text:
Talk:British heavy tanks of the First World War

Male and Female versions
It says male and female weights in the specifications. Is this vandalism? 17.107.83.31 01:23, 19 June 2007 (UTC)H.H.

 * As stated in the article, there were Male and Female versions (meaning with and without cannon, indeed very Freudian :o); so, no, it is not vandalism.--MWAK 05:40, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I did this. ( and Whippet ) GDL 3/2/2005

 * And you have done well. :o) However there's always room for improvement.

MWAK--84.27.81.59 21:25, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Wouldn't it be better to split the article? Surely each of these interesting vehicles deserves its own!

MWAK--84.27.81.59 21:45, 11 Feb 2005 (UTC)

 * Since the differences between the tanks is actually so little, certainly to the untrained eye, all the diffreent Marks should be treated as variants rather than separate vehicles. Compare with the treatment of the Churchill tank, and the layout for Whippet. Should I get a moment, I will work the article over myself.GraemeLeggett 08:56, 14 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your effort! And sorry for my horrid English.... I tend to agree with you as far as the earlier marks are concerned. Marks VI, VIII and IX are so different though, a separate article seems justified. Of course I'm a bit prejudiced - they are among my favourite tanks :o).

MWAK--84.27.81.59 12:38, 21 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Good jod too bad my tank article is not vary long(Uber555 04:53, 14 January 2006 (UTC))

 * You mean the Vickers Medium Mark II? :o) I'll try to help you out on that one a bit.--MWAK 08:31, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

Just put in the bit about surviving tanks... feel free to add to it. I know there're others at Duxford and the IWM in London, but I've not included them as I've no idea of their details. Catsmeat 10:07, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * I've completed the list. The Duxford vehicle is the same as the Lincoln tank. All Ukranian exemplars are Mark Vs.--MWAK 10:38, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

 * Oops, I made a mistake. The Lincoln tank is of course not from Duxford. Let me put it this way: I'm not aware of any entire WWI tank at Duxford. Are you sure there is one?--MWAK 18:30, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade
Does anyone have reliable information on the tank used in that movie? Internet sources frequently call it a German "Mark 7", but the only "Mark" tanks appear to be these British ones, which is rather confusing. 70.20.217.197 04:32, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

 * The tank was a newly built vehicle, externally resembling rather closely the British-American Mark VIII (see: http://www.indygear.com/props/images/Beast2.jpg and http://www.filmtrickery.com/truck.htm ) but with a turret added. That "German Mark 7" would be a reference to the A7V, which type however is quite unlike the Indiana Jones vehicle. The Mark VIII was perhaps chosen because an exemplar was available in the USA. An informative site about all such film tanks is http://filmpanzer.squarespace.com/ --MWAK 05:33, 5 May 2007 (UTC)

Time to end this "popular culture" stuff ?
These "popular culture" entries contribute nothing to the article itself - no information about the subject or its impact on war, history or society. If it leads to e.g. new phrases in a language, that's important because it tells us about the subject's impact on the world. But references in entertainment movies or commercial games do not meet these criteria, they are just things creative writers dream up with no context. Time to stop it ? Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 02:27, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

 * Well, they are not without context: evidently, simply by referring to the British tanks, these then become the context of the later cultural expression. And it shows to what extent these tank types are still alive in the collective imagination. Furthermore, if someone has the movies or the games as the departure point for his investigation — I fear this is much more common than the opposite case :o) — and then tries to find out what these strange thingies are, we can help identifying them. Such humble tasks are the core business of an encyclopedia.--MWAK (talk) 05:51, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

 * The portrayal of tank by British, wartime, popular culture is indeed relevant because they became a hugely significant tool of British propaganda. Look out for the short poem "Blighters" by Siegfried Sassoon in which he ridicules this. Catsmeat (talk) 08:29, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

 * A Mark I style tank is used in the opening scene of "The League of Extraordinary Gentlemen" movie. Bizzybody (talk) 09:41, 23 August 2010 (UTC)

 * My two cents, the popular culture stuff can be a bit irritating in articles, especially modern self-referential stuff like one Simpson's episode referenced in another, but I think modern references to historical objects are great to have in a Wiki. People often come to history through modern cultural references, and it helps to have a trail people can follow to the true story. Billyshiverstick (talk) 19:50, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tag & Assess 2008
Article reassessed and graded as start class. Referencing and appropriate inline citation guidelines not met. With appropriate citations and references, this article would easily qualify as B class if not higher. --dashiellx (talk) 16:32, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Time to split this article up into separate Marks ?
Considering this weapon's importance to the history of modern warfare, can one of the tank experts out there consider splitting off Mks I - V into separate pages for each Mark, like other wikis have done ? There is enough difference and material to support separate pages, and would make linking easier, especially interwiki links. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:51, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

 * At itself this is a good idea — which I have proposed many years earlier :o). However, this does not mean that the present article need to be much condensed as it can serve as a general treatment of the subject.--MWAK (talk) 11:31, 10 September 2008 (UTC)
 * Split! Andy Dingley (talk) 22:13, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

 * Can we get the referencing better first? Then when split we could have a number of B class articles rather than a bunch of starts.GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:41, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

 * The present chapters certainly are unfit to serve as separate articles; each article should be full length. So the "splitting" should not be taken literally; we can rename this one into British heavy tanks of WWI or something similar.--MWAK (talk) 12:21, 26 January 2009 (UTC)

cost effective?
I feel like there is something wrong with this sentence:

"suffered from many bugs because of its primitive and cost-effective nature"

"Cost-effective" wouldn't qualify as a bug...maybe the author meant "costly"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.82.133.73 (talk) 01:49, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

 * "Cost-effective" is here a euphemism for "cheap" :o).--MWAK (talk) 03:59, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

New intro
I've been trying to change the intro to this, but the server doesn't seem to like me:
 * The British Mark I was a tracked vehicle developed by the British Army during World War I and the world's first combat tank, entering service in August 1916, and first used in action on the morning of 15th September 1916 . Born of the need to break the domination of trenches and machine guns over the battlefields of the Western Front, it was the first vehicle to be named "tank", as an expedient to maintain secrecy and to disguise its true purpose . It was developed to be able to cross trenches, resist small-arms fire, travel over difficult terrain, carry supplies, and be able to capture fortified enemy positions. It is regarded as successful in many respects, but suffered from many problems due to its primitive nature. It spawned nine subsequent variants, and initially proved so successful that their impact in battle was out of all proportion to their number and British Army infantry could not be properly deployed to take advantage of the unexpected success.Brutaldeluxe (talk) 00:56, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Article titles
Could we have some standardization please? Some of the article titles include the word "tank" and others don't. I think all articles about tanks should have "tank" in the title. Biscuittin (talk) 19:39, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

 * All articles about tanks in general or just the articles mentioned here? The first seems unnecessary — titles should in principle simply consist of the common name of a subject, not explain it — and the second seems already to be the case.--MWAK (talk) 06:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Bizzare "facts"
"entire crews lost consciousness or became violently sick when again exposed to fresh air" "or by runners who were encouraged... by strong drink as a reward." "later marks carried semaphore arms for [sic] signalling." Really? This stuff all sounds pretty dubious to me. Seems like you would pass out inside the tank and wake up when you got fresh air; it seems laughable, the idea that a soldier would be unwilling to risk his life, unless of course there was a bottle of liquor handy, in which case it would be "bottoms up and over the top;" and the idea of semaphore arms on top of a tank sounds highly impractical, if not totally unworkable. I think these factoids should be removed if proper citations cannot be produced. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.177.15.81 (talk) 21:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

 * Semaphore:
 * Because radio reception quickly proved impossible due to noise and vibration, tankers had to rely on lamps, flags, semaphore, colored discs, or even carrier pigeons (if they survived the journey within the tank long enough)—

 * Those semaphores nevertheless were really there (whether they were practical is an entirely different matter ;o). Also the other factoids are authentic or at least part of the traditional early tank lore. It is of course precisely because of their bizarre nature that these details are remarkable enough to be mentioned. The sentence "entire crews lost consciousness or became violently sick when again exposed to fresh air" is however, somewhat ambiguous: what you correctly indicated as the most plausible event, that crews passed out inside of a tank, is indeed what it meant to say — combined with the fact that if they "merely" suffered from a severe shortage of oxygen and an abundance of toxic fumes they couldn't quickly recuperate outside because this incapacitated them for half an hour. Also there is a misunderstanding regarding the sequence of events in case of the alcohol reward: those bottles of strong liquor were carried by the tanks themselves, so in a process of typical psychological conditioning, the stimulus was applied after the trick was performed. Bizarre, no?--MWAK (talk) 06:19, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

All of the above is true and can be verified from personal accounts, official reports, and regimental records as recorded in sources too numerous to mention. It is more advisable to examine some sources than to speculate merely because they are not within one's own experience.

