text:
Talk:Cromwell tank

Origin of name
Was it named for Oliver Cromwell or Thomas Cromwell or someone else? And if Oliver, how'd it happen the name was changed from Cavalier to the leader of the Roundheads? -- orthogonal 12:26, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Rich tea man - the cavalier was the same hull but with the suspeension form the crusader. the cromwell and centaurs had a new suspension system. also there was an upsized crusader called the covenanter but was only used for training. The cavalier, centaur and cromwell were developments of this.

 * The Covenanter was *smaller* than the Crusader, although both were developed at the same time and shared the same turret design. DMorpheus 19:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

 * It would be Oliver as Thomas wasn't a fighting man. The "C" names all have a martial air to them, Churchill can also be taken as referring to the Duke of Marlborough and weren't picked with any particular party sensibility. GraemeLeggett 08:12, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

 * It would be inconcievable that the tank is named after anyone else other than Oliver Cromwell. British military designs are only rarely named after real characters and then they would be from an elite few of great military commanders such as Wellington, Churchill, or Cromwell.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.199.5.25 (talk) 01:28, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

 * The clue is in 'civil wars' - British tanks for a period were named after personalities or things with a connection with the English Civil War, US-built tanks after American Civil War ones. That BTW, is why the Churchill tank was almost certainly named after this Winston Churchill and not the later one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.173.13 (talk) 10:49, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
 * I suppose the clue is in "C" means "Cruiser", so all Cruiser tanks from Covenanter through Chieftain have C, Challenger among them. Rémy Lenôtre (talk) 23:08, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Chice of image to illustrate
I'm not happy with the current image "Cromwell tank color.JPG". We need a better piccie for the article than this one - if we have to stick with it for the moment it should at least have some appropiate commentary added. GraemeLeggett 11:54, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
 * Main gun - although the muzzle looks right it appears to be welded solid onto the front of the turret and lacks the co-axial Besa MG
 * Hull machine gun - a metal tube too long and fat for to be a Besa MG.

Help
I need to know a lot about this tank. Please tell me what you know.
 * I'm pretty sure the bulk of what we can tell you is already in the article, with additional material on the external links. If that's not sufficient, you'll probably need to borrow or purchase a book on it. Oberiko 01:56, 18 December 2005 (UTC)

Surviving vehicles?
Would it be of value, with quite rare armour such as this, if we had a subsection entitled surviving vehicles where a list of known tanks could be seen.--Gaspode the Wonder Dog 17:27, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I suppose it depends on the number of them. If there are under ten, then it could contribute, but to much more then that and it starts overwhelming the article.  The best solution would be to post a link to an external site which contains such information. Oberiko 23:33, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

 * I agree about the danger of overwhelming the article but on the other hand the sites that list surviving tanks are always lacking in detail and invariably incomplete. I think that this is just the sort of thing Wikipedia is good at. Worst case scenario if they got too big they could make their own page. Unless there’s any strong objections I’ll give it a try and see who it works for the Cromwell.--Gaspode the Wonder Dog 08:38, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

 * The armour world appears to lack a website as effective as britishaircraft.co.uk for listing survivors.GraemeLeggett 09:53, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Well if too many (>10?) to go in this article, why not a "List of preserved Cromwell tanks" ? Hugo999 (talk) 02:10, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

fastest ???
>The Cromwell was the fastest tank to serve in WW2 IS the word 'British' missed there ? 60 kmph cannot be the fastest tank! Just compare it to BT-7

 * The BT-7 maximum speed is running on roadwheels with tracks off; its more of an armoured car then.GraemeLeggett 10:09, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

 * IIRC, the early Cromwells would do 40 mph on the road, but this was found to be too much for the tracks and suspension, so subsequent vehicles were governed down to IIARC ~32 mph. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 17:41, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
 * We really should add "in LATE WW2". Crusader OP was the fastest AFV, so even among British tanks there are a competition. Rémy Lenôtre (talk) 23:11, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Continued use of the Liberty
Am I right in understanding that this continued to be used when it was somewhat past its best because Lord Nuffield had a vested interest in its continued production? I've heard something to this effect a couple of times but am unfortunately a bit short on remembering any useful details, but the impression I'm left with is that Nuffield could have produced Merlins instead of the Liberty but wouldn't, leading to the production of the somewhat underpowered A27L. If true, it sounds rather scandallous, but if false (or at least unsubstantiated or POV) obviously it's not something that could go in the article. Does anybody know anything more? -- Chris  ( blather  •  contribs )  14:49, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I don't know anything about this particular case, but two things come to mind. First, you'll never be able to prove it one way or the other. Second, it wouldn't be the first time something like this was done. Military procurement is no more honest than anything else, and it would be naive to think that in wartime everyone puts aside their profit motives. Ever notice how many Ford trucks the Wehrmacht drove? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DMorpheus (talk • contribs) 15:58, 1 September 2006 (UTC).

 * I think I'm easily shocked because I'm sometimes too naive and prone to assume good faith inappropriately! But the mention of those two dreaded words, "military procurement", soon disabuses me of such notions... --  Chris  ( blather  •  contribs ) [[Image:Flag of the United Kingdom (3-5).svg|20px]] 16:06, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

 * I think that the state the British were in at the time, with almost draconian power possessed by Churchill - as 'Minister of Defence' - and the War Cabinet, any such machinations by Nuffield would have been quickly suppressed. HMG could have simply requisitioned/confiscated all of Nuffield's assets due to his actions being detrimental to the war effort. They really would have done that if it had been necessary. And Lord Nuffield and his lawyers would have been unable to do anything about it. So no, it's not very likely, even assuming that Nuffied was the sort of person who put profit before his own country's interests.

 * The fact that Nuffield's factories were already tooled up for the Liberty would have led some people to advocate the continued use of the engine, for some managers/ministers, production over-rides utility - "A Bird in the Hand is Worth Two in the Bush". Unfortunately the use of the Liberty at around 300hp severely limited the amount of armour that could be carried by a Cruiser Tank and by 1942-43 this amount was not enough. With hindsight the Merlin/Meteor should have been started earlier but then again, Merlin aero engine production took priority.

 * The whole British pre-war/wartime tank development story is a pretty gloomy one, mostly due to meanness/lack of money in the War Department's case, together with a lack-lustre approach to the tank by the Army, and lack of investment in the factories and machine tools by the companies involved. IIRC, the Matilda I was designed to a unit price of £11,000. Hardly a good way to go about procuring a fighting vehicle. And the Cromwell's and Comet's as well as the Chuchill's inability to mount a larger gun than a 6-pdr was due to failing to install large enough turret ring machining lathes at the factories. They simply couldn't machine a turret ring (the circular aperture in the top of the hull on which the turret is mounted and rotates) large enough to mount anything bigger. These were eventually purchased from the US and IIRC the first tank design on which they were used was the Black Prince.

 * The Cromwell was probably the first British tank that had bags of reliable power - around 600hp, although it was still under-gunned and under-armoured compared to contemporary German AFVs. The subsequent Comet narrowed the gap with a much better gun, whilst it wasn't until the Centurion that a British tank could be described as being an 'excellent' vehicle.

 * The one bright point in British AFV development was in wheeled AFVs, in-which Britain arguably led the world, the Daimler Armoured Car, Daimler Dingo, Humber Armoured Car, etc., being probably the best anywhere at the time.

 * BTW, IIRC the Liberty-engined A27L was produced because at the time the Meteor was in limbo having been modified by Rolls-Royce but not having yet entered full production. The RR Nottingham factory that produced them was at that time being transferred over to Rover in a deal that swapped the factory for Rover's Barnoldswick Whittle engine works. The A27L was just a stop-gap until production of the Meteor could start, otherwise they would have had a large number of engineless tanks lying around - it was either that or halt/delay production of the new vehicle, which you just can't do in war. Many Liberty-engined Cromwells were subsequently re-engined with Meteors.

 * The Meteor was the AFV designer's dream engine, as it had plenty of power - roughly twice that of previous British tank engines - and could be thrashed all day and not break. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.112.68.219 (talk) 21:26, 16 June 2011 (UTC)

 * An interesting Rolls-Royce Enthusiasts' Club web page on the development of the Meteor and the Cromwell here:

 * I can see why they continued. If you see how long it took to resolve cooling issues on the Crusader, I'd imagine the Tank Board would be very concerned about the same occurring with Cromwell.  In that respect, Cavalier provided a safe bet as the problems had already been resolved in Crusader, while Centaur provided a half-way house with some of the Cromwell benefits.  It's easy to consider these as wasted efforts with the benefit of hindsight, but at the time I think it's understandable.  Lkchild (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 * At the time it was proving difficult to balance the time needed to re-design and fix problems in production vehicles with the need to get these same vehicles to the operator and into use. In effect, the manufacturer could do one or the other, but needed more time to do both.

 * The Crusader and the Churchill were both designed and developed in the aftermath of Dunkirk when there was very real danger of a German invasion and so time was very short to get the vehicles into service, whether they worked reliably or not - almost all of the British Army's armoured vehicles had had to be left behind in France in 1940. I don't know why the Crusader's cooling problems took so long to sort out, I suspect it was an unwillingness to change the design and incur delays in delivery at a time when they were desperately needed. IIRC, the problem was broken fan drives due to metal fatigue in the fan drive shafts that didn't appear until the vehicle had driven a considerable number of miles.

