the vehicle he knows as "FT-17". That this name itself is historically less correct, can be explained in the text of the article. Cleansing the article of any reference to "FT-17", while this is the name used to refer to the type in the vast majority of books it is mentioned in, would be highly confusing and contrary to the purpose of an encyclopedia: to provide the reader the opportunity to obtain more information about a certain subject he has encountered.

In general, it should not be a rule to call a tank type by the name "under which it is produced", if the latter is supposed to be its internal factory designation. Sometimes that designation is rather obscure or much too wide. "Renault NC" e.g is the factory designation of the "Char D1" but also of several earlier projects in the twenties.

Again, I propose to use "Renault FT 17" or the original "Renault FT-17", as the article title. In the main text "FT 17" could be avoided, but, if not for the syntax problems for reasons of formality alone, it would be highly advisable to use "Renault FT" instead of a mere "FT".--MWAK (talk) 09:59, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

I concur with MWAK on article name. That is policy and I can see no argument for not following it in this case. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:52, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Hi, MWAK. Sorry for the delay in replying. You won't be surprised to hear that I think the article now looks just fine as it is. But let me offer you some justification.

It is incontrovertible that the tank was not called the FT 17 or FT-17. The case for "common usage" is interesting. Common usage is one thing; a common misconception is another. The question is what do we do in each case?

To use Wikipedia's example, "Bill Clinton" is common usage, and users are directed to the article entitled "Bill Clinton", where his full name is given as an elaboration. (BTW, compared to Bill Clinton, I think so few people talk about the FT at all that "common usage" is a bit of an exaggeration!) However, let us imagine that I am interested in a sailing ship that was discovered adrift and abandoned in the Atlantic in 1872. My experience is that the overwhelming majority of people who refer to it call it the Marie Celeste. It just seems natural that "Marie" goes better with "Celeste" than does plain old "Mary". But it's a common misconception. Therefore, if I search for Marie Celeste I am directed to the article on the Mary Celeste, where the confusion is explained. The ship was Mary, the book by Sir Arthur Conan Doyle was Marie. That works fine. At present, that's exactly what happens if you search for FT-17.

To take another example, "buttercup" is a common name. If I search for it on Wikipedia I am redirected to the article on Ranunculus. In this case, the article is named after the botanical name. Perhaps Mr. Legget could reflect on the above the next time he joins the discussion, perhaps at greater length and in a more flexible frame of mind.

It seems to me that to name the article on the FT the FT 17 would tend to perpetuate the belief that that was its name, however much a clarification might follow. I don't think that the first thing you see should be an error. I hope you understand my point of view.

Now to the syntax and grammar. As we know, French and English are not the same. In the case of the word char it is, as you say, a qualifier. Just as you might say, "The author Stephen King," French writers sometimes put, "le char Schneider." But thereafter the qualifier is not necessary; you would refer to "King" or "le Schneider". A further snag is that the French put the qualifier in front. When we translate into English we should, naturally, put it after.

Some examples: early French experimental vehicles included the Tracteur Filtz, the Fortin Cuirassé Aubriot-Gabet, the Tracteur Blindé Archer, the Appareil Boirault, the Crocodile Schneider, and the Pont Delaunay-Belleville. We translate them as the Filtz Tractor, the Archer Armoured Tractor, the Boirault Machine, the Schneider Crocodile, and so on.

As to whether the French always put char before the object noun, I can offer Les Chars de la Grande Guerre by Paul Malmassari. He is a Lieutenat Colonel in the French Army, a Doctor of History, and Head of the French Army's Historical Bureau. Most of the photo captions contain the expression, "Char . . . ", but not all. For example, "Oemichen dans un Schneider" (Oemichen was a designer at Peugeot), "châssis du Schneider", "plan du projet Schneider CA3", but "plan profil du char CA3 proposé".