Hengistmate (talk) 00:07, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Not everyone has access to all the information. Could you provide some of these references for us? A general principle on Wikipedia is for an editor to add references for each new fact so that other editors can double check it. If he is unable to provide a reference for a new fact himself then he can add it to the talk page and ask others if they have any references. Thanks.  Stepho  talk 01:27, 2 September 2011 (UTC)

"One commander recorded his crew all spontaneously vomiting as they took their first draughts of fresh air after hours of 'foul confinement'." - Band of Brigands; The First Men in Tanks. Christy Campbell, 2007. p333.

Semaphore signs on top of Tanks were impractical and were soon shot away by enemy fire. Nonetheless, they existed, from the Mk V onwards. Photograph on p32 of Landships; British Tanks in the First World War..David Fletcher (Curator of the R.A.C. Tank Museum, Bovington) Her Majesty's Stationery Office, 1984.

The reference to bottles of whiskey is a humorous incident that has been taken at face value, perhaps by someone without the necessary grasp of such things.

I hope these references satisfy the gent who asked for them because certain things didn't seem right. It was my understanding that assertions should be challenged in the light of conflicting evidence, not merely because someone doesn't like the sound of them. Now that other people have had to do all the work, perhaps this correspondent could, in future, take it upon himself to seek verification.

Hengistmate (talk) 13:59, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * Anecdatally, my paternal grandfather blamed the conditions inside the WW1 tanks, in which he served as a riding mechanic, for his being invalided out of the post-war Metropolitan Police.  Though at least he survived the war, unlike his infantryman older brother. Mr Larrington (talk) 13:36, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Mark V series use in Berlin 1945
I have reverted the latest addition about this. Weaving some original research around some linked images is not provision of a reliable source. The conclusions need to be made by the source, not the editor. (Hohum @ ) 18:33, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * So why did you remove the references to images? Whatever evidence there is for the Berlin MkVs is based on these photographs. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * Are the images on Wiki-compatible licences? If there are suitable photos showing the tanks in action in Berlin in 1945, then they should be added to the article to back up the claim. Mjroots (talk) 19:25, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * (EC)Because we need a reliable source which draws the conclusion, not our interpretation of what an image means. I could just as well assert that the tank was a static display outside a museum which was blown up during the course of combat. You presented theories that the images do not record.
 * Mjroots, the tank is shown as a wreck, not in action. (Hohum @ ) 19:29, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm happy to change the wording to avoid claiming anything definitively that isn't supportable, and I'd suggest that my wording was an improvement here.
 * There is still, despite this reversion, a widely circulating view that two Mark Vs appeared on the streets of Berlin. It is supported by clear photographic evidence (whether they are hosted on Wikipedia or on Flickr). We should record this, clarify what is credible (i.e. they're MkVs, not MkIVs, so the WWI beutepanzer theory doesn't really hold water) and record just how much is supportable by the evidence. Deleting the history of the Berlin tanks entirely would be as much POV as claiming the existence of foo fighters or the Bell. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:10, 27 September 2010 (UTC)
 * If it is a widely circulating view, you should have no problem finding documentary comment by a reliable historian, which is what we need. Not the opinions of wiki editors based on pictures of destroyed tanks. (Hohum @ ) 21:26, 27 September 2010 (UTC)

That seems to be a fair assessment of the situation. I don't think a "widely circulating view" passes the Wikipedia test, unless it is supported. Of course, the existence of photographs of the vehicles actually fighting in street battles in Berlin is unlikely, for obvious reasons. I doubt that there is a photograph of any British WWI tank in combat, although there are many of the tanks in other situations. We know that they did see combat, by virtue of the historical record, and can therefore state that with confidence. There is nothing that establishes to the degree required by Wikipedia that the Mk Vs in question were used in combat.

The web article offered in support of the theory relies on the following quotation: "He was then loaded on a turretless World War One tank for a trip thru (sic) Berlin's streets." There is no further description of the vehicle. Nor is any date given for this event. The use of the word "turretless" could mean that, being accustomed to WWII tanks, the captive assumed the Mk V was missing a turret. On the other hand, we know that in 1940 Germany captured many hundreds of Renault FTs and put them to use. The FT had a removable turret. Therefore, the captive could be describing a tank which he knew or deduced to have had its turret removed. The Northwest Florida Daily News archive for 2003 is not available online. It therefore seems to me that the use of these vehicles in combat has, at present, not been established by the means required. Their presence is established by clear photographic evidence; their actions are not.

The invitation to offer reliable evidence was made 17 months ago, and has not been taken up. I would suggest that sufficient time has elapsed for some bold editing to be justified. I apologise for the length of this response. I am not trying to substitute verbosity and persistence for historical fact, merely to anticipate all objections that might be put forward by other editors.

As it happens, the last occasion on which a British WWI tank was operational is probably 1942. But I think this article requires considerable revision before we can afford the luxury of such refinements. Hengistmate (talk) 03:59, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Split articles
In accordance with the de facto Manual of Style, this article should be split into several articles. The Mark II - Mark X tanks can all get their own articles. Each vehicle can get a brief description in a section labeled "Derivatives". The article Mark tank could be created to provide an overview of tanks in the series. Marcus Qwertyus   23:36, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 * "Mark tank"? Where the hell does that come from? 8-( Andy Dingley (talk) 23:43, 14 December 2010 (UTC)

 * Indeed, it would not be easy to find a correct name for an overview article. Surely, the as yet non-existing Mark II, Mark III and Mark VII articles should be written first in a serious form, i.e. not as stubs, before the strictly Mark I-related content could be split off and the article renamed.--MWAK (talk) 07:04, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * See past discussion high up the page. Personally I don't have a problem with them as stubs (so long as no one then seeks to delete them). Besides which, there's not a huge amount to say on the II & III - we'd hopefully have someone with the time to do them fairly soon afterwards. It might be useful to split Mark I off too - keep much of this article and rename it as British tanks of World War I to make a more historical view (which is probably the most useful article of the lot), have the per-model articles as more technical descriptions. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:35, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think that since the production and development of the British heavy tank of the First World War is interleaved it would be best to keep the majority of the text together, though renaming to British tanks of World War I would mean having to fold the Whippet story in as well - perhaps the title should make clear it refers to the Heavy tank only. With the exception of the Marks VI, VIII, and IX (which already have their own articles) the Mark I evolves rather than changes across the war - perhaps "Variants" could be renamed "Evolution". The current article is lacking in some areas, chiefly the actual service use. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:55, 15 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the Whippet. "Heavy tanks" would be fine be me, but if the point of that separate article was to give a military history of the tanks, as opposed to an engineering history, then maybe the Whippet belongs in there too? Andy Dingley (talk) 13:16, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Lord Kitchener
On page 101 of Steve Cliffe's Churchill, Kitchener, and Lloyd George: First World War Lords (London: Fonthill Media / Philadelphia: Casemate, 2014), the author claims that after the demonstration of the tank on Feb. 2, 1916, Kitchener privately told Sir William Robertson, Chief of the Imperial General Staff, that his negative comments had been for public consumption, and that such an important new weapon should never have been demonstrated so publicly, to politicians. This would suggest he though the tank a very good idea.

--Al-Nofi (talk) 18:16, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

 * An interesting piece of information. But unless some armour historian has made a special point of this, it would, I feel, be OR to include it in the article.--MWAK (talk) 19:22, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

Relocated hidden content
The following hidden content was relocated to the Talk page below:

!---WORK IN PROGRESS, PLEASE DO NOT DELETE

Variant Specifications
END WORK IN PROGRESS ---

Whomever is working on this content, please do so here or in the Sandbox, not in the article proper. When you have completed your efforts you may appropriately introduce it into the article. Wikiuser100 (talk) 01:04, 23 December 2010 (UTC)

Mark V series
The second sentence of the 'Mark V series' section is nearly unintelligible. It seems to be saying that the original Mark V design was a better Mark IV, then changed to a completely new design, then reverted back to a better Mark IV. The sentence is either very badly worded or just wrong. Could someone knowledgeable on the subject clue me in? Thanks.  Stepho  talk 02:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Well, if you read it in combination with the first sentence, the entire passage goes:

 * The Mark V was first intended to be a completely new design of tank. When however in December 1917 the desired new engine and transmission became available, this design was abandoned and the designation switched to an improved version of the Mark IV, in fact a Mark IV as it was originally intended.

 * So, for the Mark V the situation is pretty straightforward (perhaps you read "a Mark V as it was originally intended"? This would indeed make the sentence contradictory). There are two phases:

 * 1) The Mark V is an entirely new design.
 * 2) Revert to an improved Mark IV, according to the original design specifications for the Mark IV.

