Landships II

Members Login
Username 
 
Password 
    Remember Me  
Post Info TOPIC: FT17


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 184
Date:
FT17
Permalink   


I know     ---------> The second Public Warning for "Ft 17" 

I know that it is not a FT17 but as I visited my local tankmuseum (the NMM in Holland) i saw this .....

So the name is so common that even a museum uses it?

Just a few pictures of this tank attached.

Best regards,

Willem

WP_20170601_11_21_36_Pro.jpg



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 368
Date:
Permalink   

Bonjour,

And the German gun, fighting on Paris, is always called "Gross Bertha" in the media . . . . . !

More interesting, if you go back in this museum (or an other one !) is to search this :

    http://pages14-18.mesdiscussions.net/pages1418/Pages-d-Histoire-Artillerie/Artillerie-Speciale-chars-d-assaut/artillerie-speciale-constructeur-sujet_2746_1.htm

And perhaps, have you already done this photo . . . . .

Bon dimanche - Michel



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 184
Date:
Permalink   

Hello Michel,
I have no picture of that number .... But the next time I will visit this museum I will certainly make that picture of the chassisnumber.
Willem

__________________


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 3274
Date:
Permalink   

So the name is so common that even a museum uses it?

Afraid so. Bovington called theirs "FT 17" for quite a while, but when they had a bit of a makeover they changed the billboard next to it to read "FT".

BovFT.jpg

 

Then when they did the big refurb in 2009 they changed it back again! Even David Fletcher calls it FT17 in his Tank Chat video.

Saumur call theirs FT17 - and it's an FT31!

The best sources still make mistakes. The IWM has loads of wrongly captioned photos - I've got them to correct a few - and incorrect facts, and so does the AWM. Until fairly recently the Dutch Legermuseum website said that FT stood for "Force Terrestre".

More people say "Me 109" than say "Bf 109", they say "Frankenstein" instead of "The Monster", and almost everyone says "Marie Celeste" instead of "Mary Celeste", but they're wrong. And all the evidence I've seen indicates that "FT 17" is wrong.

On a slightly related topic, I watched a documentary on some satellite channel the other night, about the Panther and Tiger tanks. Let me say at once that I don't normally watch such things. An interest in WW2 German tanks can seem a bit . . . well, you know.) Anyway, what struck me was that the (British) narrator failed to pronounce a single German word correctly. He might not be entirely to blame, because it's common practice for "voice artists" to read a script down a line from their home studio, without ever seeing the film that it goes with. So if he doesn't speak German, and there's no one to guide him, he'll end up having a guess. The (American) tank museum curator had no excuse, and he was just as bad.

Amongst the gruesome mispronunciations: Nashorn (Rhinoceros) should be Narz-horn, but we got Nash-orn; Sturmtiger should be Shtoorm-teeger, but we got Sterm-tyger; Jäger should be Yayger, but we got Yarger; and so on. But they saved the best till last: Bohvington!

 

Ah. Here we are: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OrcMyVxoddA

PS: Why has this come out with a white background?

 



-- Edited by James H on Sunday 4th of June 2017 07:02:53 PM



-- Edited by James H on Sunday 4th of June 2017 07:26:40 PM



-- Edited by James H on Sunday 4th of June 2017 08:10:38 PM

Attachments
__________________

"Sometime things that are not true are included in Wikipedia. While at first glance that may appear like a very great problem for Wikipedia, in reality is it not. In fact, it's a good thing." - Wikipedia.



Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 184
Date:
Permalink   

PS: Why has this come out with a white background?

I am afraid by copying a part of one line of my text It had a white background color.

Nice to read about David Fletcher even calling it by the wrong name.....

 



__________________


Commander in Chief

Status: Offline
Posts: 577
Date:
Permalink   

It wasn't called FT in army use. As far as I can see, it was a 'char d'assault' or 'char de combat', often with 'Renault' added, but never a 'char Renault FT'.

FT was an internal production code of the Renault company that obviously didn't make it to the field.

After the wars, it was then called Renault FT17 in English literature; however, not in France, where people initially stuck to the above names, and also not in Germany (Heigl), until English stuff swamped the markets.

It has been the 'FT17' for more than seventy years now; I think there is not the ghost of a chance to get 'FT17' out of use. And it isn't that terribly wrong, as everybody knows exactly what vehicle is meant.  

  



__________________
MZ


Legend

Status: Offline
Posts: 1647
Date:
Permalink   

I think the project to rid the world of "FT-17" has made remarkable strides. Even Wikipedia has capitulated and uses "FT" -

admittedly with long explanations about why every other designation is wrong.