 * It is also as well to point out that until June 1941 British factories were still suffering from occasional industrial action that didn't help. This disruption mysteriously ended coincidently with the German invasion of the Soviet Union. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.100.164 (talk) 13:05, 26 March 2017 (UTC)
 * Where do you get this story about 'no adequate lathes' from? Machining a 6ft-7ft steel ring to automotive tolerances is a pretty straightforward job - one well within the capabilities of British railway and shipyard shops of the time. And, 'a lathe'? Sure, ring turning machines are sometimes lumped into the category of 'lathes' e.g. vertical lathes, wheel facing lathes etc, but they're more commonly categorised as 'boring machines' (sic) or vertical boring mills. These common, conventional machines were manufactured in the UK before and during WW2 - in fact, in 1935, George Richards & Co (Manchester) were offering from their catalogue a boring mill capable of machining work up to TWENTY SEVEN FEET in diameter. In addition, "No 6207 A Study in Steel..." (YouTube) a 1937 British documentary about the the building of the Princess Royal locomotive class, will show you a workpiece some eight feet diameter being worked by British machine tools at the Crewe rail workshops.
 * There is absolutely no reason why tank turret ring manufacture had to wait for the arrival of American tech. other than a wartime shortage of British machines - an issue largely locally solved in the UK by about 1941 as a result of broken American promises of machine tool sales. You need to provide a credible reference for your claims - otherwise your story is nothing more than an extension of pro-American propaganda which seeks to claim that the British could invent nothing, build nothing, without the superior helping hand of Uncle Sam. Almost all those tales prove to be false on close inspection. 86.149.115.159 (talk) 06:06, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The point being made was not that the railway and ship-building industries couldn't manufacture them but that the factories actually building the tanks didn't have the equipment. The shipyards were working flat out building warships and producing merchant ships to replace the losses to U-boats. Murgatroyd49 (talk) 09:49, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I'd need to see a reliable source. TBH. A vertical boring mill capable of turning a 7ft ring really isn't an unusually large or rare machine. Great Britain was a major global producer of machine tools prior to WW2 and that industry ramped up British home production massively during WW2. Furthermore, in the period prior to December 1941, Britain had placed HUGE machine tool orders in the US and received delivery of most of these; in 1940 it was estimated that 25% of the entire US machine tool manufacture for the year was bought and paid for by the UK. I have been trawling back issues of 'American Machinist' - the journal of the American tool and metalworking industry - from 1936 onwards and whilst it is replete with detailed discussions about foreign contracts and supply of American machine tools, there is NO mention of ring machining equipment for Britain. Hence, I would actually like to know a verifiable source for this particular claim of British wartime inadequacy. 86.149.115.159 (talk) 11:16, 2 January 2023 (UTC)
 * And... in case anybody thinks Crewe rail workshops - despite fielding machines suitable for machining a tank turret ring - ween't actually up to that job, it's worth mentioning that they had, in fact, produced 150 Covenantor tanks earlier in the war. 86.149.115.159 (talk) 11:04, 2 January 2023 (UTC)

Cromwell in the IDF
From Moshe Givati - In their hands the steel was tempered [MoD 1998, p 20-21, 42]: Haganah members persuaded four British soldiers to desert with four Cromwell tanks; those were the last tanks that remained in a tank battalion camp in Haifa airport. On night 29/30 June 1948 three tanks were stolen (the engine of the fourth one didn't start); one got stuck in sand and was abandoned; the remaining two (Mk III and Mk IV) were brought to the Borochov neighborhood of Givatayim and hidden there from the British. The tanks were assigned to the 8th Armored Brigade (82th battalion, heavy tanks company) before Operation Danny (July 1948). The tanks were used in that operation, including an unsuccessful attack on Latrun on 18 July, and in some subsequent operations.

According to Oleg Granovskiy - Names, Designations and Service Figures of IDF Armored Vehicles (Russian; http://www.waronline.org/IDF/Articles/Armor/1948-1952_tanks.html), the tanks were retired in 1952.

The Armored Corps Museum in Latrun (Yad la-Shiryon) has two Cromwells: one with dummy gun Image:Cromwell-latrun-2.jpg and other Image:Cromwell-latrun-memorial-1.jpg which is a part of the WWII memorial along with Sherman and T-34-85 Image:WWII-Memorial-latrun-1.jpg. Wheteher these are the "original" two, I don't know. Bukvoed 10:13, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Imperial / metric
Being that this is a British vehicle, shouldn't the units be in metric first, and imperial second? Oberiko 13:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * They're known as Imperial units for a reason, and the UK hasn't quite gone wholly metric yet. GraemeLeggett 14:29, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Maybe, but they're officially metric and it looks like most other British vehicles have metric before imperial. Oberiko 17:01, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

 * Back in WW2 the British were still imperial, having imperial makes it a lot cleaner (as the vehicles were designed as imperial, rather than 2.5cm it would be 1 inch. (213.167.69.4 (talk) 10:08, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

 * Why does the era matter? When we describe the Gladius, we don't use Roman units.  I'll take it to the Military History task force though, and get their input. Oberiko 18:19, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I've posted the question here. Oberiko 18:22, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

 * I've removed the break as this question had become disconnected from the earlier discussion. Lkchild (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

odd
Does anyone know why the centaur's turret was calibrated? I never understood that. --MKnight9989 13:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

 * The painted calibration marks on the turrets of RMASG Centaurs and Shermans were used to adjust deflection when fire was being adjusted by an observer outside the tank. DMorpheus 13:36, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. --MKnight9989 12:29, 16 July 2007 (UTC) Bold text

Change of Picture
Can someone PLEASE change the picture - It's completely the wrong tank, the photographed one being a Israeli jerry-rig if anything at all, and does not represent any Cromwell that operated in Western Europe during WW2. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.202.204 (talk) 11:03, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Most common British tank design?
"Late in the war it was the most common British design in use, replacing the Sherman tank for some units."

Is there a source for this? There were about 4,000 Cromwells built but over 7,300 Churchills. Granted, the Churchill entered service earlier, so the statement may be correct for the late war period (say June 44 to May 45). Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:18, 11 February 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd part of the sentance is somewhat accurate - Cromwell tanks generally equipped the recce armoured regiments and was the sole medium tank (bar Sherman OP and Fireflys etc) used by the 7th Armoured Division.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 * That's right, the 7th was solely equipped with Cromwells and the recon battalions in other divisions had them. But the other British armored divisions (11th and Guards) had Shermans, and the Tank Brigades had Churchills. The Canadian, Polish and South African armored divisions had Shermans also.
 * British tank brigades were quite large, having more tanks than a typical German panzer division, so there had to have been a lot of Churchills around. I am simply asking if there is a source comparing Churchills in service compared to Cromwells in the last year of the war, because the assertion in the article is that the Cromwell was the most common British tank design in use, and the Churchill is the only possible rival. Thanks, DMorpheus (talk) 21:05, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Also to note i do not believe Cromwell tanks were shipped to Italy (or shipped in huge enough numbers), which would exclude quite a number of recce units and perhaps the South Africans?
 * I have information for 1944 but not 1945, however it may cast light on the figure for 1945.
 * According to Fortin during the Normandy campaign they were committed as following: 46 Cromwell tanks per recce unit and 61 Cromwell tanks per armoured regt of the 7th Armoured Division. Both figures include the few CS tanks as well.(Fortin, p. 82)
 * 31st Tank Brigade, in Normandy, consisted of 67 Churchill tanks per battalion - including modified tanks.(`Clark, p. 36)
 * If the latter is standard among all Tank brigades that is 603 Churchill tanks in front line service and 321 Cromwell tanks in front line service (183 in the armoured regts and 138 in recce units - assuming only the 3 British armoured divisional reccce units used them)
 * That would perhaps cast doubts on the exact wording of the sentence in question but not nesscerraly disprove it.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 23:07, 12 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Right, I hae never seen any reference to Cromwells used in Italy. AFAIK the recon units of the Italian-theater armored divisions used Stuarts. The Polish 1st Armored Division had some cromwells, presumably in their recon battalion (10th mounted rifles IIRC). The Canadian ADs didn't have any.
 * So it may well be that the Churchill was in fact the most numerous British-designed tank even in the last year of the war. Even the ~4,000 figure includes about 900 Centaurs, and only a few (a dozen or so) Centaurs ever saw combat. I suggest the sentence be removed until / unless someone can source it. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 04:44, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 * Could be the case of a missing qualifier - add "cruiser" and its probably right since the Churchill is an infantry tank. The line also says "late in the war", by which time the earlier Churchills would be out of service giving about 3,200 of the 6 pdr and 75 mm gun tanks? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:05, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

 * It's becoming obvious that none of us knows and we are all guessing. Adding "cruiser"....well, wasn't the Cromwell the *only* British cruiser in service after the Crusader was phased out in 1943, with the exception of a few Comets in the last months of the war?
 * I am going to remove the sentence and, if someone eventually can source it, they can put it back in. DMorpheus (talk) 14:09, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Cromwell/Centaur
This non tank enthusiast has been unable to work out what the difference is. Does the main article need clarification? 212.159.44.170 (talk) 14:17, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 * Having read the introductory paragraphs, I can see its definitely not clear. I've tried to address the issue, perhaps someone else can build on it. GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:25, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

 * I've added more today, showing development, and including a section on design differences between the two. Lkchild (talk) 22:36, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

'Tankies' on BBC2 (Spring 2013)
I was an AFV enthusiast as a kid and have never quite lost a taste for it... The programme 'Tankies' (http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b01pvbds) on BBC2 recently focused on the 7th Armoured Division which was presented with Cromwells in preparation for D-Day. The programme presenter, Mark Urban, was a former officer in the Royal Tank Regiment and was critical of the Cromwell's design - conspicuously the narrow entrance/exit hatch and (emphatically) the Cromwell's presentation of flat surfaces to enemy shell fire. The shortcomings of the main gun - which ceded a 200 yard advantage to the Tiger tank - was also mentioned. Urban's remarks were bitterly endorsed by at least two extant members of the 7th Armoured, one of whom claimed that - after repeatedly complaining about the design of the Cromwell - he was warned that if he didn't shut up he would be court-martialled. Anyone who's read 'The Small Back Room' could readily believe this to be true.

I concede that Urban (as a tank man himself) was talking about the 'user point of view' and that there is a kind of prejudice attached to this. The low profile of the Cromwell was denigrated in the programme because it didn't enable crews to 'look over hedges' (a deficit pertinent to the Bocage conflict, but a boon - as the Wikipedia article rightly points out - in general conditions); nor did Urban remark upon the superior speed of the Cromwell (I must say, like a commentator above, I was also surprised to hear it cited as one of the fastest tanks in ww2... although can't disprove the claim).

Now, while tank crews might have been inclined to whinge overly about the shortcomings of their various marques - I do think the Wikipedia articles are often uncritically influenced by manufacturer's statistics and the historic claims of military PR machines. For example, Urban repeated the observation that Sherman tanks had a reputation for catching fire easily... he mentioned that the Brits called them 'Ronsons' (after the cigarette lighter) which I some time ago pointed out on the 'Talk' page of the curiously chauvinistic Sherman Tank Wikipedia article. I didn't then know, as Urban went on to say, that the Germans called them 'Tommy boilers' - which grimly reinforces claims for the Sherman's shortcomings.