 * Of course, things become rather more complex when you try to work out what this implies for the design sequence including the Mark IV. Then there are four phases:

 * 1) The Mark IV is designed as a strongly improved Mark III.
 * 2) Mark IV project reverts to a slightly improved Mark III because new engine and transmission systems are not yet available.
 * 3) The Mark V is an entirely new design.
 * 4) New engine and transmission systems become available at last so Mark V reverts to an improved Mark IV, according to the original design specifications for the Mark IV, so in fact a strongly improved Mark III.

 * So, at Step 4 the British had only the reached the level they had hoped to reach immediately at Step 1.--MWAK (talk) 06:19, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 * That makes a lot more sense. The original sentence was ambiguous in that 'it' in the last clause could refer to the Mark IV (the correct interpretation) or the Mark V (as I interpreted). I will think of a way to reword it (the start of the sentence is a bit horrible too) - unless you get to it first :) Thanks.  Stepho  talk 08:56, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Making it all a bit less inflected and convoluted would certainly be an improvement ;o).--MWAK (talk) 14:00, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

 * Much better now. Thanks.  Stepho  talk 07:07, 28 August 2011 (UTC)

Confused
The number of machine guns carried by Tanks Mk I - V* is usually misrepresented. The Mk I Male had five flaps through which machine guns could be fired, one in the cab front and two in each sponson. In practice only three were used, the cab and one in each sponson. The Female carried two Vickers in each sponson and a Hotchkiss in the cab.

Mks II - IV had purpose built mounts, one in the cab, and one in each sponson for Males, two for Females. The confusion is caused by the fact that tanks carried a spare.

In the Mk V a rearward-firing machine-gun was fitted in the rear armour, bringing the total to four for Males and six for Females.

The list of users gives the impression that the Mk I saw service with a number of countries, which is not correct. Captured Mk IVs were used by Germany, and later Mks by a number of countries during and after the War.

Hengistmate (talk) 22:27, 1 September 2011 (UTC)

Sponsons/Barbettes
Are not the same thing. I propose to amend this by removing the barbette reference. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hengistmate (talk • contribs) 11:44, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

Even More Confused
The box thing gives the impression that the MkI was used by Germany, the Soviet Union, the United States, France, Canada, Australia, Estonia, and Latvia. It wasn't. The box combines all the various Marks under the heading of Tank MkI, which is confusing.

The Mk VI and X were not built. Is it reasonable to argue that the MkIX and Gun Carrier were variants? The Mk VIII was not completed in time to see service in the War. It really requires a separate box for each Mark to avoid confusion.

Looking through the rest of the text, I can see numerous misapprehensions.

David Fletcher does not say that "Salvage Companies . . . were forbidden to speak about this aspect of their work (removing corpses) with still living tank crews."

"There were two Hotchkiss machine guns in the sponsons and two removable guns for the front and back," is not correct. Only Females had 2 mgs in each sponson; Males had one, plus a cannon. Both Males and Females had a machine-gun in the cab. No tanks were fitted with mgs at the rear until the MkV.

What is described as the "Wilson Machine" was the "Tritton Machine."

"Four of the crew, two drivers (one of whom also acted as commander; he operated the brakes, the other the primary gearbox) and two "gearsmen" (one for the secondary gears of each track) were needed to control direction and speed," is incorrect. This sentence is badly expressed and needs clarification.

The claim about MkVs being used in WWI is based on photos of the tanks but does not appear to be confirmed by any accounts that will satisfy Wikipedia's requirements.

Hengistmate (talk) 16:04, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I read, "There were two Hotchkiss machine guns in the sponsons " to mean that the sponsons (plural) had two Hotchkiss between them, which is (AFAIK) correct for a Male. Females had two MG per sponson, but these were Vickers, so clearly not what is referred to here.

 * What's incorrect about the number of crew needed to drive?

 * I presume you mean claims about MkVs in WW2, not WWI. This is supported by several photos, even if we don't know the details. It's worth retaining, if only to clarify that they were Mk V, not Mk IV, and so can't have arrived there as WWI beutepanzer, as is sometimes claimed.

 * We are surely long overdue for splitting, or at least renaming, this article. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:27, 15 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm sorry, the point I was making is that the first paragraph under 'Description' discusses only the armament of the Male. I think that should be improved to include the female. There's no mention of the Vickers. The reference to removable mgs is not correct. The MkI had 5 flaps for mgs; 1 in the cab and 2 in each sponson, but in practice only one in each sponson was used. Thereafter there were purpose-built mountings for mgs. Because a spare was carried, the number of mgs is usually overstated by one. There were no rear mgs in Mks I-IV.

The sentence about the crew is rather imprecise and badly expressed. It will do no harm to clarify it. As a matter of fact, in the Mk I the drivers were from the RASC, not the Heavy Branch.

I do mean WWII. Beg pardon. That was a misprunt. However, their use is a matter of speculation and, as I say, is not supported by any evidence. Leaving aside the fact that it would be remarkable if they functioned after 20 years in a museum, Wikipedia requires a citation, which in our case we have not got. Their presence is supported by photos, but not their use in combat. There's no harm in mentioning this alleged episode, but I would suggest that it be made clear that it is no more than that.

I take it that we are in agreement on the matter of the "Tritton Machine."

You're quite right; this does need a major overhaul. Who's going to do it?

Regards,

Hengistmate (talk) 11:26, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

 * I would suggest creating spin off articles on any remaining marks of particular note - eg the Mark V. It should then be possible to add an infobox specifically for the Mark I (and Mark II?) in the development section. The infobox at the top of the article can then be made more generic. Then the article could be moved to a more general name and generally tidied up as an overview the Mark I and its descendants. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:01, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Salvage crews "forbidden to speak about this aspect of their work."
That isn't what David Fletcher says on p124. "Fighting battalions believed that it was bad for morale for tank crews to remove the bodies of their comrades from wrecked tanks, and left all this to the salvage companies. When tanks had been burned out this was very grim work." There's nothing about crews being forbidden to discuss anything. Have removed.

Hengistmate (talk) 15:00, 3 December 2011 (UTC)

Consistent naming of the sub articles for each Mark.
I noticed that we have articles called: Should these be renamed for consistent use of brackets?  Stepho  talk 14:51, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Mark IV tank
 * Mark V tank
 * Mark VI (tank)
 * Mark VIII (tank)
 * Mark IX tank

 * No, but they should be renamed for the best use of brackets (Consistency is a false benefit, but some ways of using disambiguation in brackets are better than others).
 * We should use the Mark VI (tank). This allows easy use of the pipe trick for formatting inline wls. There's little else to choose over one format or the other. Andy Dingley (talk) 14:55, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

 * We can use piping whether its Mark IV (tank) (I just fixed the redirect from this) or Mark IV tank, and Mark IV tank works without piping. Most tank articles don't use the "(tank)" form but don't ask me why. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Pipe trick, not just piping. Needs a bracket or comma to trigger it. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:23, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Grammatically I believe MarkIV tank and Mark V tank is correct, rather than Mark IV (tank). The reason is that in Wikipedia brackets are typically used to disambiguate between different things of the same name, such as John Smith (explorer) : there are many John Smiths. The tanks were never called just Mark IV or Mark V. They were called tanks, and I understand in formal terms it was Tank, Mark IV, and in common usage Mark IV tank. So I believe either is more appropriate than Mark IV (tank). Rod. Rcbutcher (talk) 07:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Grammatically and historically I would agree with you. For convenience in adding links to wiki articles, I'd still favour the bracket form. I would also claim that when Wilson was standing in a field at Oldbury, he'd have used "Mark IV" and "Mark V" in conversation, not "Mark IV tank". Andy Dingley (talk) 12:45, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I think I may have been misunderstood. I am not particularly worried about the form that it appear son this page, so the pipe trick is not the answer I was looking for. I was thinking more about the actual names of the articles being linked to.
 * I agree that consistency should not be a goal in itself but I have found that consistency usually help other goals like ease of use. In this case, each of the Mark articles have their own format for no apparent reason. If I was making a new article and wanted to link to each Mark, I would explore for a little bit to find the Mark I article and then put in a link to it. For the following Marks it would be natural to simply cut and paste the Mark I link and then change the numeral. Except this won't work because each Mark has a different format and I would have to waste time finding what each particular Mark's article title is.
 * I also agree that Wilson would probably have said "Mark V" in a conversation about tanks. However, in a conversation that includes other topics he would have had to differentiate it from a Mark V Spitfire and many other possible Mark V devices. We need to add " (tank)" at the end of the article names to provide context among millions of other articles on Wikipedia. Of course, this can be hidden from the casual reader by using the pipe trick when linking.
 * I would like to rename each of those articles to the format commonly found on Wikipedia projects: ie "Mark ## (tank)", where ## would be the appropriate Roman numeral.  Stepho  talk 14:40, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm happy with either Mark IV tank (best article name) or Mark IV (tank) (easiest link target). I'd oppose Tank, Mark IV (anachronistic and looks clumsy to today's readers) or Mark IV, tank (superfluous). Andy Dingley (talk) 14:52, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

 * I'm happy with either of Andy's suggested formats - with slight leanings to 'Mark IV (tank)' because it is a common format in many other projects. Also, thank you to Rcbutcher for correcting my fumble fingers spelling of "consistent".  Stepho  talk 01:36, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * If we apply the (tank) logic to e.g. the Mark V Spitfire, an article about it should be named Mark V (Spitfire). Etc. Rcbutcher (talk) 11:34, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * There are also the other instances of Mark IV tanks - eg the Mark IV infantry tank, the Mark IV cruiser tank. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:45, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Spitfires and Churchills both have other names as their primary name. The Great War heavy tanks didn't. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:01, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

It is perhaps worth considering that there was no such thing as a Mk I tank until there was a Mk II, or, at least, the prospect of it. Like "World War One." Until November 1916 there were only "Tanks." The first 150 then became the Mk I, and the next 100, ordered on October 16th and incorporating minor modifications, 50 each of Mk II & III (Albert Stern).