Although I notice that the AWM now has their Renault light tank labelled as "Renault FT" - I recognise that for some

institutions the final solution is biological, i.e. wait for reactionaries to die.

It seems to me that it's a tiny recompense to the French scholars who have helped us so often over the years that

we continue to try to at least be polite enough to refer the French Army vehicles by the names the French wish to use and insist others do as well.

Charlie

 



-- Edited by CharlieC on Monday 5th of June 2017 03:01:52 AM

__________________


Commander in Chief

Status: Offline
Posts: 577
Date:
Permalink   

Reactionaries? I had no idea it was that serious. - However, it seems to be a mixed bag:

Heigl (pre-WW2, several editions) said "Renault M.17 F.T." (and he also knew about a "Renault M.18 F.T.).

Touzin and Gurtner (two Frenchmen) in Armour in Profile No. 13 (ca. 1967) use "Renault F.T." for title, but the text and the captions consistently talk about the Renault FT-17.

Gougaud (L'aube de la gloire, 1987) explains in detail how the designation FT came about, but then goes on and says that FT-17 isn't entirely wrong either.

My point is that during its active career the tank was called "char Renault", "char de combat Renault" or "char d'assault Renault". The factory designation FT may have been written in the manuals, but nobody used it. It's a little bit like insisting to call the Panzer IV a Zugführerwagen - or ZFWagen, which was its factory designation, although everybody knows it was the Panzer IV.   



__________________
MZ


Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 202
Date:
Permalink   

What is the horse drawn wagon in the background?? I have not seen anything like that before. Do you have photographs of it please??

Grant  



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 184
Date:
Permalink   

Hello Grant,

the wagon in the background is one of several Dutch wagons. They were used by the Dutch army in the years before the second world war. The one you see behind the FT is a car of the III division and contains tools for the blacksmith, woodworkers and other support services. If you still want pictures of this and the other wagons, let me know, I plan to visit the museum this week for extra pictures of the FT.

Willem

 



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 184
Date:
Permalink   

For Michel:

It was a rainy morning here so I vistited the NMM museum and took the pictures:

 RenaultFTNumerodechassis01.jpg

My guess it's 3866 but the metall is painted and beaten up often .....

Can you tell us more about this number?

And for Grant, I have pictures of the horse drawn wagons. So tell me by a personal message how to get the pictures to you ...

Willem



-- Edited by Willem Visser on Tuesday 6th of June 2017 12:33:50 PM

Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 368
Date:
Permalink   

Bonjour and thank you Willem,

Yes, I think also, it's the number 3868, and probably the good one for this Renault FT.

Where do you put it on the tank ? Your photo don't give exactly the place !

This number is different for each Renault FT and give the factory (Renault, Berliet, Somua, Delaunay-Belleville)

About chassis number in GBM n° 101 (Guerre Blindés Matériels - From François Vauvillier) a good study (in French . . . . )  from Laurent Deneu.

You can found this magazine (from 2012), on "Histoire & Collections" website :

                     http://www.google.fr/url?url=http://www.histoireetcollections.com/fr/47-guerre-blindes-materiel-gbm&rct=j&frm=1&q=&esrc=s&sa=U&ved=0ahUKEwiyia_blanUAhUHuBQKHc2fAukQFggUMAA&usg=AFQjCNE3ZM0mYdfyzI-J-eJYhPgDN0ye5g

Thank you again, and bonne après-midi - Michel



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 184
Date:
Permalink   

Hello Michel,
it is number 3866 (the last digit is certainly a 6).
My French is terrible so buying that magazine will not be a good idea for me
The exact place where I found the four digit number is here:

chassis number.jpg

Willem



Attachments
__________________


General

Status: Offline
Posts: 368
Date:
Permalink   

Thank you, "Sharp eye" !

I agree, last number is well "6". It is interesting to see this number on an other place of the chassis.

Bonne soirée - Michel



__________________


Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 202
Date:
Permalink   

Hello Willen,

If you can get some photographs of that wagon I would be most thankful. :)

Grant



__________________


Lieutenant-Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 184
Date:
Permalink   

Grant, the pictures have been send to you.
Best regards,
Willem

__________________


Colonel

Status: Offline
Posts: 202
Date:
Permalink   

Willem, I have received them...many thanks :)

Grant



__________________
Page 1 of 1  sorted by
 
Quick Reply

Please log in to post quick replies.

Tweet this page Post to Digg Post to Del.icio.us