This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / British / European This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military land vehicles task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force British military history task force European military history task force United Kingdom This article is within the scope of WikiProject United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United Kingdom on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject United KingdomUnited Kingdom ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Having reviewed the Tank Museum website this seems to the right order for the name, I'll check physically when I'm down there in August/September. GraemeLeggett

The bottom two references seem to both lead to 404 page not found.Pepe.is.great (talk) 18:15, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have now fixed the linksPepe.is.great (talk) 01:15, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"The tank was the subject of industrial and political espionage," Yes, the germans had stolen the plans for it. But then the article goes: "the plans ending up in the Soviet Union, where they may have influenced the design of the T-28 and T-35 tanks" Which is completly wrong. T-28 and T-35 are based on Grosstraktor Krupp and Grosstraktor Rheinmetall that was tested by Weimar Republic in USSR. Grosstractor is based on same stolen plans. Soviets didn't steal it from british, they've got them from germans for free in exchange for tank school and training. Don't turn your own anti-soviet bias into a tool of spinning up new theories where the events are pretty clear. Just look at suspension of all tanks involved if you need further evidence. Especially on forward support rollers that have suspension on Medium Mark 3, have no suspension on Grosstractor and cease to exist entirely on T-28. Why? Because soviets haven't known that original version had suspension for them so they viewed them as unnecessary element since without springs they didn't do their job properly. In short, I ask if this nonsence can be corrected, maybe include photos of all 3 tanks? Not to mention that Independent is de facto grandfather of T-28, Neubaufahrzeug and Cruiser Mk.1 and through them ancestor of such renowned vehicles as Pz.IV, SMK/KV-1, Cavalier and many others. Article in current form is too short and doesn't fully represent influence of Independent on pre-WWII tank industry of Great Britain, Germany and Soviet Union. Thank you in advance. 37.214.86.211 (talk) 15:13, 2 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

would the Vickers a1e1 been a match with its 5 turrets on a Panzer one two or three theoretically 73.109.217.236 (talk) 15:15, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The Panzers would have to be fitted with a Time Machine in order to travel back 15 years to encounter the A1E1 Independent.

Should they achieve this, then the results would be much the same as these Panzers vs. a Matilda II in 1939. The PzKpfw I is roadkill, as it can do nothing to any of the others. For the other three it would depend on which crew got the best tactical drop on the others: they're all capable of destroying the other thin-walled tanks at the first engagement. The improved cross country performance (more about suspension than engine) of the PzKpfw II or III would give them an advantage here, as does the PzKpfw II's autocannon.

The later PzKpfw III (after Poland) with heavier armour might have an advantage in a surprise frontal engagement, but not otherwise. Although it does begin to have an appreciable range advantage.

The five turrets are of no consequence, which is why they weren't repeated. Even the Neubaufahrzeug demonstrated this, which is why they were never built (past the unarmoured boilerplates). The A1E1 Independent was designed to defend itself on a battlefield against infantry, the assumption being some sort of very close anti-tank grenade. But German tactical development pre-war simply realised the essential need for tanks to advance in proximity to infantry, either mounted or dismounted, and for the value of providing them with mechanised transport. Infantry are a much more capable close-in defence than heavy, bulky MG turrets.

World of Tanks et al. are a nonsense. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:40, 15 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]