I'm a T34 man, myself (!), but there is no such thing as a 'perfect tank'. The tendency to denigrate the worst of the British tanks by comparing them to the best of the German tanks was always a tiresome tendency in WW2 discussions. (A key aspect of tank design that seldom enters such comparisons was the ability to manufacture them reliably and at speed!). My own memory of the Cromwell is that it was generally seen in a less favourable light than this article presents it - its lengthy genesis (for a war-time tank) meant that it retained outmoded features in its core concept. My memory (which could be flawed) is that the Conqueror project (post WW2) that led to the eventual Chieftan Tank set out to consciously amend this failure. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.147.197.102 (talk) 00:24, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

 * The faults of British tanks during most of WW II were due to a combination of circumstances and decisions made at the time. The primary ones are the simple fact that the War Office and Army asked for types of vehicle that as it turned out were not what was subsequently needed, and on top of that, no-one wanted to pay for proper development. This was due to the trend toward disarmament during the 1930s and later due to the peculiar circumstances after the Fall of Dunkirk when the danger of invasion disrupted more measured analysis of the actual requirements.

 * For a design to make a good AFV you need a good reliable engine giving plenty of power, as well as a balanced combination of armour and firepower. For much of the war British tanks were often lacking in one, or sometimes all of these areas. If you don;t have the engine power then the vehicle is slow if heavily armoured, or must be lightly armoured if speed is a requirement. Hence the two classes of Infantry tank and Cruiser tank. If you are unable to machine a large enough diameter turret ring then you are limited in the size (and power) of gun that can be carried, the width of the hull also limiting the diameter of the turret ring, and therefore the gun size. Because of choices made higher up, and in what was available to them, the British AFV designers were therefore greatly limited in what they were able to design, and it is fair to say that it was only with the Centurion that the British Army and War Office finally asked for what was really needed. This was made possible by the availability of the Rolls-Royce Meteor and the 17-pdr gun. Prior to this British designer had always had to make choices between second- or third-best. For example the Fall of Dunkirk left the British so short of anti-tank guns - 2-pdrs - that the planned replacement - the much more potent 6-pdr - was delayed due to the urgent need for guns of any kind. So the tanks continued to be under-gunned for longer than they would otherwise have been - it was either that or no guns at all.

 * The Cromwell was a very reliable vehicle with plenty of power, but it was designed as basically an upgraded Crusader and so many compromises had to be made, again the turret ring diameter limiting the size of the gun that could be carried. This was why the 77mm HV was developed and used on the Cromwell's immediate successor, the Comet tank, as it was not possible to carry a 17-pdr in a turret on the Cromwell hull, as the gun breech was too long for the hull aperture at certain gun elevations. That's why the turret ring diameter limits the gun size that can be carried. The turret ring diameter also governs the hull width and hence overall vehicle width, so as gun size goes up you need a wider vehicle if you want it mounted in a 360-degree rotating turret. This can bee seen in the Black Prince development of the Churchill tank which is a noticeably wider vehicle in order to accommodate the larger turret ring for the 17-pdr. If the vehicle is wider the overall vehicle weight increases for a given armour thickness.

 * It is also only fair to point out that unlike the German and Soviet vehicles that were able to be transported almost exclusively overland by rail, the British and US tanks had to be suitable for transport by ship, which before the availability of LSTs and similar, meant that an AFV had to be light enough to be able to be lifted by dockside cranes for loading and unloading aboard ship. After the end of the North African Campaign this requirement was no longer a limitation for German designers and so vehicle weights were able to rise.

 * The Sherman was a good reliable tank but it faced the 88mm Flak and its tank gun derivatives which were extremely powerful guns for the time. In order to carry armour sufficient to resist the 88 and still be reasonably mobile a vehicle needed at least 500-600hp and needed to be designed from scratch using a clean sheet of paper rather than being a modification of an existing design. ISTR that the 88 would also knock out a T-34 at a mile as well as it would a Sherman or Cromwell. BTW, I know the Soviet Union was actually invaded in 1941 but it's one thing moving heavy industrial equipment overland by rail, as the Soviets were forced to do, and quite another having to do this by ship across the North Atlantic in autumn/winter which is what the British were facing.

 * So in short, the British tank designers were operating under certain specific limitations that the designers of Germany and the Soviet Union, and to a lesser extent, the USA, were less limited by. A lot of the reasoning and governing factors aren't always obvious at first sight. They've rather made up for it since then though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 19:15, 10 April 2013 (UTC)

An interesting discussion - and quite right to have it here and not have editing wars! Just referring to the paragraph immediately above, it is important to remember these limitations. I think it was rail loading limitations that did limit the size of turret rings for instance, and British designers was asked to design tanks that could travel by rail. It's also interesting to see how British tank design was affected by the lack of a purpose built large scale tank industry. Designs were influenced by the ability of British industry to produce them with existing or modified plant. Eg how plate armour was bolted or welded onto a frame on the Cromwell and Churchill, and how a stepped rather than a sloped glacis on the hull was easier to produce. So indeed, not the finest tank of its era, but they were put into the field maintained, armed, fuelled,and with trained crews as part of a bigger all-arms team. They did their job, I'd say. Thanks for a good article and some good insights guys. Salute! Mungo Shuntbox (talk) 11:35, 4 June 2013 (UTC)

The way I see it is that the Cromwell, Sherman, T34 and Pz4 were all equally awful, it was only because of the heavier German tanks like the Tiger and the Panther (which only made up a minority of axis armour) that give the Cromwell a bad name. When the Cromwell entered service it was going against the biggest and best German armour, so it was compared with it, whereas the Sherman and T34 were compared with the Pz4. The Cromwell wasn't a bad tank, its just that German over-engineering was far superior (apart from the all important production figures that is!). (213.167.69.4 (talk) 10:03, 9 September 2013 (UTC))

Unhelpful first sentence.
If one puts a search for [Cromwell tank] into Google this article is returned as the first item in the list but its entry is not very friendly:
 * "Tank, Cruiser, Mk VIII, Cromwell (A27M), and the related Centaur (A27L) tank, were one of the most successful series of cruiser tanks fielded by Britain in the".

The lead would be much better if it used the common name and reserved the details for further down the lead. The Google search would then return:
 * "The Cromwell Tank was one of the most successful series of cruiser tanks fielded by Britain in the Second World War."

The details such as its official name, or whatever "Tank, Cruiser, Mk VIII, Cromwell (A27M)" is meant to be, can appear later in the lead, it does not have to be in the first sentence.

-- PBS (talk) 12:03, 20 March 2015 (UTC)

 * I've amended the initial paragraphs for ease of reading, which has changed some of the above, but hopefully reads better now. Lkchild (talk) 17:12, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

 * Good work over the past few days in giving the article some maintenance. Regards Irondome (talk) 17:15, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

"Cavalier can be determined"?
In, there is a sentence added in this edit that I don't understand. It starts with "By comparison, Cavalier can easily be determined...". I don't know what it means to determine the Cavalier. Is there a word missing? I think it's just a simple typo, but I'm at a loss to know what. Hopefully can easily solve this and rescue what looks like good info. Sorry if it's obvious to everyone else. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:38, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * "identified" or "distinguished" might be clearer. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:13, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
 * good call both of you, I've made the change to "identified". I may have a picture to upload to illustrate the difference.  Lkchild (talk) 21:24, 7 July 2016 (UTC)

Most successful?
"one of the most successful series of cruiser tanks fielded by Britain .... " questionable, as found during Villers-Bocage during the Battle for Normandy; Beevor (D-Day p195) commenting on the "inability of the Cromwell to knock out a Tiger even at point-blank range" (partly as the intended gun couldn't be fitted) and the "flat front" making it vulnerable Hugo999 (talk) 01:30, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

 * Pathe News pictures of the aftermath of the Villers-Bocage action here: (from 3:13 onwards) Evidently whatever the shortcomings of the Cromwell they had little impact on the eventual outcome.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 00:04, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

 * 75mm CS Cromwells couldn't, but the 6 pdr-armed ones could. The 6 pdr could knock out a Tiger I from the side or rear at useful ranges, more so when firing APDS.

 * The Cromwell CS was a 'Close Support' vehicle armed with a gun not intended for use against armour but intended for use against buildings and opposing enemy positions in the support of accompanying troops. The normal Cromwell was armed with a specialised 6 pdr anti-tank gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.18.228 (talk) 16:54, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

 * You make a good point, but to be clear there are three types of armament. 95mm close support, 75mm dual purpose, and 6 pounder.  It would be nice if we could find an authoratitve or statistical source for the opinion, as there are many conflicting views amongst tank enthusiasts, and many different interpretations of the tank's strengths and weaknesses, which can lead to unfair comparison.  Lkchild (talk) 21:33, 26 April 2017 (UTC)
 * And by "dual purpose" here for the OQF 75mm we have to mean "A 6 pounder, converted to fire a useful HE shell, and with whatever AP performance it might get as a result, using a case limited in size by the 6 pdr breech". This was an excellent weapon and just what was needed at the time: the first UK dual-purpose tank gun (thus enabling the first "universal tank") and that fitted into the tanks then in production. However its AP energy was no better than the 6 pdr and it was the weakest of the 75mm AP guns of WWII (Other than the short-barrelled KwK 37 L/24 of the Panzer IV, which did have a dual use AP round too, although rarely needed as German doctrine didn't send them out alone).
 * The OQF 75mm was a lot different beast to the other AP tank guns of similar calibre used on British tanks in the post D-Day period. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:12, 26 April 2017 (UTC)

 * By 1944 APDS was available for the 6 pdr and this put the anti-tank performance up to around that of an average 75mm long barrelled tank gun, which is why the towed 6 pdr was still a useful gun to have in 1945. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.200 (talk) 09:33, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * But we're talking about the OQF 75mm here, which never had APDS (perhaps a strange decision). Andy Dingley (talk) 10:39, 18 October 2017 (UTC)

 * Possibly it was because the war ended before they had developed an APDS round for it, or perhaps it was because it wasn't an anti-tank gun and so they never thought to develop one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.11.216 (talk) 19:07, 9 November 2017 (UTC)

The article in general is great apart from the Turret and armament section, which is a miss match of dates and general bad information. There is quite a good book soley for the Cromwell but many sources say the same.

Cromwell Cruiser Tank 1942–50 By David Fletcher, Richard C Harley and Peter Sarson

"If the gun is what the tank is all about, then the Cromwell and its cousins were caught at an awkward stage of gunnery development. " Is an extremely polite way of explaining the relative disaster that the planned gun 75mm HV didn't fit the turret. The relative panic and reboring of near all cromwells shipped to Europe meant none could use the APDS round. The Cromwell was a great tank and if the 17-pdr had fitted it would of been the very first in what became a MBT default and it was close but a tank is very much about the gun.