But in the text he mixes them up for the sake of variety: "Les faiblesses du Saint-Chamond . . . supérieure a celle du Schneider . . . la fabrication du CA3 . . . le Mk V* . . tracé du Saint-Chamond . . des Saint-Chamond au secours des Schneider . . . les défauts des Schneider(Note not pluralised). . . la tourelle du Renault."

So by all means switch between "the FT" and "the Renault" if it makes the article less monotonous. That is fine, and permissible in both English and French. But please no FT17 or variations thereof.

Au plaisir de vous lire.

Hengistmate (talk) 22:06, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Well, the examples you give are not quite comparable. A ship is registered under an official name; a plant species has its official scientific name. The internal factory designation however, has no such official status. Surely it should not be a general rule that tank articles have such a designation as their title; I assume you will not defend this even for French tanks alone. It so happened that in the case of this particular type the "FT" designation ended up being inserted in the actual name people used. There also was a year model number assigned to the type; after some time — we don't know when exactly — the two were combined in general usage resulting in a "FT 17". That this combination is a bit peculiar doesn't mean it is in "error", nor the fact it isn't perhaps the oldest colloquial name. After all, in this case we have no unequivocal single "historically correct" name.

Would the simple fact that FT-17 redirects to Renault FT be clear enough to the reader? No. Both of us are well acquainted with the type: to us it is therefore obvious that the Renault FT is identical to the FT-17. The general reader however, lacks the background knowledge to draw correct conclusions about why he was redirected. Was the FT-17 perhaps a prototype? A subtype together with an FT-18? A derivation? A rivalling project discarded in favour of the Renault FT? Of course, we could clarify things in the lead section by stating something to the extent of: "Reader beware! The type called here Renault FT is in the vast majority of cases referred to under the name of "FT-17"!". But if that is true, under Wikipolicy "FT-17" should be in the article title.

BTW, my contention was not that char qualifies FT but the opposite! Les Chars de la Grande Guerre is a very useful book, that painfully reminds me of the fact that all these articles are in dire need of being expanded...--MWAK (talk) 08:35, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Surprisingly we've gotten this far without reference to the Wikipedia policies on naming Wikipedia:Article titles (and as an aside Wikipedia:Naming conventions (flora) for clarifying the business around Ranunculus). GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:26, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

The Tank Museum at Bovington seem happy to call it "Char Renault FT17" in their catalogue. I don't what term other institutions use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:09, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

I believe User Hengistmate had read the policy guidelines. But being less experienced in Wikimatters than we are, he probably has no idea what an incessant source of trouble it might be to act in contravention of them ;o). I fear a name changed in this way will be challenged again and again...That is why in the beginning I indicated it would be unwise to change it.--MWAK (talk) 14:03, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Why don't we flag the issue up at MILHIST? There are many wise heads there, and consensus might be forthcoming. GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:15, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

We might do that :o).--MWAK (talk) 08:09, 5 February 2011 (UTC)

From the recently published Le général J.B.E. Estienne "père des chars" - des chenilles et des ailes by Arlette Estienne Mondet (his granddaughter): "il s'agissait du nom de code chronologique donné au véhicule à Billancourt. On le désigne aussi comme le FT 17: le chiffre 17 fut rajouté après la guerre dans les livres d'histoire car chez Renault on disait toujours le char FT."

Translation: "it was the chronological codename given to the vehicle at Billancourt. It is also referred to as the FT 17: the number 17 was added after the war in history books, since it was always referred to at Renault as the FT."

This would perhaps help to explain Bovington's happiness, amongst other things.