As for the article name, I have been required to have such discussions on a number of occasions. It seems that the Wikipedia rule is to reflect "common usage." Whether there can be such a thing in matters as comparatively specialised as this I am not certain. But I notice that the common usage rule is applied inconsistently anyway, and Wikipedia also says that the question should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Compare buttercup and cornflower. "Tank, Mk I" has a pleasing military ring to it, and I'm sure that it appeared in many inventories and official documents. But most people will want to look up (for example) "Mark V Tank." The problem with "Mark V (tank)" is that you have to distinguish it from the Covenanter, a Lincoln Continental, part of the Gospel of St. Mark, and many other things. How "Medium Mark A Whippet" and "Gun Carrier Mark I" fit into this, I cannot say. It would be my suggestion that all the British Heavy Tanks of the period be referred to as "Mark (insert numerals here) Tank." I suppose Roman numerals are a bit anachronistic, really, but I think we can hang on to them.

Whilst this desire for unifomity and clarity is very welcome, I can't help but notice that Wikipedia contains numerous articles and sections on the topic of, shall we say, early 20th century tracked, armoured fighting vehicles, and no two are alike. Some of them are appalling. Is the cart not being put before the horse? Hengistmate (talk) 08:29, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Estonian War of Independence
I notice that a good deal of reversion has taken place here in the matter of the participation or otherwise of Mk V tanks in the Estonian War of Independence. This might be an issue not of vandalism but of historical accuracy. One hopes that no one has been too hasty or acted without examining the facts. Whilst it is undeniable that four Mk Vs were handed to the Estonian Army on condition that they be used to continue opposition to Bolshevik forces, and that a training school was set up under a Captain Shishko, I have yet to see a description of their use in combat. Although Lt. Col. Hope Carson describes British-operated Mk Vs travelling to Pskov in August 1919 and linking with Estonian units, the vehicles did not detrain and later withdrew without seeing action. Whilst Estonia sought independence, it is entirely possible to argue that all tank actions at this time were still a part of the Allied Intervention. They were certainly under the command of Gen. Yudenich, and while the Estonian War of Independence and the Russian Civil War are somewhat interwoven, it is far from clear that Mk Vs actively participated in the former. Any references that establish that they did would be very welcome. In the absence of any, I would suggest that the Estonian War of Independence ought not to appear in the infobox.Hengistmate (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I am apprised that the Mk V did not see combat in the Estonian War of Independence. Hengistmate (talk) 23:57, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Multiple Edits, 12th April, 2012.
Have tried to clarify this somewhat. Having everything under the title of "Mark I Tank" tends to give the impression that information, especially that in the infobox, refers to this Mark throughout, which it doesn't. Have specified which Marks were used by whom (adding Japan), and pointing out instances where info applies only to the Mk I. Haven't included (yet) service with the White Russians, since the vehicles were operated by British crews; would welcome opinions on that. We await a decision on the inclusion of the Estonian Civil War.

With no disrespect, the page title causes the content to fall between several stools, but since there are other articles devoted wholly or partly to this subject, it's hard to think what it could be changed to.

The acquisition of Mk VIIIs by Canada is, I believe, a moot point, and it is suggested that this might be confusion with the M1917s. Does anyone have a reliable source that doesn't seem to have taken its info from Wikipedia?

Have also amended details of armament. Civil comments welcomed on all of the above.Hengistmate (talk) 16:40, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Split is long overdue. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:04, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

 * Mark VIIIs were most certainly acquired by Canada.--MWAK (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't that the point? It's incontrovertible that Canada acquired Mark VIIIs. It's questionable why they did this, and whether they used them afterwards, but Canada paid money to the USA to buy Mark VIIIs and they were shipped Northwards. Andy Dingley (talk) 11:02, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Some doubt exists as to the details of the Mk VIII deal. If MWAK can clear it up, I should be delighted to see his evidence. This is a brief explanation of the alleged controversy: http://mailer.fsu.edu/~akirk/tanks/Stories/emagazine-3/tanks/MKVIIIs_to_Canada.htm Hengistmate (talk) 09:12, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Ah, sorry, I misunderstood. I can only add that Ellis & Chamberlain repeat their claim that they were used for training in The Great Tanks and the AFV 13 Profile. Ram and Sexton. But this obviously does not constitute an independent source.--MWAK (talk) 16:26, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

"It's incontrovertible that Canada acquired Mark VIIIs." Then, as an experienced Wikipedian, you will understand my desire to be reminded of the incontrovertible evidence that satisfies the project's requirements. As we know, a widely circulating view is insufficient. I look forward to reading same. Hengistmate (talk) 16:41, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, it suffices that the claim is made in some published secondary source. Of course we don't have to state that the proof is incontrovertible :o).--MWAK (talk) 07:45, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * The claim is widely sourced, even by the URL that you posted yourself. The issue is more about what the article should claim. Is this "Canada trained with VIIIs", "Canada bought VIIIs for training, but didn't use them", "Canada only wanted 1917s but bought a job lot of both" or "Canada bought scrap metal, because there was otherwise a lack of scrap metal in Canada". Clearing that up probably requires real research, in some Canadian government archive. In its absence we should remain non-committal: Canada bought VIIIs, VIIIs were shipped to Canada, the rest is unclear. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:57, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Splitting
This page is entitled "Mark I Tank" so why does it discuss other tanks such as the Mark II, IV, V, V* etc? The list of nations in the "Used By" section gives the impression that the Mark I was used by, for example, Germany. There are separate pages for all the other Marks of Tank, surely the information would be better placed there? If you check the Mark IV page, for example, it doesn't mention Germany. I feel that a page about the Mark I Tank should be about the Mark I Tank. Should the page title be changed to "Various Tanks of WW1"? It doesn't make much sense the way it is. O'Contraire (talk) 03:20, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Well, the best way to proceed would be to split off (and expand) a separate Mark I article and rename this one to British Heavy Tanks Mark I to Mark X — or somesuch.--MWAK (talk) 08:38, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I quite agree, Mr. O'Contraire, but I also observe that the idea of splitting or otherwise rejigging this article can be traced back to at least 2005. Everyone seems to be full of good advice, but no one has actually done anything except agree that something should be done. Mr. Dingley, in particular, has been tireless in his encouragement of others.

Mr. O'Contraire might like to consider that I have made certain adjustments to the infobox in an attempt to clarify which nation used which Mark(s), and what I hope are improvements in other areas, but such tinkering can achieve very little when the article's title is so restrictive. (Btw, the Mark IV page does mention German use, in the "Service" section)

In all honesty, this article requires considerable rebuilding. But since it does deal with only the British heavy rhomboid tanks, it would at least be a start to rename it "British Heavy Tanks of World War I". I shall therefore do that an hope for a collaborative and constructive response, rather than an obstructive one. Mentioning no names. Here we go. Hengistmate (talk) 10:21, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 * I'd support British Heavy Tanks of World War I, although there's probably some issue with wikipolicy that would tend to push it (wrongly IMHO) to British heavy tanks of World War I. A good citation for "Heavy Tank" as an officially used name, with that capitalisation, would probably be worth adding before making the rename. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:51, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