 * The 17 pdr was never going to be fitted to the Cromwell/Centaur/Cavalier as the turret ring and hull was too narrow to accommodate the gun's recoil at certain gun depressions. This was because the vehicle had been designed to be as close as possible to the overall dimensions of the preceding Crusader and to use as many of this vehicle's components as possible. It was also because of this that the vehicle had a flat driver's plate instead of a sloped front plate as that had been decided upon early in the vehicle's design process and changing it would have disrupted production.

 * I should also perhaps point out that at the time the German 88mm guns fitted to the Tiger I and the Tiger II could destroy every armoured vehicle in the world bar-none at around 1,000 yards/meters and that as-such criticism of the Cromwell's armour protection viz these opponents is fairly pointless and those doing it should really know better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 22:38, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

"The original 6-pdr for tanks, the Mark III, was a 43-calibre (length) weapon, which firing Armour Piercing Capped Ballistic Cap (APCBC) could penetrate 56mm (2.18in) of armour at a range of 1,828m (2,000yd). It was superseded, in 1943, by the longer Mark V that had a similar performance, but neither could fire an effective HE round. This problem was solved temporarily by Vickers who reamed out the 57mm gun to 75mm and chambered it to take the American ammunition used in Sherman tanks, both HE and AP. Unfortunately what was gained with HE was lost in terms of armour piercing. The best this gun could do, firing a 6.3kg (14lb) APCBC shot, was 50mm (1.97in) of armour at 1,828m (2,000yd). The free elevation arrangement already described was fine given a properly trained gunner, but it made the task of firing HE more difficult and in any case de- manded a well-balanced gun. This could not be achieved with the hybrid 75mm, so a crude system of geared elevation was employed, which some believed gave the worst of both worlds. Yet this was not the gun the army wanted. In March 1942 Vickers-Armstrongs had offered a new, high-velocity 75mm gun with a 50-calibre barrel and there was a general belief that this would fit the new cruiser. It took until May 1943 to learn that it would not. Thus, with time pressing, it was the modified 6-pdr or nothing if the Cromwell was to carry a dual-purpose gun. Meanwhile, there had been developments elsewhere. Experience in the desert showed that the old concept of close-support, with a breech-loading mortar firing only smoke rounds, was antiquated. In 1942, in keeping with the typically British skill at improvisation, a new gun was created by combining the breech of the Royal Artillery’s beloved 25-pdr with the barrel liner of the 3.7in anti-aircraft gun. The re- sult, known as the 95mm howitzer, proved to be a remarkable weapon. Firing a re- spectable HE shell it had a maximum range of 5,486m (6,000yd); firing High Explosive Anti-Tank (HEAT) rounds it could theoretically penetrate 110mm (4.32in) armour at any range it could reach. Both guns had been standardized for Cromwell and Centaur by February 1943. The most interesting result of these changes was that no Centaur or Cromwell went to war mounting the 6-pdr gun. This was a pity since, with the introduction of Ar- mour Piercing Discarding Sabot (APDS) ammunition in June 1944, the Mark V gun proved to be an excellent anti-tank weapon at close range. It could penetrate 108mm (4.24in) of armour (which even over-matched the Tiger’s front plate) at 1,371m (1,500yd) and at any range up to 1,828m (2,000yd) was second only to the legendary 17-pdr."

That is the truth of the matter with the Cromwell and the Turret and armament section is highly inaccurate in just about every way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.8.73 (talk) 18:29, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 * The fact that in Normandy the British armour would be facing the majority of the German panzer divisions in the West was not known at the time such armament decisions were being made. As such, the expectation was that the majority of targets following the invasion would be infantry and other 'soft' opponents. It was only shortly before the invasion that Hitler ordered the reserve panzer divisions to deploy between the Pas de Calais and Normandy itself, due in large part to the Operation Bodyguard deceptions, and it was only then that such moves were discovered through ULTRA reports.

 * It was hoped that the German panzer reserves would be positioned closer to the Pas de Calais, which at the time was a much more plausible and practicable Allied invasion area, however Hitler vacillated between that location and Normandy and eventually compromised by positioning the reserves between the two.

 * Despite the alleged shortcomings of the Cromwell, the British breakout was eventually successful, and caused the effective destruction of the German panzer forces then in Normandy, including almost eliminating such panzer divisions as the SS Panzer Division Hitler Jugend and Panzer Lehr such that Hitler, after initially giving a 'No withdrawal' order, on being faced with the imminent complete destruction of these divisions, had to personally order them to withdraw. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.8.126.91 (talk) 23:10, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

 * A Canadian historian has stated that the British and Canadian elements were well aware before the invasion of the terrain and likely disposition of German armour and the route it would (had to take). He described the reinforcement of one Canadian division - that would be opposing the likely thrust - with extra artillery including A/T guns as "armed for hunting bear". GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:22, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Cromwell 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/20131219163158/http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/versionanglaise/fichesvillesus/hermanlabreus2.html to http://www.normandie44lamemoire.com/versionanglaise/fichesvillesus/hermanlabreus2.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 19:26, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Doctrine
I have added a citation needed in the Performance section of the article. There are a few problems, it suggests that German tanks were on the whole sluggish and larger. However vehicles such as the Panther had good mobility, and the majority of German AFV's such as the Pz IV or tank destroyers/assault guns were similar in size to the Cromwell or Sherman, and were also well within the capabilities of the 75mm gun at standard combat ranges.

Secondly is this area "Cromwell crews in North-West Europe succeeded in outflanking the heavier and more sluggish German tanks with superior speed, maneuverability and reliability."

This is an odd and un-referenced claim, and it is not explained in terms of doctrine. A troop of British tanks would always be accompanied by a few Sherman Firefly or Challenger tanks (typically 1 in 4, but as high as 1 in 2 at times), specifically designed to counter heavier German vehicles which were immune to the 75mm from the front or at standard engagement ranges. The British cruiser/infantry mix had been thoroughly shaken over the course of the war and it is possibly spurious to assess the performance of Cromwell within that framework (particularly taking into account the widespread use of Sherman tanks by the British Army, and the use of 17pdr armed tanks providing support to both Infantry and Cruiser tanks).

Outflanking the enemy was not a purpose for which the Cromwell was specifically designed or used in on a regular basis. It was very much more a general purpose vehicle compared to previous cruiser tanks (which lacked any sort of substantial armour), the frontal armour of the Cromwell was comparable to that of the Churchill, in fact some models of Cromwell had the same frontal armour thickness as the Churchill. Both tanks carried the same gun.(Fdsdh1 (talk) 22:31, 1 February 2018 (UTC))

"In common with British tank doctrine of the time, the vehicle was designed to fire on the move." This again is totally untrue as the tank was designed for the 75mm HV there is absolutely no way a human could stabilise a gun of that size no matter how well balanced. Any check of any Cromwell and any remaining photo's show an absolute lack of shoulder harness and a sole mechanical gun mechanism. The Cromwell was designed to take a gun that proved too big to fit and necessitated the introduction of the comet and the entry about doctrine is pure fiction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.7.8.73 (talk) 18:39, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

 * " .. and the majority of German AFV's such as the Pz IV or tank destroyers/assault guns were similar in size to the Cromwell or Sherman, and were also well within the capabilities of the 75mm gun at standard combat ranges." - yes but the British and Canadians in Normandy around Caen were facing Panthers, Tiger I's and Tiger II's, and they were facing them in for the most part open country, not in the hedged 'bocage' country the Americans were in.

 * ... and the problem was that ".. standard combat ranges." differed between combatants, for the Allies armed with the 75mm the range had to be 500 yards or less, for the Germans the range at which their tank guns could knock out a Sherman or Cromwell was usually in excess of 1,000 yards. That meant the Allied tank crew had no choice but to wait until the range was under 500 yards before they could fire with any hope of knocking out the German vehicles, whereas the Germans could open fire as soon as an allied vehicle was seen. In open country even a camouflaged vehicle can be seen at up to a mile. Even greater distances in the desert. It was because of this tactical disadvantage that the British made such urgent efforts to get a tank armed with the 17 pdr into service.

 * ... and a result of having to fight with these disadvantages during WW II is why every British main battle tank from Chieftain onwards has had the biggest, longest-ranged gun they can put on it whilst everyone else in NATO was content with a 105 mm. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.144.50.140 (talk) 13:05, 22 December 2019 (UTC)

 * Try this then: "When Cromwell went into action it was already out-matched in firepower by its German opponents but it was superior to them in speed, reliability and, notably, in quick response in laying and firing - qualities which were rewarding when freed from the restrictions of close country when it could out-manoeuvre the heavy tanks and seek out their weak spots." - AFV Weapons Profile 25 Cromwell and Comet by Major James Bingham, Royal Tank Regiment, Profile Publications, 1971, p.28

 * BTW, the power-to-weight ratio of the Cromwell was around 22.2 hp per ton compared to the M18 Hellcat's 23.5. hp per ton, i.e., roughly the same. So the Cromwell was very mobile indeed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.53.180 (talk) 13:41, 1 January 2020 (UTC)

 * The majority of German tanks in Normandy were Mark IVs, which 75-gunned Cromwells, Churchills and Shermans could take on quite well -- particularly the Cromwell, with its speed, manoeuvrability and low profile. Tigers were quite rare and Panthers not very common either. No panzer division except 1st SS ever seemed to receive its full complement of Panthers and one of them never received any at all and relied wholly on Mark IVs. Cromwells could, of course, kill even Tigers by stalking and surprising them side-on and hitting the drive sprocket or turret ring. Cromwells of 7th Armoured killed two Tigers point-blank like that during the brief battle of Villers-Bocage. (A third Tiger, Michael Wittmann's own, was knocked out by infantry with a 6-pounder positioned down a side street.) The Tiger and Panther had very slow turret traverses, so they were always vulnerable in those circumstances. Khamba Tendal (talk) 16:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

Reference 15 (Jentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (1993). Tiger 1 Heavy Tank 1942-45. Osprey Publishing. p. 20.)
I have the book and page 20 doesn't mention anything from this paragraph "In June 1944, the Cromwell saw action during Operation Overlord, the Allied invasion of Normandy. It had a mixed reception by crews, being faster, with a lower profile and thicker frontal armour plate than the Sherman tank, but also being smaller and more cramped. Cromwell had 3 in (76 mm) of frontal armour compared with 2 in (51 mm) on the glacis of the early Shermans, though it was unsloped and hence less effective in head-on combat." In fact, it doesn't seem to mention the Cromwell at all. I suggest we at least remove the citation. Thoughts? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 21:18, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

 * Seeing how nobody replied to this since January, to the point where I forgot about it too, and nothing has changed, I'll edit that part and add a proper citation myself. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 18:49, 11 November 2022 (UTC)

Bannister collection example
Tankfest says that have one converted from Dozer version back to gun tank. Is this one from our existing list (perhaps one of the isle of wight ones) or a new one that's popped up:

https://tankmuseum.org/article/centaur-iii-to-run-at-tankfest-2023

©Geni (talk) 15:43, 9 May 2023 (UTC)

title: Talk:Cromwell tank


text:
Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo

The Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo is an annual series of military tattoos performed by British Armed Forces, Commonwealth and international military bands, and artistic performance teams on the Esplanade of Edinburgh Castle in the capital of Scotland. The event is held each August as one of the Edinburgh Festivals.