I hope Mr. Leggett's remark about there being wise heads at MILHIST is not meant to imply that there are none here. I notice, by the way, that whilst "Buttercup" redirects to "Ranunculus," "Cornflower" takes me to "Cornflower" (not Centaurea Cyanus),"Privet" to "Privet" (not Lingustrum), and so on. My reading of the rules indicates that such matters are decided on "a case by case basis" rather than by a hard and fast rule. Hengistmate (talk) 14:22, 26 March 2011 (UTC)

Well, the combination "FT 17" indeed seems to be post-WWI. Having my copy of Malmassari's work brought over to me from London (you see we spare no expenses in furthering the cause of Wikipedia ;o), I happened upon a short appendix I hadn't noticed before, treating tank designations. In it he states On notera à ce sujet que le char type Renault n'a jamais porté pendant la Première Guerre mondiale le nom de <<FT 17>>... On the other hand he also indicates that in army documentation <<type F.T.>> (apparently even then misunderstood) first appears in August 1917 but that at the same time <<char léger Renault type 1917>> is used and <<Renault 1917>>, so the year number seems to be contemporaneous.--MWAK (talk) 14:05, 30 March 2011 (UTC)

Aha. I, too, had not bothered to read Lt-Col Malmassari's notes until you kindly drew them to my attention. I suspect that the "F.T." came about because of a normal impulse to put full stops after initials. That could be what has led so many sources to assume that "F.T." must be initials rather than simply letters in a series.

On a related matter, Malmassari also says that there was a Schneider CB. I have long doubted that the CA stood for char d'assaut. The fact that a proposed Schneider model became an artillery tractor and was given the designation CD leads me to believe that this was a system like Renault's - just product codes. But what was the Schneider CB? Hengistmate (talk) 21:52, 4 April 2011 (UTC)

Mr. Leggett might be interested to hear that Bovington are no longer happy to call this vehicle the FT17. Since the refurbishment it is labelled "Renault FT," with the subtitle "Renault 1917," indicating the manufacturer and year of production. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengistmate (talk • contribs) 13:47, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Sorting Out the Name Problem

I think we need to take a root-and-branch approach to this. I notice that the wording has been changed from "inexactly known as the FT-17 or FT17" to "informally known as . . ." Both are incorrect, although "inexactly" is marginally preferable. "Misguidedly" would be more accurate. It is referred to as the FT-17 or FT17 predominantly by English-speaking sources in post-WWI writings. We have two authoritative French sources that state that this vehicle was not referred to by either of those names during WWI. It is a habit that has grown up since, although the reason isn't clear. On the assumption that we are required not merely to state the facts but also to dispel misunderstandings, I suggest that we explain that.

Rather than tinker with the existing references dotted throughout the article, I would also suggest that we follow the example of the general article on tanks [[1]] and insert a section on this. We can use it to explain the origin of the name and the emergence of the FT-17 habit and dispel the myths about there being an FT18 and the designation being dependent on which turret or what armament was fitted to the tank or its having something to do with the hp of the engine. We can call it "etymology" or "nomenclature" or something.

I'm happy to prepare a draft. A l'attente de vous lire.

Hengistmate (talk) 18:29, 19 August 2011 (UTC)

I agree that a section about the names would be very useful. The reason "inexactly" was changed for "informally" — and "misguidedly" would be improper — is that Wikipedia strives to be descriptive, not prescriptive. It isn't our task to prescribe the reader what name to use, we merely have to indicate what names actually have been used. Of course, this would include informing what the original or official names were — but the reader has to decide for himself whether he would be "misguided" if following present usage.--MWAK (talk) 05:44, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

With respect; it is those authors who have acquired the habit of calling it the FT-17 who are mistaken, and they subsequently mislead anyone who reads their work. No one is telling readers what name to use, and we have no control over what they call it anyway. All we can do is explain the facts and the misconceptions. Thereafter, they can call it a Treacle Pudding if they wish. As far as I can tell, it is perfectly proper for Wikipedia to point out misconceptions. Indeed, I would suggest that it is its duty to do so. I enclose some examples where that has been done:

"The name 'Frankenstein' – actually the novel's human protagonist – is often incorrectly used to refer to the monster itself."

"Although the koala is not a bear, English-speaking settlers from the late 18th century first called it koala bear due to its similarity in appearance to bears. Although taxonomically incorrect, the name koala bear is still in use today outside Australia – its use is discouraged because of the inaccuracy in the name."

"The battle (of Cambrai) is often erroneously noted for being the first large-scale use of tanks in a combined arms operation.