A New Era
Right. The Gordian Knot has been cut. We can now proceed to improve the article with the freedom that I believe the new title affords. The sections on the individual Marks can be brought more into line with their dedicated articles elsewhere on Wikipedia, the combat history can be fleshed out with Ypres, Cambrai, etc, and I'm sure editors are already thinking of other ways of making the world a better place. If anyone disagrees with anything, perhaps they can come up with some positive alternative. If you have a better idea, let's hear it and let's try it. "Don’t tell me it can’t be done, tell me how we are going to do it" - Franklin D. Roosevelt. Possibly. Hengistmate (talk) 11:18, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
 * Is the capitalisation right? "British heavy tanks of World War I" surely. Fletcher doesn't use "Heavy" in the book titles, and heavy is on;y used when the Whippet appears to not the distinction. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:55, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Well, if that's what it takes, do it. Or whatever will work. Hengistmate (talk) 13:15, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 * Has Fletcher written anything on "the heavies" specifically? I can only think of single models, and WWI tanks overall (including Whippets).
 * I doubt that "Heavy Tank" was ever applied as a name contemporaneously, because there just wasn't any call for it, until the Whippet. Yet it does seem to have some currency quite shortly after this – certainly by the time of the turreted Mediums. Provided that we can offer some sourcing for its sanctioned use by either the War Office, or by reputable historians, then the capitalisation is OK. This doesn't have to be a WWI period source.
 * I'll create an uncapitalised redirect too, just to make linking easier from some sentence contexts. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:33, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:COMMONNAME#Common_names Or whatever. What do I know? Hengistmate (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

 * COMMONNAME would be reason enough for the phrasing, but not enough to defend the capitalisation (which I would personally agree with anyway). I'm just concerned in case a Wikishark swims past, looking to keep up their catch of the day, and they'll then rename, merge or delete it because there's no explicit policy called WP:WHY HEAVY TANKS ARE CALLED HEAVY TANKS. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:35, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Male & Female
I changed last sentence of first paragraph to, "Armament was of two types: naval 6-pounder (57 mm) guns, called a "male", and machine guns, called a "female"." I am just an interested layman, and found the references to "male" and "female" totally confusing. So I explained it at the top. I felt this was necessary because those terms appear in the InfoBox which is at the top. I firmly believe they should be defined right at the top. Tanks are inanimate objects and do not have sexual gender.Nick Beeson (talk) 17:43, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 * The Males also had machine guns though so that needs to be stated clearly (In the case of the Mark IV three to the females five). GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:47, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

 * Also the armament as such wasn't called "male" or "female" but the vehicle versions.--MWAK (talk) 09:08, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
 * But it is common to refer to "male" and "female" sponsons; as in "hermaphrodites had one male and one female sponson." Hengistmate (talk) 18:05, 18 January 2015 (UTC)

I've adjusted this par. There was an initial shortage of 6-pounders, but the necessary 50 were ordered from Armstrong-Whitworth without too much difficulty. The anti-personnel requirement was more of a determinant. The turret wasn't abandoned because it would have made the vehicle too high or top-heavy - the Mk I was no taller than Little Willie; it was because of the interior layout of the vehicle. A turret was feasible in Little Willie's case, but the layout of the heavier Mk I (with its gearsmen) made a turret impractical. Fletcher 2001, p51, if you want a reference, and Stern 1919 somewhere. No need to confuse the issue by introducing hermaphrodites at this stage - that bridge can be crossed in due course. Reading the par in conjunction with the infobox will, I hope, explain matters. And I wish more people knew when to use "due to." Hengistmate (talk) 01:49, 17 January 2015 (UTC)

 * I agree, it took me a while to figure out what the difference was for. Thanks for fixing. I may take a run at improving this, blending accuracy of technical differences with ease of use to the layman. Or :female" laywoman. :) Billyshiverstick (talk) 19:41, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Needs More Info on Effectiveness and Use.
Hi all - I find the article is certainly encyclopaedic on the different variants and construction of the tanks, but is very short on the significance of the tank in WW1. Could anyone find a source with more overview and analysis? TX. Sorry, I just proofread and edit existing work, and don't have the backround on tanks. cheers all, Billyshiverstick (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

 * There is a separate article: Tanks in World War I.--MWAK (talk) 05:42, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Connection of the page
This page about english first world war tank Mark I seem not have the connection with Wikpedia pages in French,Italian and other very knowed countries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.231.36.211 (talk) 00:22, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

Edit by 98.80.223.229, July 7th.
I've restored the reference to WWII because some Mark V tanks did play a very small part in the conflict. Four ex=Estonian Mark Vs were used by the Red Army in the defence of Tallinn in 1941. A couple of Mk Vs were on public display in Berlin from 1943 until after the end of the War, but there is no evidence that they took part in any fighting or were even mobile. The last known operation was 1941, not 1945, but for personal reasons some "editors" will not allow this information to appear in Wikipedia. Hengistmate (talk) 21:13, 9 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on British heavy tanks of World War I. 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/20120330014316/http://criminalwisdom.com/post/4203409022/tank-mask-masks-like-this-one-were-worn-by to http://criminalwisdom.com/post/4203409022/tank-mask-masks-like-this-one-were-worn-by
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070329205855/http://www.tank-cambrai.com/pages/indexpag.html to http://www.tank-cambrai.com/pages/indexpag.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) 05:43, 26 July 2017 (UTC)

a comment
"The Mark I was the world's first tank,...." not so world's "first" considering and other constructors of tanks before 1916

 * Therefore the sentence ends with "to enter combat" :o).--MWAK (talk) 05:12, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Suspension …or lack thereof … needs a paragraph.
There is no discussion at all of how the weight of the tank is carried down to the ground. Of course suspension is a critical part of modern tanks using torsion bars etc. I gather that these old World War I tanks did not have any springs at all. The article needs to say that

Also needs to talk about the drive train … where is the drive sprocket? and also the weight as it goes down to the treads and into the ground … are the treads just scraping directly across the tank body? Is there a lot of wear and friction there? Noleander (talk) 03:54, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

 * Well, the British heavy tanks indeed had no springs (as stated in the box) but that was the exception: all French and German First World War tanks had springs. The drive sprocket is at the rear. Weight-bearing reaction forces were directed from the tracks via the wheels (so internally there are many rollers, top and bottom). The lateral extremities of the treads were not supposed to touch the tank body, so no friction there, in theory. In practice anything could happen, of course :o). If the tank was correctly maintained, the main wear problem was slack in the tracks.--MWAK (talk) 07:47, 10 October 2023 (UTC)


text:
Arnold Vosloo

Arnold Vosloo (born 16 June 1962) is a South African-American actor. He is known for roles such as Imhotep in The Mummy (1999) and The Mummy Returns (2001), Colonel Coetzee in Blood Diamond (2006), Pik van Cleef in Hard Target (1993), Dr. Peyton Westlake in Darkman II (1995) and Darkman III (1996), Zartan in G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (2009) and G.I. Joe: Retaliation (2013), sniper Jacob Broadsky in the TV series Bones and terrorist Habib Marwan in the fourth season of 24.

Early life
An Afrikaner of Dutch and German ancestry, Vosloo was born into a Pretoria acting family, his parents having been stage actors. His father ran a drive-in theater in Alberton, Gauteng. He has one sister. After high school and military service (from which he received a medical discharge), he took drama courses at the Technikon Pretoria.

Career
Vosloo began his acting career in South African theatre, where he won several Dalro Awards for his performances in such plays as Don Juan, Hamlet, and Môre is 'n Lang Dag (Tomorrow is a Long Day) and quickly became a regular at Pretoria's State Theatre. He also starred in Torch Song Trilogy and won another award for the TV show, Meisie van Suid-Wes (Girl from South West).

In 1984, Vosloo moved on to film where he continued Dalro Award-winning performances in films such as Boetie gaan Border toe (Boetie goes to the border, a comedy about the Border War) acting alongside fellow South African actor Frank Opperman, and Circles in a Forest (based on the book Kringe in 'n Bos by author Dalene Matthee) in 1990. Vosloo also starred in the "Boetie" sequel, Boetie op maneuvers (Boetie on maneuvers) in 1986. Next was the German three-parter Morenga (1985), Saturday Night at the Palace (based on the play by Paul Slabolepszy about racism in South Africa), Skeleton Coast (1987) and The Rutanga Tapes (1990).

Upon arriving in the U.S., Vosloo returned to the theatre where he appeared in Born in the R.S.A. at Chicago's Northlight Theatre and in the NY's Circle in the Square Uptown's short-lived production of Salomé (1992) together with Al Pacino.

His American film debut was in Gor (1987). He later appeared in the two less successful sequels to the 1990 film Darkman, Darkman II: The Return of Durant (1994) and Darkman III: Die Darkman Die (1996), filling the shoes of Liam Neeson as the title character Darkman.

Vosloo is also known for portraying villains such as in the John Woo film Hard Target (1993), starring Jean-Claude Van Damme, and the title role of the 1999 film The Mummy (starring Brendan Fraser), as well as its 2001 sequel, The Mummy Returns. In both films he played Imhotep, an ancient Egyptian high priest. Vosloo also played François Molay, the main villain's henchman, in the 2003 film Agent Cody Banks.