Etymology
The term tattoo derives from a 17th-century Dutch phrase doe den tap toe ("turn off the tap") a signal to tavern owners each night, played by a regiment's Corps of Drums, to turn off the taps of their ale kegs so that the soldiers would retire to their billeted lodgings at a reasonable hour. With the establishment of modern barracks and full military bands later in the 18th century, the term "tattoo" was used to describe the last duty call of the day, as well as a ceremonial form of evening entertainment performed by military musicians.

Origins
The first public military tattoo in Edinburgh was entitled "Something About a Soldier" and took place in 1949 at the Ross Bandstand in the Princes Street Gardens. The first official Edinburgh Military Tattoo, with eight items in the programme, was held in 1950. It drew some 6,000 spectators seated in simple bench and scaffold structures around the north, south, and east sides of the Edinburgh Castle esplanade. In 2018, the stands were able to accommodate a nightly audience of 8,800, allowing 220,000 to watch the multiple live performances.

Seating expansion
Since the 1970s, on average, just over 220,000 people see the Tattoo live on the esplanade of Edinburgh Castle each year (8,800 each evening). Before the cancellation of the 2020 and 2021 editions due to the global COVID-19 pandemic, the Tattoo had sold out for 22 consecutive seasons beginning in 1998. According to a submission by the Tattoo to the Scottish Parliament's Digital, Culture, Media and Sport Committee, 2020 ticket sales indicated that 30% of the audience were from Scotland and 32% from the rest of the United Kingdom. The remaining 38% were international visitors from 69 countries.

The temporary grandstands on the castle esplanade, used in 2018, had a capacity of 8,800. New £16 million spectator stands and corporate hospitality boxes came into use in 2011. The new temporary stands reduced the time taken to erect and dismantle them from the original two months to one month, allowing the esplanade to host events at other times of the year.

Performances
The Tattoo performance takes place every weekday evening and twice on Saturdays throughout August and has never been cancelled due to inclement weather. However, in 2020 and 2021 the performances were cancelled due to the COVID-19 pandemic. In 2010 the event became the Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo after HM Queen Elizabeth awarded the Royal title in celebration of its six decades of existence. Since 2012, each performance has included a fireworks display. From 2005 to 2015, a son et lumière element projected on to the facade of the Castle. In 2016, the projection technology on the castle was upgraded to utilize modern projection mapping technology. In 2018, laser technology was used for the first time.

Since 2004, the Edinburgh Military Tattoo has also held free abridged performances at the Ross Bandstand in Princes Street Gardens, entitled "Taste of the Tattoo", and as of 2008 also in George Square in Glasgow. The Edinburgh Military Tattoo has also toured overseas, visiting New Zealand in 2000 as part of the Tattoo's 50th anniversary celebrations. It visited Australia in 2005 and returned to the Sydney Football Stadium in February 2010 as part of the Tattoo's 60th anniversary celebrations. In February 2016 the Tattoo sold 240,000 tickets when it was staged in Wellington, New Zealand and Melbourne Australia. The performance was held at ANZ Stadium, Sydney in October 2019. There were also plans to take the show to China in 2020, with performances in Shanghai, Beijing, and Guangzhou. Due to the COVID-19 pandemic these plans were suspended.

, Anne, Princess Royal is the patron of the event, with the main corporate sponsor being Edinburgh Airport.

International exposure
In 2018 the Tattoo was planned to be televised to 40 countries allowing an estimated 100–300 million people see the event on television worldwide. In Britain the BBC broadcasts the event annually, with commentary in 2009 and 2010 provided by BBC Radio Scotland presenter Iain Anderson. Bill Paterson provided commentary from 2011 to 2019; before 2009 Tom Fleming commentated, not missing a year between 1966 and 2008. In Australia the Australian Broadcasting Corporation (ABC) traditionally telecasts the Tattoo on the evening of New Year's Eve, although in a break with tradition, the 2006 Tattoo was broadcast a day earlier on 30 December, the 2007 Tattoo was broadcast even earlier on Christmas Eve, and the 2009 Tattoo was broadcast two days after New Year's Eve on 2 January 2010. These changes were made so the ABC could expand its news coverage of local New Year celebrations.

The Tattoo is run for charitable causes and in 2017 it was estimated that over the years has given £10 million to the arts, military and civilian charities and organisations, such as the Army Benevolent Fund. The event also generates up to £100 million in revenue for Edinburgh's economy annually, according to estimates by the Tattoo itself.

Launched in 2002, the official magazine of the Edinburgh Military Tattoo, Salute, is distributed free to sponsors, friends of the Tattoo, and visiting performers.

Performance structure
Each performance begins with a fanfare, usually composed for that year's show. The Massed Pipes and Drums then perform, marching through the gatehouse of the castle and performing a traditional pipe band set. Then, the show's featured acts perform individually.

Performers

Each service is usually represented by bands from the British Armed Forces, along with drill and display teams as well. On special occasions, the Tattoo will feature bands from more than one service at the same time. In both 2002 and 2012, bands from all three services were featured to mark Elizabeth II's Golden and Diamond Jubilees. In 2003, the music of Westlife was featured at the event.

From 1950 until 1994, the show mainly featured acts from military organizations. However, the show began to diversify and feature civilian acts beginning in 1995. While this was initially met with resistance from some fans, the inclusion of civilian acts has become more and more present in the show over time. One of the most popular acts featured at the Tattoo is the Top Secret Drum Corps from Basel, which has performed in the 2003, 2006, 2009, 2012, 2015, 2018, and 2022 Tattoos. By 2018 performers from 48 countries had appeared in the tattoo since its inception.

Since 2014, a house pipe band was introduced to allow individual pipers and drummers from not only Scotland but across many parts of the world to play in the Tattoo. Known as The Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo Pipes and Drums, they join in with the massed pipes and drums each year and are the first pipe band with no military connections to play in the Tattoo. A stage band made up of volunteer musicians from around the world was assembled for the 2019 program. The 2022 programme included Banda Monumental de Mexico, the United States Army Field Band in its debut Tattoo performance, the Highland Divas, the New Zealand Army Band and the United States Air Force Honor Guard Drill team.

Guards of honour
The sentries that mount the Castle Drawbridge guard is typically provided by the resident infantry battalion of Redford Barracks. Several other units have also been invited to provide sentries for the Castle Drawbridge and/or form the guard of honour for the performance's finale. They include:

 * 1998: 1st Battalion, The King's Own Scottish Borderers
 * 1999: 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)
 * 2000: 1st Battalion, The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders (Princess Louise's)
 * 2001: 1st Battalion, The Light Infantry
 * 2002: 1st Battalion, The Highlanders (Seaforth, Gordons and Camerons)
 * 2003: 1st Battalion, The Royal Scots (The Royal Regiment)
 * 2004: The Royal Gibraltar Regiment
 * 2005: Royal Naval Reserve
 * 2006: The Argyll and Sutherland Highlanders, 5th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
 * 2007: 40 Regiment, Royal Artillery
 * 2008: Hans Majestet Kongens Garde
 * 2009: The Highlanders, 4th Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
 * 2010: 3rd Battalion, The Rifles
 * 2011: The Royal Highland Fusiliers, 2nd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
 * 2012: The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
 * 2013: The Black Watch, 3rd Battalion The Royal Regiment of Scotland
 * 2014: Royal Navy
 * 2015: Royal Scots Dragoon Guards (Carabiniers and Greys)
 * 2016: 1st Battalion, Scots Guards
 * 2017: Royal Navy / RAF Regiment
 * 2018: RAF Regiment
 * 2019: 7 Regiment, Royal Logistic Corps
 * 2022: The Royal Regiment of Scotland / United States Air Force Honor Guard
 * 2023: RAF Regiment / Hans Majestet Kongens Garde

Producers
Producers of the Edinburgh Tattoo have included:
 * Lt Col George Malcolm of Poltalloch – Produced a pageant on the Castle Esplanade in 1947 entitled "The King's Men" and produced the first Edinburgh Tattoo in 1950.
 * Captain Forbes Taylor – Produced the 1952 Tattoo. As a professional film director, Captain Forbes Taylor provided the experience upon which the format for subsequent Tattoos were set and included the first overseas performers.
 * Brigadier Alistair MacLean of Pennycross – Director of the Tattoo from 1950-1953. Producer of the Tattoo from 1953-1959.
 * Lt Col Duncan Carter-Campbell of Possil – Served with the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles). Producer of the Tattoo from 1960-1967.
 * Brigadier Jack Sanderson – Former Scots Guards officer. Producer of the Tattoo from 1968-1975.
 * Lt Col Leslie Dow – Served with the Cameronians (Scottish Rifles) and became producer in 1976-1991.
 * Major Michael Parker – Producer of the Royal Tournament (1974–99), the Berlin Tattoo as well as the VE & VJ Day commemorations in 1995. Producer of the Tattoo from 1992–1994.
 * Brigadier Melville Jameson – Served with the Royal Scots Dragoon Guards and former commander of the Highland Brigade. Producer of the Tattoo from 1994–2006.
 * Major-General Euan Loudon – Served with the Royal Highland Fusiliers and former GOC 2nd Division and Governor of Edinburgh Castle. Producer of the Tattoo from 2007-2010.
 * Brigadier David Allfrey MBE – Served with The Royal Scots Dragoon Guards. Producer of the Tattoo from 2011-2020.

