| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the TOG1 article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
 | This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
 | It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites. |
TOG
editI could of sworn that a sign in the Bovington Tank Museum said it stood for 'The Old Gong'... But eh, whatever. 81.129.160.105 (talk) 19:09, 11 October 2008 (UTC)
Appearance in Indiana Jones & The Last Crusade
editIn that film a tank that looks very similar to the TOG 1 (EG WWI British design + Matilda II turret) makes an appearance partway towards the end of the film. Perhaps this should be mentioned in the main article. Graham1973 (talk) 15:14, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
- I do not think that this particular connective detail is worth mentioning in this article. This appearance of a TOG1 tank in Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade (assuming that we can, in fact, verify that the tank in the film was a TOG1) may be noteworthy in the context of the article about the film (most likely, in the Production section) but it is not in the context of this article. See Wikipedia:Relevance of content#Interactions between subjects. -- Black Falcon (talk) 17:27, 29 September 2010 (UTC)
- I'm pretty sure it was a masqueraded bulldozer. - 91.10.62.135 (talk) 21:57, 11 October 2018 (UTC)
Categorization in 'history of the tank'
editThe TOG 1 and TOG 2 were a dead end in tank design. The effort spent on them could be classified as an attempt to keep some of yesterdays men gainfully employed while not interfering in development already underway. But they are not significant in the development of any armoured vehicle that saw service during WWII, nor contributed to the MBT and modern tank warfare. GraemeLeggett (talk)
Seven foot thick?
edit"Main armament would be a field gun mounted in the front – effective against 7-foot (2.1 m) thick reinforced concrete "
What kind of field gun is effective against seven foot thick reinforced concrete? That's like 15" battleship gun penetration, isn't it? I mean a 75mm will maybe chip through it eventually, but a low velocity howitzer firing SAPHE or whatever? I would assume they would be shooting at openings and weak spots, not actually trying to shoot through the concrete. They would want the gun to be effective against fortifications that also featured seven foot thick walls, but not by just shooting straight though the walls. Unless I am totally underestimating the penetrative capacity of a normally sized artillery piece. Idumea47b (talk) 19:59, 5 September 2023 (UTC)