In 2004, The Revenge of the Mummy: The Ride opened in both Universal Studios theme parks in Orlando and Hollywood. Vosloo and Fraser were there at both openings to promote the new rides, in which both of them star, as well as featuring a life size image of Vosloo as The Mummy.

Alongside his film career, he guest-starred in several TV series, including The Red Shoe Diaries, American Gothic (1995), Nash Bridges (1995), Charmed (2000), Alias (2004) and NCIS (2009). He was one of the main characters in Veritas: The Quest (2003). He also had a major role in the fourth season of 24 (2005), as terrorist leader Habib Marwan. Vosloo appeared in three episodes of Chuck in 2009 as Fulcrum agent Vincent.

In 2004, Vosloo returned to South Africa to make Forgiveness, about an ex-policeman who seeks out the family of the anti-Apartheid activist that he killed. He played mercenary Colonel Coetzee in the 2006 film Blood Diamond, which was partially filmed in South Africa.

Vosloo has been involved in video games: his likeness, as well as his voice, was chosen for the main hero (Saul Myers) of video game Boiling Point: Road to Hell, published in the summer of 2005 by Atari.

Vosloo portrayed the Cobra mercenary and master of disguise, Zartan, in the summer 2009 release G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra, reprising this villainous role in the 2013 release G.I. Joe: Retaliation.

Personal life
In 1988, Vosloo became a naturalized United States citizen after marrying his Act of Piracy and Skeleton Coast co-star Nancy Mulford; they divorced three years later. On 16 October 1998, he married Southern California native Silvia Ahí, a Mexican-American marketing director. Vosloo and Ahí are spokespersons for the International Fund for Animal Welfare, IFAW.

In an interview with Charlie Rose, Vosloo noted he looked similar to American actor Billy Zane. According to Vosloo, when people came asking him if he was "the guy in Titanic," he would reply, "Of course, of course," as a joke.

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

title: Arnold Vosloo


text:
Daryl Johnston

Daryl Peter "Moose" Johnston (born February 10, 1966) is an American former professional football player who is currently the executive vice president of football operations for the UFL. He played college football at Syracuse University. He was the general manager of the San Antonio Commanders of the Alliance of American Football (AAF) in 2019, the director of player personnel for the Dallas Renegades in 2020, and served as the executive vice president of football operations for the revived incarnation of the USFL for its inaugural season.

Early life
Johnston was named Western New York Player of the Year in 1983, while playing for Lewiston-Porter High School (locally known as Lew-Port) in Lewiston, New York. The Lancers won the division during his senior year in 1984. His Lew-Port jersey (number 34) was retired on September 1, 2006. In 2008, he was inducted into the Greater Buffalo Sports Hall of Fame.

College career
Johnston attended Syracuse University. As a redshirted freshman, he started playing on special teams and would earn the starting fullback position by his sophomore season in 1986.

While playing for Syracuse, Johnston was an All-Big East selection in 1987 and an All-American in 1988. He rushed for 1,830 yards and caught 46 passes during his collegiate career. He once gained 138 yards rushing, the most by a Syracuse running back since Larry Csonka rushed for 154 yards in 1967.

He graduated with a degree in economics.

Professional career
Johnston was selected by the Dallas Cowboys in the second round (39th overall) of the 1989 NFL Draft. As a rookie, he received his nickname "Moose" from backup quarterback Babe Laufenberg because of his large stature compared to the rest of the running backs. The name caught on among Dallas fans who would chant "Moooooose" whenever he made a play.

As a Cowboy, Johnston played in 149 consecutive games from 1989-1997. He also became one of the greatest special teams players in franchise history.

He scored 22 career touchdowns and had more receptions than carries. His 294 receptions is the third-highest number among Cowboys running backs, totaling 2,227 yards for a 7.6 yards average, compared to 232 carries for 753 yards for a 3.2 yards average. In 1993 Johnston had 50 receptions and averaged 7.4 yards per catch.

Due mainly to Johnston's contributions, the NFL created the fullback position in the Pro Bowl. Prior to this change, blocking fullbacks had little chance of beating out traditional running backs, who had better statistics. Johnston was selected to the Pro Bowl in 1993 and 1994.

Johnston retired at the end of the 1999 season, after suffering a neck injury in 1997. He was a member of three Super Bowl winning teams.

Legacy
Johnston was considered one of the greatest fullbacks of his day, while blocking for Emmitt Smith, as Smith went on to become the all-time NFL rushing leader. However, Johnston was not the lead blocker for Smith's entire career. A neck injury prematurely ended Johnston's career. Johnston was present the day Smith broke the rushing record; he was in the broadcasting booth, but came down onto the field to hug Smith and congratulate him afterward. As Smith made his victory lap of Texas Stadium after the record-setting carry, Johnston hung back in the shadows. When Smith saw Johnston, the two joined together in an emotional embrace, with Smith telling Johnston, "I couldn't have done it without you." Johnston replied, "It was my pleasure. I couldn't imagine doing it for anybody else."

In 2010, Johnston was in the audience for Emmitt Smith's induction into the Pro Football Hall of Fame. During his acceptance speech, a visibly emotional Smith spoke directly to Johnston, calling out the fact that, as a fullback, he had sacrificed himself for so many years to block for Smith. "Without you", Smith said, "I know that today would not have been possible."

Broadcasting career

In 2003, Johnston joined the program Players Inc Radio when it moved to Fox Sports Radio. The program was sponsored by NFL Players Inc. Since 2013, Johnston has worked as a color commentator alongside Kenny Albert and formerly Dick Stockton. Previously, Johnston was on the second broadcast team with Stockton from 2001–06 and Albert from 2007-13. He also worked with Tony "Goose" Siragusa, until Siragusa's firing from the network following the 2015 season. In 2000, Johnston got his start calling NFL games by working the regular season and doing the High Definition broadcast of Super Bowl XXXV with Kevin Harlan for CBS Sports. He was an analyst for the NFL Network's "Total Access" until 2012. Johnston also began calling the collegiate Cotton Bowl Classic game for Fox in 2009, first with Pat Summerall, and then eventually Kenny Albert. He also was a guest star of the PBS television series Wishbone in its episode "Moonbone". He appears as a regular guest on First Things First on FS1 (2017/2018) with Cris Carter, Nick Wright, and Jenna Wolfe. In 2017, he continued his esteemed broadcasting career with NFL on FOX, teamed with Chris Myers and Laura Okmin. In 2020, he became paired with Kevin Burkhardt and Pam Oliver. He is currently paired with Joe Davis and Pam Oliver as the number 2 crew with FOX, but his status for 2024 is unknown with Tom Brady’s arrival at FOX.

Executive career
In 2018, Johnston became the General Manager of the San Antonio Commanders of the Alliance of American Football.

On May 15, 2019, he was named Director of Player Personnel for the Dallas Renegades of the new XFL.

On November 17, 2021, he was named Executive Vice President of Football Operations.

On April 6, 2023, he was named the President of Football Operations for the second season of the newest incarnation of the USFL.

Personal life
A native of Youngstown, New York, Johnston now resides in Dallas, Texas with his wife Diane, son Aidan, and daughter Evan.

title: Daryl Johnston


text:
Talk:Ertapenem

The IUPAC name is lacking stereochemistry specifics.--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 02:17, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I switched to the IUPAC name given at the PubChem link which has stereochemistry. -- Ed (Edgar181) 15:27, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
 * I was going to do that when I redrew the structure, but completely forgot :) Thanks, Ed. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:13, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

IUPAC NAme and Structure
I think the correct IUPAC Name is

(4R,5S,6S)-3-({(3S,5S)-5-[(3-carboxyphenyl)carbamoyl]pyrrolidin-3-yl}sulfanyl)-6-[(1R)-1-hydroxyethyl]-4-methyl-7-oxo-1-azabicyclo[3.2.0]hept-2-ene-2-carboxylic acid

and the structure as drawn is incorrect--ChemSpiderMan (talk) 23:05, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

15 years
The marketing slogan has been on this page for 15 years, since it was created in 2003. ARGH. Jytdog (talk) 04:04, 4 May 2018 (UTC)

title: Talk:Ertapenem


text:
Wireless USB

Wireless USB (Universal Serial Bus) is a short-range, high-bandwidth wireless radio communication protocol created by the Wireless USB Promoter Group, which is intended to increase the availability of general

USB-based technologies. It is unrelated to Wi-Fi and different from the Cypress Wireless USB offerings. It was maintained by the WiMedia Alliance which ceased operations in 2009. Wireless USB is sometimes abbreviated as WUSB, although the USB Implementers Forum discouraged this practice and instead prefers to call the technology Certified Wireless USB to distinguish it from the competing UWB standard.