Following the retirement of Brigadier David Allfrey in 2020, the role of Chief Executive and Producer was split into two positions. The current two leaders of the Tattoo are:
 * Chief Executive: Major General Buster Howes CB OBE - Royal Marines officer and former Commandant General Royal Marines. Joined the organisation in June 2020.
 * Creative Director: Michael Braithwaite - British producer of live events. Joined the organisation in October 2020.

license: Creative Commons - Attribution Share-Alike - https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

title: Royal Edinburgh Military Tattoo


text:
Tirumantiram

The Tirumantiram (திருமந்திரம்) or Thirumantiram is a Tamil poetic work, written either in the 2nd century BCE and 4th century CE by Tirumular. It is the tenth of the twelve volumes of the Tirumurai, the key texts of Shaiva Siddhanta and the first known Tamil work to use the term. The Tirumantiram is the earliest known exposition of the Shaiva Agamas in Tamil. It consists of over three thousand verses dealing with various aspects of spirituality, ethics and praise of Shiva. But it is more spiritual than religious and one can see the difference between Vedanta and Siddhanta from Tirumular's interpretation of the Mahavakyas. According to historian Venkatraman, the work covers almost every feature of the siddhar of the Tamils. According to another historian, Madhavan, the work stresses on the fundamentals of Siddha medicine and its healing powers. It deals with a wide array of subjects including astronomy and physical culture.

Etymology
Tirumantiram's literal meaning is "sacred mantra" or "holy incantation."

Content
The Tirumantiram is divided into nine chapters, 9 tantras (tantirams):

 * 1. Philosophical views and divine experience, impermanency of the physical body, love, education etc.
 * 2. Shiva's glory, His divine acts, classification of souls etc.
 * 3. Yoga practices according to the eight-angled way of Patanjali. Also refers to Vasi Yoga
 * 4. Mantra, tantra, etc.
 * 5. Various branches of Saiva religion; the four elements of Shaiva Siddhanta.
 * 6. Shiva as guru bestowing grace and the devotee's responsibility.
 * 7. Shiva linga, Shiva worship, self-control.
 * 8. The stages of soul experience.
 * 9. Panchadsara manthiram, Shiva's dance, the state of samadhi.

The poems have a unique metrical structure, each line consisting of 11 or 12 syllables depending on the initial syllable. Tirumular discusses the four steps of spiritual progress; Charya, Kriya, Yoga and Gnana, the Shaiva Siddhanta concept of Pati, Pasu and Pasa where Pati stands for Shiva, Pasu stands for the humankind and Pasa stands for Maya (the desire), sadhana, Vedanta, the Upanishadic Tat tvam asi and other Vedantic concepts, the transcendental reality as emptiness (Sunya) devoid of any attribute and Tantrasastra (Shakti worship), chakras, magic spells and their accessories.

The section on Yoga, called "Shiva yoga", offers details not found in the Sanskrit text of Patanjali. The Tirumantiram describes means of attaining an immortal body (kaya siddhi), advocating a theory of preserving the body so that the soul would continue its existence (Udambai valarthen uyir valarthenae).

Tirumular is not only one of the 63 Nayanmars (Nayanars) but also a significant one among the 18 Siddhars. Tirumular has been referred to as "Nampiran" (meaning: nam-Our, piran-God, thus thirumular has been called as a leader or god to all the remaining Nayanars) by Sundarar in his thiru thondar thogai (the earliest song which mentions the names of 63 Nayanars). Tirumular as a moral philosopher teaches the ethics of non-violence (ahimsa), abstinence from slaughtering, meat and alcohol. He condemns coveting another man's wife. He declares that "love is God", proclaims the unity of mankind and God and stresses the acquisition of knowledge.

The final section of the Tirumantiram, named Sunya Sambhashana ("Colloquy on the Void"), is full of metaphorical sayings communicating mystical and speculative thoughts, for example;

title: Tirumantiram


text:
Heide Park

Heide Park Resort, commonly known as Heide Park, is a theme park in Soltau, Lower Saxony, Germany. With an overall area of over 850,000 m2 (210 acres), it is the largest amusement park in Northern Germany and among the largest in the country. It is part of the British-based Merlin Entertainments, which operates 123 attractions in 24 countries.

History
The site originally belonged to the Heidenhof Wildlife Park, which was named after the chapel that was built there in 1350. After the zoo was closed in 1972 following a devastating storm, the showman Hans-Jürgen Tiemann bought the land and opened a small amusement park in 1978 (with the contractual requirement to maintain Heidenhof Chapel as well as the keeping of native animals). When Heide Park opened on 19 August 1978 it offered only six rides: the Monzapiste, the Heide Park Express, the Oldtimerrundkurs, the Floßfahrt (tow boat ride), the Wichtelhausenbahn and the Hochbahn. In its first season, the Heide Park had just under 200,000 visitors. 1979 saw the first dolphin show, for which they built a large domed roof a year later (after the 2008 season, the dolphinarium was closed due to protests).

The Heide-Dorf (Heath Village), a richly detailed replica of typical buildings from the Lüneburg Heath, was inaugurated in the 1988 season. In 1996/'97, the Dutch section of the park was built, with a windmill and canal at the other end of the park.

With the growth of the park, the catchment area grew as well. In the 1990s, up to two million people visited Heide-Park each season, with 2,100,000 guests in 2001. The following year the UK-based Tussauds Group bought the park and since then attendance to the park has decreased to 1.5–1.6 million visitors per annum. Hans-Jürgen Tiemann still has influence in the park by shares and as an advisory director of the Tussauds Group. In early 2007 the Merlin Entertainments Group bought the majority of the shares of Tussauds Group from Dubai International Capital, which had taken over the shares in 2005.

The most recognizable landmark in the park is a 1/3 scale replica of the Statue of Liberty (35 meters tall), it was inaugurated on 4 July 1986 on the 100th anniversary of the original statue. At the end of 2011 the whole structure was relocated to stand within the roller coaster Colossos. The park's mascot is a bear called Wumbo.

In the 1990s, Hans-Jurgen Tiemann was successful as a driver and sponsor on the touring-car racing circuit, while his son Marcel Tiemann began a career as a professional race car driver.

The Park's owner, The Tussauds Group, was sold in May 2007 to the Blackstone Group. The Tussauds Group as a separate entity ceased to exist, and was merged into the Blackstone-owned Merlin Entertainments, which has since operated the Park.

Music and events
The music played at Heide Park is a combination of commercial tracks, library music and commissioned music. The following composers have had their music played at the park: Graham Smart, Ian Habgood, David Buckley, Crispin Merrell, IMAscore and John Sanderson.

Halloween in October is a special event.

Heide Park Resort
Hotel Port Royal was opened in 2007 with 150 family rooms and 16 suites. There is also a Holiday Camp that opened in 2005 with 81 wooden houses in Caribbean style with a total of 536 beds.

Park areas
The park is divided into five areas.
 * Eingang & Ausgang, that features Lower-Saxony style buildings
 * Bucht der Piraten, that is mainly themed around the world of pirates
 * Transilvanien, with a medieval-style castle on top of the hill surrounded by a forest
 * Land der Vergessenen, which hosts the park's award-winning wooden roller coaster Colossos - Kampf der Giganten, as well as the Mayan Village that has many flat rides.
 * Exploria

Attractions
Heide Park currently has about 40 rides which are mainly aimed at families but its thrill rides are also very popular. One of the main attractions is Colossos - Kampf der Giganten, a wooden roller coaster, which until the opening of Balder, on 12 April 2003 in the Swedish amusement park Liseberg, was the steepest wooden roller coaster in the world. The latest attraction is the wing coaster Flug der Dämonen. It is Germany's first wing coaster and reaches a maximum of 4 g positive during the ride.

Other attractions
Krake Alive! - a 7 min horror maze (2012); Heide Park. This indoor horror maze has 7 different scenes in the 300 sq m building with plenty of special effects and live actors as well. Age limit 12 years.

Go Karts - go karts (2004); extra charge

Demon tomb - a dark ride made by Preston & barbrei to open later in 2024. Sits on the former wildwasserbhan log flume station

Kiddie Rides

 * Koggenfahrt - circular ride (1982); Mack Rides.
 * Lucky Land - play area with gold digging, horse shoe throwing, etc. (2008).
 * Nostalgic Carousel - Venettian Carousel (1997); Bertazzon.
 * Pizie Town Train - on track ride (1978); Mack Rides.
 * Rotor Baron - airplanes (1985); ETZ Marcel Lutz.
 * Screamie - a 12m tall mini drop tower (2008); Zierer.
 * Sea Horse Bay - paddle boats for kids (2005); Klarer Freizeitlagen.
 * Steam Carousel - carousel (1989); Peter Petz.
 * Water Playground - water play area (1991).
 * Wild West bucketwheel - mini Ferris wheel (2008); Zierer.
 * Peppa's Boat Trip - boat ride - Peppa Pig theme (2018); Metallbau Emmeln
 * George's Dino Adventure - tracked horse ride Peppa Pig theme (2018); Metallbau Emmeln
 * Grandpa Pig's Train Tide - train ride - Peppa Pig theme (2018)
 * Peppa's Hot Air Balloon Ride - balloon ride - Peppa Pig theme (2020)

Shows
Five shows are available each day at Heide Park, these are;

 * Anger of Mayan, a 25-minute show about Mayan Indians at the Mayan Amphitheater that was built in 2011 and seats 800 people.
 * Gold of Port Royal, a 35-minute pirate show at Pirate Arena that was built in 2010 and seats 1200 people.
 * Puppet Comet, a 10-minute puppet show at Puppet Comic Theatre, built in 1985 and seats 100 people.
 * Madagaskar LIVE! - It's Circus Time, a 30-minute show based on the movie Madagaskar 3: Flucht durch Europa in a tent, built in 2013.
 * Previous shows include The Dolphin Show (closed 2008), The Parrot Show (closed 2008), The Bird Theater (closed 2009) and Hello Spencer (closed 2016).

Trivia

 * Heide Park was one of three playable real world parks (with Alton Towers and Blackpool Pleasure Beach) added to RollerCoaster Tycoon in the Loopy Landscapes expansion pack.

Gallery

 * Main gallery: Heide Park at WikiCommons

title: Heide Park


text:
No independence before majority rule

No independence before majority rule (abbreviated NIBMAR) was a policy adopted by the British government requiring the implementation of majority rule in a colony, rather than rule by the white colonial minority, before the empire granted independence to its colonies. It was sometimes reinterpreted by some commentators as no independence before majority African rule though this addition was not government policy.