"The term shrapnel is often incorrectly used to refer to fragments produced by any explosive weapon."

However, I believe that this note from the article on Archbishop Thomas Beckett, frequently referred to as Thomas à Beckett, addresses the situation ideally:

"The name 'Thomas à Becket' is not contemporary, and appears to be a post-Reformation creation, possibly in imitation of Thomas à Kempis."

I shall proceed on that basis.

Amicalement,

Hengistmate (talk) 17:03, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

Certainly, the last solution is preferable! Some of the cases you refer to are not quite comparable as the mistakes there are about facts outside of the name itself, such as the plot of a novel ("Frankenstein") or the phylogenetic position of an animal ("koala") — or even purely factual ("Cambrai"). But don't hesitate to add the section. The Way of Wikipedia is not to be perfect but by imperfection inspire others to greater perfection ;o).--MWAK (talk) 04:58, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, MWAK, as we say in England on occasions such as this, the Frankenstein point is nothing to do with the plot of the book. It is that many people have come to mistakenly believe that Frankenstein is the name of the monster and not of the man who created him. When they say, "You look like Frankenstein," they think they are saying, "You look like a huge, ugly man with bolts in his neck," but they are saying, "You look like a rather nondescript Swiss gentleman." This mistake is perpetuated by common usage but is still a mistake. The same applies to a koala, because it is not a bear. Anyway, this analysis is too deep. I shall press on.

MfG. Hengistmate (talk) 13:27, 22 August 2011 (UTC)

Anyway :o), you did a great job adding the section. Don't hesitate adding a bit more! (hint, hint).--MWAK (talk) 06:32, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

You are most kind. The next problems are as follows: I would suggest strongly that "informally" be changed to "erroneously," or something that implies it. Secondly, if I google "Automitrailleuse à chenilles Renault FT modèle 1917," all but one of the results that come up are quoting this article. I haven't seen this term used in any literature. Could you tell me the source of it? Hengistmate (talk) 08:04, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Well, your suggestion is at odds with standing Wikipedia NPOV policy. We are not allowed to be prescriptive or judgemental — and certainly in a matter of pure convention, as any name is, we cannot condemn a wide-spread usage!

Nevertheless, names also entail factual matters, such as your very pertinent question whether Automitrailleuse à chenilles Renault FT modèle 1917 was ever a real name. Looking at the edit history, seven years ago I apparently changed the existing Renault FT modèle 1917 designation present in the article by adding Automitrailleuse à chenilles because Jeudy's Chars de France p. 29 gave me the impression that Automitrailleuse à chenilles Renault was the oldest official Army name for the matériel. Reading Malmassari makes me doubt there ever was an "official name" and his text suggests the earliest use of a year number was the contemporary char léger Renault type 1917. That could serve as an alternative — the hybrid I created has to go of course — second name to be mentioned in the first sentence to at least explain where the "17" in "FT 17" comes from.--MWAK (talk) 16:47, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Hello again. On the question of popular usage, I think we are allowd to point out that a term might be popularly used but is still incorrect. For example, it is common practice to refer to the Clock Tower at the British Houses of Parliament as "Big Ben." However, that is actually the name of one of the bells within the Tower. The name of the tower is "The Clock Tower." So we can say, "popularly but inaccurately . . ." We're allowed to observe that a source is at odds with the facts. Sir John Keegan states with absolute confidence that the FT was first used in April, 1917, but we know that that is a mistake and are at liberty to point that out.

In any event, the phrase "widespread useage" is a relative one - I don't think enough people talk about the Renault on a regular basis for the word "widespread" to be justified :o).

So how about this? Let's take Automitrailleuse à chenilles Renault FT modèle 1917 out of the first para altogether and move it down into "Nomenclature," setting out in chronological order the various names that were applied to the vehicle during its gestation. Should I give that a try?

Hengistmate (talk) 11:24, 11 September 2011 (UTC)

The way you did it, is excellent!--MWAK (talk) 15:38, 12 September 2011 (UTC)