Wireless USB was based on the WiMedia Alliance's Ultra-WideBand (UWB) common radio platform, which is capable of sending 480 Mbit/s at distances up to 3 m and 110 Mbit/s at distances up to 10 m. It was designed to operate in the 3.1 to 10.6 GHz frequency range, although local regulatory policies may restrict the legal operating range in some countries.

The standard is now obsolete, and no new hardware has been produced for many years though it has been adopted by Android for precise signaling

Support for the standard was deprecated in Linux 5.4 and removed in Linux 5.7

Overview
The rationale for this specification was the overwhelming success of USB as a base for peripherals everywhere; cited reasons include extreme ease of use and low cost, which allow the existence of a ubiquitous bidirectional, fast port architecture. The definition of Ultra-WideBand (UWB) matches the capabilities and transfer rates of USB very closely (from 1.5 and 12 Mbit/s up to 480 Mbit/s for USB 2.0) and makes for a natural wireless extension of USB in the short range (3 meters, up to 10 at a reduced rate of 110 Mbit/s). Still, there was no physical bus to power the peripherals any more, and the absence of wires means that some properties that are usually taken for granted in USB systems need to be achieved by other means.

The goal of the specification was to preserve the functional model of USB, based on intelligent hosts and behaviorally simple devices, while allowing it to operate in a wireless environment and keeping security on a par with the levels offered by traditional wired systems. It also seeks to be comparably power-efficient. To accomplish this, it uses an existing standard that defines a suitable physical layer and medium access control, through which the desired performance can be met, and it adds to it a convergence layer to merge both architectural efforts.

W-USB was defined as a bus, albeit logical and not physical, which can simultaneously connect a host with a number of peripherals. The host divides the available bandwidth through a time-division multiple access (TDMA) strategy. It maintains the ability of USB to safely manage devices on the fly. Hosts can communicate with devices up to 10 meters away.

Uses
Wireless USB was used in game controllers, printers, scanners, digital cameras, portable media players, hard disk drives and USB flash drives. It was also suitable for transferring parallel video streams, using USB over ultra-wideband protocols.

Development
The Wireless USB Promoter Group was formed in February 2004 to define the Wireless USB protocol. The group consisted of Agere Systems (now merged with LSI Corporation ), Hewlett-Packard, Intel, Microsoft, NEC Corporation, Philips Semiconductors, and Samsung.

In May 2005, the Wireless USB Promoter Group announced version 1.0 of the Wireless USB specification.

In June 2006, five companies showed the first multi-vendor interoperability demonstration of wireless USB. A laptop with an Intel host adapter using an Alereon PHY was used to transfer high-definition video from a Philips wireless semiconductor with a Staccato Communications PHY, all using Microsoft Windows XP drivers developed for Wireless USB.

In October 2006, the U.S. Federal Communications Commission (FCC) approved Host Wire Adapter (HWA) and Device Wire Adapter (DWA) wireless USB products from WiQuest Communications for both outdoor and indoor use. The first retail product was shipped by IOGEAR using Alereon, Intel, and NEC silicon in mid-2007. Around the same time, Belkin, Dell, Lenovo, and D-Link began shipping products that incorporated WiQuest technology. These products included embedded cards in notebook PCs or adapters for those PCs that do not currently include wireless USB. In 2008, a new wireless USB docking station from Kensington was made available through Dell. This product was unique as it was the first product on the market to support video and graphics over a USB connection by using DisplayLink USB graphics technology. Kensington released a Wireless USB Universal Docking Station in August 2008 for wireless connectivity between a notebook PC and an external monitor, speakers, and existing wired USB peripherals. Imation announced the Q4 2008 availability of a new external Wireless HDD.

On March 16, 2009, the WiMedia Alliance announced transfer agreements for the WiMedia ultra-wideband (UWB) specifications. WiMedia transferred specifications to the Bluetooth Special Interest Group (SIG), the Wireless USB Promoter Group, and the USB Implementers Forum. After the technology transfer, the WiMedia Alliance ceased operations. In October 2009, the Bluetooth Special Interest Group dropped the development of UWB as part of the alternative MAC/PHY, Bluetooth 3.0/High Speed technology. A small, but significant, number of former WiMedia members had not and would not sign up to the necessary agreements for the intellectual property transfer. The Bluetooth group then turned its attention from UWB to 60 GHz.

On September 29, 2010, version 1.1 of the Wireless USB specification was announced. It delivered several backwards-compatible improvements: UWB upper band support for frequencies 6 GHz and above, improved power management and consumption, and support for NFC and proximity based association.

Protocol architecture
As mentioned, the USB model is preserved, and generally minor adjustments made to fit the specific needs of a wireless system. The changes are as follows, from top to bottom:

 * The function layer only suffers minor changes to increase efficiency and support isochronism.
 * The device layer includes wireless-oriented security and device management features.
 * The bus layer does not change its functionality, but is substantially adapted for efficiency and security on wireless networks.

Changes to USB
The replacement of copper wires in the bus layer introduces ambiguity in the actual state of host-device connections and, even more importantly, potentially exposes communications fully to any other device within the propagation range, whereas they were reasonably secure over the wire. Hence, an explicit secure relationship must be established. For this, the bus and device layers incorporate the necessary resources for use by the function layer. Every W-USB transmission is encrypted by the bus layer without impairing layer-to-layer horizontal communication.

The bus follows a TDMA-based polling approach supervised by the host. A transfer is formed by three parts: a token, data, and a handshake. For efficiency reasons, several tokens containing timing information for the devices can be grouped into one, thus forming transaction groups. Flow control and packet sizes are adjusted for power efficiency, while respecting the high-level pipe model of communication between source and destination.

Even preserving the USB model typical error rates in wireless media require modifications in the mechanisms used to achieve said model: among others, data handshakes and buffering.

UWB defines both PHY and MAC layers, which need to be integrated in the W-USB model. In particular, MAC is joined with the logical link control (LLC) sublayer to form the link layer, responsible for encryption/decryption, PHY error management and synchronization, while PHY itself covers the correctness of headers, not payloads.

The MAC layer is particularly relevant to W-USB. It uses superframes divided in 256 time slots, the first of which are dedicated to the transfer of beaconing information. Slots can further be allocated to meet the necessities of clusters of devices, also identified by MMC's (see below). A host maintains one or more W-USB communication channels and is fully aware of the MAC layer, whereas a device only needs to use the defined W-USB interface to communicate through existing channels.

There are three degrees of MAC consciousness in devices. The highest of these corresponds to a self-beaconing device, which is able to perform beaconing on its own. The following degree represents directed-beaconing devices, which are unaware of MAC frames and have limited beaconing capabilities, depending on the host to detect and beacon for nearby devices. Lastly there are non-beaconing devices, which have a very limited ability to transmit and receive; on the other hand, devices which are undetectable by the host can not be affected by these devices, nor can affect them.

Thus, non-beaconing devices can only operate in very close vicinity to the host. Directed- and self-beaconing devices must be able to identify their hidden neighbors, which they do by emitting beacons. On their end, hosts manage global timers with the precision the physical medium requires (20 ppm). Channel time is sent within MMC's, and it is used for slot allocation, so it is important that hosts perform accurate beaconing. Devices may as well beacon reservation declarations.

The superframe includes device notification time slots for asynchronous transfers initiated by the devices (which do not use pipes, but instead tap the bus layer directly); the host dynamically assigns slots as needed. Besides these, W-USB transactions between the host and endpoints are carried out as in USB.

Data transport architecture
Transactions use TDMA microscheduling while adhering to USB semantics. A split-transaction protocol is used to allow multiple transactions to be carried out simultaneously. This is related to the transaction group concept, which consists of a microscheduled management command (MMC) and allocated time slots for the execution of its associated workload.

Wireless data transfers tend to incur in very significant overheads; to mitigate this W-USB replaces these with the burst mode data phase, which groups one or more data packets which reducing packet delimiters and separation gaps, in contrast with the USB rule of one data packet per transaction. The extent to which this practice is applied can be adjusted, resulting in a varying degree of equity between competing devices.

The specification defines four particular data transfer types; their identifying features are summarized here.

Power management can also affect data transport, since devices may control their power use at their discretion. The fact that the communications protocol is based on TDMA means that both host and devices know exactly when their presence is not required, and can use this to enter power saving modes. Devices may turn off their radios transparently to the host while maintaining their connections. They can also turn off over extended periods of time if they previously notify the host, as they will ignore all communications from said host. Eventually, the device will trigger the wakeup procedure and check for pending work.
 * Bulk transfers tap the channel as bandwidth is available. Delivery is guaranteed, but neither transfer rate nor latency are, though the host can attempt to leverage pending transfers or endpoints. They are used for high-volume transfers exhibiting a sharp time-varying behavior. They use unidirectional pipes.
 * Interrupt transfers serve short transactions which demand high reliability and low latency. Maximum service period is guaranteed, as are a number of retries during said period.
 * Isochronous transfers provide guaranteed transfer rates and bounded latency for transmission attempts, as well as on-average constant data rate (although dependent on the medium, usually comparable to the rates achievable by wired USB). There is also at least one guaranteed retry during the service period, and it supports additional reliability against error bursts by adding delay to the stream according to buffering capacity; payload sizes can be adjusted. Still, it may eventually be necessary to discard the oldest data in the buffers (the receiver can be informed of the amount of information discarded while the channel is not usable). Hosts will only discard data if the presentation time for a packet expires.
 * Control transfers are the same as in USB 2.0. The system uses a best-effort policy, but software may restrict channel access and available bandwidth for devices.