Rhodesia
In particular, the NIBMAR position was advocated with respect to the future status of Rhodesia as an independent state. British prime minister Harold Wilson was pressured into adopting the approach during a conference in London. Wilson was not initially inclined to do so, fearing it would slow the rate at which Rhodesia could be granted independence, but Lester Pearson, the Prime Minister of Canada, formulated a draft resolution committing Wilson to NIBMAR. Wilson defended the policy when it was attacked as disastrous by opposition Conservatives. The accomplishment was short-lived, however, as Wilson continued to extend offers to Ian Smith, the Rhodesian Prime Minister, which Smith ultimately rejected. The UK policy of NIBMAR led Smith's government to declare Rhodesia's independence without British consent.

title: No independence before majority rule


text:
Eromenos

In ancient Greece, an eromenos was the younger and passive (or 'receptive') partner in a male homosexual relationship. The partner of an eromenos was the erastes, the older and active partner. The eromenos was often depicted as beautiful, beardless and more youthful-looking than the erastes.

Terminology
Erômenos (ἐρώμενος) means 'one who is sexually desired' in Greek language and is the past participle of the verb eramai, to have sexual desire. In Greek Homosexuality, the first modern scholarly work on this topic, Kenneth Dover used the literal translation of the Greek word as an English word to refer to the passive partner in Greek homosexual relationship. Though in many contexts the younger man is also called pais, 'boy', the word can also be used for child, girl, son, daughter and slave, and therefore eromenos would be more specific and can "avoid the cumbrousness and…imprecision of 'boy'". It is in contrast to the masculine active participle erάn ('be in love with...', 'have a passionate desire for'). The word erastes (lover), however, can be adapted to a married man's role in both heterosexual and homosexual relationship.

Characteristics
In vase paintings and other artworks, the eromenos is often depicted as a beautiful young adult. His relatively smaller stature suggests his passive role in the relationship and younger age as well as social status. Usually, they show a combination of a youthful-looking face with a body which possesses mature musculature. The lack of beard and pubic hair are an important clue in identifying an eromenos, though this may possibly be attributed to style. A poem quoted in Greek Sexuality (couplet 1327f) shows that ‘the poet will never cease to ‘fawn on’ the boy so long as the boy's cheek is hairless.

Therefore, we can conclude that eromenos is not a fixed term, as it is only a stage in the development of young Greek men. After they grow up, their relationship with the erastes could end and they could get married or start another relationship. This experience, similar to some forms of socially-constructed bisexuality, is also shown in books, such as how Bion the Borysthenite condemns Alcibiades, that in his adolescence he drew away the husbands from their wives, and as a young man the wives from their husbands. According to Garrison, for Cretan boys, the passage to adulthood is the ‘prewedding’ of sex with a mature man.

Visual art
The image of Ganymede in the figure on the right is an idealized portrait of an eromenos. The muscles on his body contrasts with the hoop, a child's toy which emphasises the shape of his genitals and inner thighs, and he holds the cockerel, which is the love gift from Zeus. There is no moustache or pubic hair.

John Beazley's three types of erotic scenes appear in Athenian vase paintings. Eromenoi are often touched on chin and genitals by their erastes (alpha group), presented with gifts (beta group) or entwined between the thighs of their erastes (gamma group). Meanwhile, Eva Cantarella discovered that representations of pederastic relationships contain two successive moments of courtship. The first phase is similar to Beazley's alpha group, while in the second phase the eromenos stands behind the erastes with his penis between his thighs, somehow similar to the gamma group. This vase (Brygos Painter) depicts a classical scene of an erastes courting an eromenos. As the eromenos’ legs are positioned between the erastes’ thighs with the erastes touching his penis and his chin, it is similar to the alpha group. The pectoral and belly muscles show that he was well-trained in wrestling schools, and the bag of ‘Kydonian apples’ or quinces is a sign of his sexual awakening.

Dover and Gundel Koch-Harnack have argued that the gift-giving scene to the eromenos is in fact a courting scene. Common gifts include a sprig of flowers, a rabbit, and a fighting cock.

Poems and literature
The love for an eromenos is a frequent topic in Ancient Greek poems. Dover studied poems related to pederasty and quoted some verses expressing love to the eromonos, ‘O boy with the virginal eyes, I seek you, but you do not listen, not knowing that you are the charioteer of my soul!’ Also, A surviving fragment of Solon from the early sixth century B.C. writes that ‘Till he loves a lad in the flower of youth, bewitched by thighs and by sweet lips.’

The graffiti of Thera verified that anal penetration was normal in pederastic relationships, for in the inscriptions, Krimon used the verb oiphein (male sexual act performed as either active or passive partner in Dorian dialect) to describe the intercourse with his eromenos, which indicates anal penetration. Also, literature suggested that the charm of the eromenos lay in his attractive anal area, which was described by various metaphors such as rosebud, fruits, figs or gold.

It is noteworthy that most of the Greek verses about homosexuality were about how the erastes longed for the eromenos, but few were written from the perspective of the eromenos.

Myths
The erastes-eromenos relationship can be not only between humans but also between humans and gods. The love between Apollo and Hyacinth was said to have been the archetype of pederasty in Sparta. Apollo fell in love with Hyacinth on account of his youthful beauty, and became his instructor in archery, music, hunting and the gymnasium. Hyacinth was killed by the discus thrown by Apollo when studying discus-throwing with him, and in some versions of myths it was Zephyr (the god of the west wind) who also loved Hyacinth, and who disturbed the wind to cause this accident.

Though usually known as the mortal lover of Aphrodite, Adonis was said to be loved by other gods such as Apollo, Heracles and Dionysus, for his youth and beauty.

Attitudes
The Athenians banned slaves from pursuing courtship of freeborn youths with themselves as the active partner, as Against Timarchus states that ‘A slave shall not be the lover of a free boy nor follow after him, or else he shall receive fifty blows of the public lash’; but this did not apply to free men. Nevertheless, to be in such a relationship with honour, eromenoi were supposed to resist the pursuit of their erastes to test their love, before finally yielding. According to Foucault, an eromenos should avoid being chased too easily, receiving too many gifts or quickly getting into a relationship before the erastes proved their passion, love and responsibility. Moreover, the perception of pederasty varied in different cities. While it was allowed in Elis and Boeotia, Ionians did not accept pederastic courtship. Athenians held a complicated attitude, as it was considered that Athenian fathers ought to protect their sons from suitors.

Analysis of power structure
Some scholars believe that what the eromenoi gained from their erastes were not material rewards, but intellectual and moral edification, as well as learning how to achieve ejaculation, as pederasty was regarded as a process of education and sensual pleasure. However, Michel Foucault argued that, according to Plutarch, the erastes' sexual contact was imposed through violence, and the eromenos could only feel anger, hatred, the desire for revenge and social shame through having become an object of contempt, which he described as acharistos.

Comparison with women
In heterosexual erotic images in Ancient Greece, the gender roles of male and female are often depicted as the dominant and subordinate positions. Women are depicted bending over, recumbent, or supported by men positioned upright or on top; while eromenoi are often depicted as experiencing ‘intercrural sex’ (i.e., between the thighs), with their partners standing face-to-face with them.

To erastes, whether the appeal and seduction of the eromenos lies in their masculinity or femininity is contested. Dover discovered a line of Athenian Kritias quoted by a Roman writer, ‘In males, the most beautiful appearance is that which is female; but in females, the opposite.’ However, due to the lack of specific context and further supporting evidence, we cannot conclude that female characteristics of eromenos are the stimuli of pederasty. He also found that beardless male and female faces share the same contours, except for the eyes. Some scholars like Eva Cantarella and Cohen found that the lengths of time during which one ought to resist one's suitors' advances were similar in both same-sex and different-sex courtships; since the honour lay not in the refusal, but the choice of which was the best time to give in. Also, Garrison argues that the love of boys by men is emblematic of attitudes prevalent among the ruling class, in which love for women is devalued. The love for eromenoi can be related to misogyny in Ancient Greece.

Not all homosexual relationships in Ancient Greece are typified as pederasty or as the erastes-eromenos relationship. The love between Achilles and Patroclus might be a counterargument to pederasty, for both of them showed their masculinity in this heroic, blood-brother like relationship, and were around the same age, with Patroclus only slightly older than Achilles.

Later depictions
The 20th-century English and South African writer Mary Renault was famous for her romantic novels on pederasty in Ancient Greece. Her novel The Last of the Wine (1956) tells the love story of Alexias, a beautiful and noble Athenian youth and Socrates’ student who was chased by a number of older men because of his beauty. Bernard F. Dick commented on her novels that they provided historically accurate representation of Greek homosexuality. Her fan community also created artworks that imitate Greek vase paintings portraying courting scenes between the erastes and eromenos.

Selected bibliography
Cantarella, Eva. Bisexuality in the Ancient World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 1994.

Dover, Kenneth James. Greek Homosexuality. Updated and with a New Postscript. ed. Cambridge, Mass.: Harvard University Press, 1989.

Foucault, Michel. The History of Sexuality. 1st American ed. New York: Pantheon Books, 1978.

Garrison, Daniel H. Sexual Culture in Ancient Greece. Oklahoma Series in Classical Culture; v. 24. Norman: University of Oklahoma Press, 2000.

Masterson, Mark, Nancy Sorkin Rabinowitz, and James Robson. ''Sex in Antiquity: Exploring Gender and Sexuality in the Ancient World. Rewriting Antiquity''. Abingdon, Oxon; New York, NY: Routledge, 2015.

Percy, William A. Pederasty and Pedagogy in Archaic Greece. Urbana: University of Illinois Press, 1996.

Sissa, Giulia. Sex and Sensuality in the Ancient World. New Haven: Yale University Press, 2008.

title: Eromenos


text:
Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/North African cuisine

I object to the deletion. The article should be cleanup up and extended instead. Burschik 12:39, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)


text:
Colin Clarke (footballer, born 1962)

Colin John Clarke (born 30 October 1962) is a Northern Irish retired footballer who played as a forward, and a former head coach.

He played for seven English clubs between 1981 and 1993 before retiring through a knee injury, and scored 13 goals in 38 matches for the Northern Ireland national football team from 1986 to 1993. A member of their squad at the 1986 FIFA World Cup, he was joint with Billy Gillespie as Northern Ireland's top scorer of all before their record was surpassed by David Healy.

After retiring as a player, Clarke went into management in the United States, coaching teams including Major League Soccer franchise FC Dallas and the Puerto Rico national football team.

Playing career
Born in Newry, Clarke began his professional career in the Football League Fourth Division at Peterborough United in the 1981–82 season, scoring 18 goals in 84 games over the next three seasons (having a loan spell at Gillingham during his final season at London Road) before he signed for their Fourth Division rivals Tranmere Rovers.