In turn, the host will usually turn its radio off when it is not needed. If it decides to stop the channel, be in temporarily or to enter hibernation or shutdown states, it must notify the devices before it can do so.

Compatibility options for older hardware
The WUSB architecture allows up to 127 devices to connect directly to a host. Because there are no wires or ports, there is no longer a need for hubs.

However, to facilitate migration from wired to wireless, WUSB introduced a new Device Wire Adapter (DWA) class. Sometimes referred to as a "WUSB hub", a DWA allows existing USB 2.0 devices to be used wirelessly with a WUSB host.

WUSB host capability can be added to existing PCs through the use of a Host Wire Adapter (HWA). The HWA is a USB 2.0 device that attaches externally to a desktop or laptop's USB port or internally to a laptop's MiniCard interface.

WUSB also supports dual-role devices (DRDs), which in addition to being a WUSB device, can function as a host with limited capabilities. For example, a digital camera could act as a device when connected to a computer and as a host when transferring pictures directly to a printer.

Connectivity
W-USB can form true USB systems, formed by a host, devices and interconnection support. It implements the USB hub–spoke model, in which up to 127 wireless devices can form point-to-point links (spokes) with the host (the hub). The host controller is unique in the system and is usually embedded in a working computer, though it could be connected to it through a simple USB connection, possibly wireless as well. Such a topology is similar to a star network (but all communications are strictly point-to-point, never between devices).

In order to allow common wired USB devices to be connected, the specification defines device wire adapters. Likewise, hosts connect to W-USB systems through use of a host wire adapter. Even though the physical layer is based on Ultra-WideBand, W-USB devices have a fully compliant USB interface. The physical layer may support a wide range of transfer rates, of which three are defined as mandatorily supported: 53.3, 106.7 and 200 Mbit/s, all other possible UWB rates being optional for devices (hosts must support them all).

W-USB devices are categorized in the same way as traditional USB. Because of the existence of wire adapters, traditional USB hubs are not needed. A device supports one or more communication pipes to the host, and allocates endpoint 0 for the USB control pipe. Device type information is available through this pipe.

Connections with the host are created by means of an establishment message sent at some point. Both host and device can then proceed to authenticate using their unique keys; if the process succeeds, the host assigns a unique USB address to the device, after which the device becomes visible to the USB protocol. Because the connectivity model allows for on-the-fly, unannounced disconnection, connections must always remain active. Aside from host- or device-forced disconnections, long inactivity periods may trigger the same termination mechanisms.

In addition, W-USB hosts have other responsibilities which go beyond those of a wired host; namely, their MAC sublayer is responsible for supervising the suitability of device MAC layers. If needed, this requires assisting them in their beaconing duties and processing the beaconing data that could be sent to them. Furthermore, the UWB radio and associated bandwidth may be shared with other entities, and the host must make sure that the defined policies are satisfied; according to shared use (which may be coordinated to avoid interference) it will be able to offer full or partial functionality.

Relation to ultra-wideband
UWB is a general term for radio communication using pulses of energy which spread emitted Radio Frequency energy over 500 MHz+ of spectrum or exceeding 20% fractional bandwidth within the frequency range of 3.1 GHz to 10.6 GHz as defined by the FCC ruling issued for UWB in February 2002. UWB is not specific to WiMedia or any other company or group and there are in fact a number of groups and companies developing UWB technology totally unrelated to WiMedia. WUSB was a protocol promulgated by the USB Implementers Forum that used WiMedia's UWB radio platform. Other protocols that announced their intention to use WiMedia's UWB radio platform included Bluetooth and the WiMedia Logical Link Control Protocol.

Wireless USB vs. 60 GHz
A few issues differentiate Wireless USB from other proposed/competing standards that utilize 60 GHz band like WiGig:

 * Line of sight
 * At 60 GHz, radio communication is blocked by any intervening object, which implies the need for open line of sight. Wireless USB was based on the Ultra-WideBand (UWB) platform, which operates in the 3.1 to 10.6 GHz frequency range, and thus can pass through intervening bodies.

 * Mobility
 * The 60 GHz technology was appealing to the wireless video market because it was supposed to deliver multi-gigabit-speed wireless communications. In order to support such heavy demands, the underlying MAC layer should have been able to process this huge amount of data. For these requirements, the 60 GHz-based products needed higher power consumption, and more electronics, which are less suitable for mobile units or devices.

Security
Robustness is one of the main concerns upon which the specification is built, and as such resource management and connection/disconnection of devices becomes even more important than in wired USB. Packet loss and corruption are dealt with through timeouts as well as hardware buffering, guaranteed retries (as mentioned in the description of transfer models) and other flow control methods. If synchronism policies cannot be maintained, errors can be handled either by hardware or software (retries, maximum number of retries failure, failure recovery decisions and so on).

The W-USB host tries to mitigate the unreliability of wireless mediums (a 10% error rate is considered acceptable for 1 kB packets; in wired media this value is usually around 10−9) maintaining counters and statistics for each device and possible requesting information from them. It can also access and modify the transmit power control functions of each device, as well as change transmission parameters such as data payload size and bandwidth adjustments.

The focus is always on providing quality of service comparable to that of traditional USB. Wires offer a very high level of security (given a typical trusted working environment), so standard USB does not deal with it, even though it does not hinder its applicability or implementability; W-USB manages security explicitly, but instead of harnessing the base of UWB it designs a model which is valid for USB in general. Because of this, it must be added to the common USB device control plane.

For communication to exist, secure relationships must be established. These must have a defined purpose and restrict membership to the group, which serves as the base of trust to carry out the desired work. Within a wired systems, data transfers imply a controlled physical connection; this translates into the wireless domain through the concept of ownership: the user grants trust to the devices, which in turn prove this trust to others (interacting in so-called ceremonies) in order to form the desired associations. The USB address identifier is a token of the owner's trust. Applications may require other bases of trust not directly supported by this USB-specific model, in which case they can be implemented on top of the core USB stack.

Even more, trust needs to be maintained, otherwise it will expire. After receiving the group key of a cluster, a device must keep the connection alive by at least confirming its presence within each trust timeout boundary, which is set to four seconds. If it does not succeed at keeping up with this requirement, reauthentication is demanded.

Following the natural asymmetry of USB, the host initiates all processes (except signaling), security being no exception. Security requests are made to devices to find their security capabilities, after which the appropriate devices can be chosen. The standard, symmetric encryption method is AES-128 with CCM, though Public key encryption may be used for initial authentication (namely, only the sending of the initial CCM key), provided that the achieved security level is comparable (in practice by using 3072-bit RSA and SHA-256 for hashing).

Note that there is a difference between master keys and session keys. Master keys are long-lived and usually work as a shared secret or a means to distribute session keys, which in turn do not outlive the connection for which they were created and usually serve as the functional encryption/decryption mechanism. A specific header field indicates which of the possible keys is to be used. It is also important to note that replay prevention mechanisms require the keeping of counters which are updated on valid receptions. The range of these counters further limits the life of session keys.

Competitors
Other forms of USB over wireless exist, such as those based on the competing direct sequence ultra-wideband technology by Cable-Free USB. The same was also true for other radio frequency based wire replacement systems which could carry USB. The result was that the name Certified Wireless USB was adopted to allow consumers to identify which products would be adherent to the standard and would support the correct protocol and data rates.

There was also USB over IP, which may have used IP-based networking to transfer USB traffic wirelessly. For example, with proper drivers the host side may have used 802.11a/b/g/n/ac Wi-Fi (or wired Ethernet) to communicate with the device.

Media Agnostic USB
, Media Agnostic USB (MA USB) is a specification being developed by the USB Implementers Forum. It is intended to enable communication using the Universal Serial Bus (USB) protocol to be performed over a wide range of physical communication media, including WiFi and WiGig wireless networks. The protocol is being developed from the base of the Wi-Fi Alliance's previous WiGig Serial Extension specification.

Media Agnostic USB is distinct from, and should not be confused with, previous wireless USB protocols such as Certified Wireless USB.

title: Wireless USB


text: Template:Salt Lake City

title: Template:Salt Lake City