Along with fellow striker John Clayton, he formed one of the deadliest strike-forces in the Football League by scoring 22 goals that season, but the 1984–85 campaign ended in disappointment as Tranmere just missed out on promotion. He was then transferred to Third Division club AFC Bournemouth and scored 26 goals, though again his goals were not enough to win his club promotion.

In the summer of 1986, Clarke made the big move of his career in a transfer to First Division club Southampton for £500,000, and he was an instant success in his first campaign as a top division striker with 20 league goals, including two hat-tricks in the first few weeks of the season. The Saints reached the semi-finals of the Football League Cup that season. He enjoyed another successful campaign a year later by scoring 16 goals, but a sudden loss of form in 1988–89 restricted him to nine First Division games (in which he failed to score).

He was loaned back to Bournemouth (by then in the Second Division) during that campaign and scored twice in four games before a permanent exit from The Dell in March 1989, saw him resume his First Division career with Queens Park Rangers (QPR). He scored five goals in 12 games as QPR finished ninth, but his goalscoring rate slowed in 1989–90 as he managed just six goals in 34 games in a season where QPR finished lower and underwent a mid season managerial change when Trevor Francis was succeeded by Don Howe.

He was transferred to Portsmouth in June 1990, where he remained until the end of his playing career three years later. During his time at Fratton Park he was in the side that reached the FA Cup semi-finals in 1992, only being eliminated by Liverpool after a replay and penalties, and narrowly missed out on promotion to the Premier League a year later. He retired at the end of the 1992–93 season due to a knee injury.

International career
Like many players from Northern Ireland Colin Clarke's greatest playing days came in a Northern Ireland shirt, for whom he scored 13 goals (second behind David Healy) in 38 appearances. Clarke joined the National Team set up just as arguably the greatest Northern Ireland team of all time was breaking up. He made his international debut in a pre-Mexico World Cup warm-up match against France in February 1986 and scored his first Northern Ireland goal against Morocco on his third appearance. In Mexico he appeared in all of Northern Ireland's matches, scoring a consolation against Spain, but the team were unable to match the heights they had reached at the 1982 World Cup.

After returning from the Mexico World Cup, many of Northern Ireland's star players retired or were at least in the veteran stage. Team manager Billy Bingham set about building a new team with Clarke as the spearhead. Although this new team failed to reach the heights of Bingham's first, Clarke did have some notable highlights. In September 1991, against the Faroe Islands he became the first Northern Ireland player to score a hat-trick in international football since George Best in 1971. He scored his then record-breaking thirteenth Northern Ireland goal against Albania in September 1992 and played his final international match two months later against Denmark.

International goals
Scores and results list Northern Ireland's goal tally first.

Coaching and management career
Clarke was appointed interim coach during the latter half of the 2003 MLS season as a replacement for Mike Jeffries, and was appointed full-time to the position for the 2004 season. Clarke went on to manage both the 2005 and 2006 seasons with great regular season form indeed FC Dallas won the Western Conference comfortably in 2006, but was eliminated in the play-offs in both years latterly after a penalty shoot out. This led to his sacking on 7 November 2006. Before being appointed head coach, Clarke was an assistant coach for the Burn. He spent two seasons as head coach of the Richmond Kickers of the United States' A-League. During that time, he compiled a 38–18 record. On 13 December 1999, he was named head coach of the San Diego Flash, a position he held for one season. Clarke was appointed head coach at Virginia Beach Mariners in January 2007. Within two months of his arrival, the club folded and Clarke was again without a job.

Puerto Rico Islanders
On 22 May 2007, Puerto Rico Islanders appointed Clarke to replace Toribio Rojas as head coach midway through the team's worst season since their creation. During the last half of the 2007 season he turned the squad's fortunes around and managed to cling to the sixth spot in the table, guaranteeing a playoff berth. The squad would make it all the way to the semi-finals where they lost to Seattle Sounders on penalty kicks. Late in 2007 he also took the Islanders to the CFU Club Championship semi-finals, the Caribbean qualifiers for the 2008 CONCACAF Champions Cup, where they lost 1–0 to Joe Public F.C. of Trinidad and Tobago.

Despite a bad start to the 2008 season, Clarke managed to lead the team into the CONCACAF Champions League by winning a two-game series on 1:0 aggregate against fellow 2007 CFU Club Championship semi-finalist San Juan Jabloteh for the tournament's Caribbean third place spot. After several bad results at the start of the season, Clarke managed to push the Islanders into an undefeated run that would lead the team its first league trophy, Commissioner's Cup, after they ended the regular season in first place. The team would make it all the way to the finals, but lost to second seed Vancouver Whitecaps 2:1.

Puerto Rico national team
In January 2008, Clarke was chosen to lead the Puerto Rico national team. After two wins against Bermuda and a draw versus Trinidad and Tobago was popular with many Puerto Rican football fans. On 4 June, he led the national team to a disappointing 4–0 defeat against Honduras. However, on 14 June, Puerto Rico played against Honduras in the second leg earning a 2–2 draw in Puerto Rico.

In Puerto Rico he was known as "El General" ("The General").

North Carolina FC
On 6 December 2011, the Carolina RailHawks of the North American Soccer League, now known as North Carolina FC and playing in the United Soccer League, announced that Clarke would replace Martin Rennie as the team's head coach.

After amassing a 91–84–58 record over seven seasons, North Carolina FC announced on 17 October 2018 that it would part ways with Clarke.

title: Colin Clarke (footballer, born 1962)


text:
Viktoria-Luise-Platz

Viktoria-Luise-Platz is a hexagonal place on Motzstraße in Schöneberg, Berlin. It was laid out in 1900. It is named after Princess Viktoria Luise of Prussia 1892 - 1980, the daughter of Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany, and Great-Grand daughter of Queen Victoria.

title: Viktoria-Luise-Platz


text:
Wikipedia:Multilingual communication

Multilingual communication is communication beyond the borders of languages.

For example a Chinese who knows no English communicates with an English who knows no Chinese. They both do it writing and reading their mothertongue languages only. How is this possible?

It is possible on wiki, and needs only a rather simple change of the wikiengine to supply the prerequisites for it to develop.

Social desire for multilingualism
Multilingual communication is a social phenomena. It does not develop because of technical prerequisites. It develops because there is a need, a desire in people to have it.

Little technical changes, when amplified through hundreds of eager users, can allow development that before has been hindered. Multilingual communication will not neccessarily happen when wikiengines are improved, but it surely will not happen if they are not changed.

Wikipedia today
Take a look at wikipedia today. What do you see? Groups of people who - each for themselves - are making encyclopedias. Why isn't there one multilingual Wikipedia 25 times as brilliant instead of 25 Wikipedias in 25 languages?
 * Note that there is a decent amount of content exported from en:, de:, and fr: to other languages. The poor interface hasn't kept a certain amount of synchronization from occuring...  That said, it could be ten times easier with a little extra interfacre work. +sj+ 18:55, 9 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Current MediaWiki interface
I asked the question above on IRC #mediawiki. Why is it? "It's because of the interface" was the answer. That is to say the engine, the way the software is programmed; this is true. Wiki-engines already enable you to work multilingually and to translate contributions, but it is complicated and tiresome and therefore infrequently and inefficiently done.

I tried producing multilingual content with some enthusiasts on community-wiki: multilingual experiment We also improved our wikiengine engine (OddMuse it's called) to make it easier. There are different colored backgrounds to seperate the languages and there are filters to filter out languages. The read mode (enhanced by language filters at the bottom of [each] page) works fine already. Reading a monolingual page and a page with all languages exept one language filtered out is equal, is alike, it has no differences and no disadvantages.

The edit mode is still problematic. Pages have paragraphs in different languages and you see them when editing the page. This is confusing and tiresome. There should be filters in the edit mode as well to make this work. Some codework to be done, I guess.
 * You probably need the different languages to be stored separately in the database, and only combined when needed by translators. Imagine a 10-language page, being translated into Finnish by an editor who only reads Finnish and Russian... what should they see? +sj+

Specific uses of a better interface
The Chinese-only person writes something in Chinese. A bilingual person thinks it's good and translates it to English. The English only person thinks it is worth answering and answers on it in English. A bilingual person likes the answer and translates it to Chinese. The Chinese only person reads it. Eccolo, voila, bingo, na also!

There is a good deal of translation work coming in the near future. Take a look at how it can be streamlined by means of automatic pretranslation, translation memory, and linking of versions for translation on wikifeatures-wiki: automatic translation

Related ideas
editable titles and clean linking

Coordination / other MultilingualCommunication pages
As this is a wikilandia-wide issue and concerns different wikiengines and various communities there is a "central" page on the "project" to keep informed about the allover developement. Community-wiki: multilingual communication

The same contents was started on:
 * wikipedia: multilingual communication
 * de.wikipedia: mehrspachige Kommunikation (in German)

Recent developments
A fair way for all languages to communicate multilingually on wikipages is exposed on the multilingual page:

(here linked using the fully multilingual compatible editable titles) How to write on multilingual pages Wie man auf mehrsprachigen Seiten schreibt Comment écrire sur des pages multilingues Come si scrive sulle pagine multilingue

This contents is also being developed on meta: multilingual communication

title: Wikipedia:Multilingual communication


text: Category:Coves

title: Category:Coves


text:
United African National Council

The United African National Council (UANC) is a political party in Zimbabwe. It was briefly the ruling party during 1979–1980, when its leader Abel Muzorewa was Prime Minister.

History
The party was founded by Muzorewa in 1971. Running as African National Council independents, it won six of the eight African seats in the House of Assembly in the 1974 general elections. The party was renamed the United African National Council in 1977, but did not contest the 1977 general elections.

Following the Internal Settlement of 1978, the party won the 1979 elections, winning 51 of the 100 seats, resulting in Muzorewa becoming Prime Minister. However, the new government failed to win international recognition due to its exclusion of the African nationalist ZAPU and ZANU in negotiations and following the Lancaster House Agreement, early elections were held in April 1980. The UANC won only three seats as ZANU–PF took power.

After failing to win a seat in the 1985 and 1990 elections, the party joined with other opposition parties to form United Parties to support Muzorewa in the 1996 presidential election, but he subsequently pulled out (albeit with his name remaining on the ballot). United Parties also unsuccessfully contested the 2000 parliamentary elections.

The party contested the 2018 general elections but received just 1,889	votes.

title: United African National Council