Talk:Rhino tank

Better than this

The Rhino Tanks existed in 1944, as you can read in this site: http://www.ngb.army.mil/news/todayinhistory/june.aspx

June 27 1944 Normandy, France — In the days since D-Day (June 6) the Allies have become bogged down by the Norman hedgerows that provide perfect defensive positions for the Germans. Made of stone walls overgrown by centuries of intertwined vines and trees, and rising to heights of ten feet in places, they prove almost indestructible even to tanks trying to push through. So tanks had to come to gaps in the walls, where German artillery would often be waiting to destroy them. Then Sergeant Curtis Culin, a Guard member of New Jersey's 102nd Cavalry Squadron, develops the idea of taking the iron road obstacles placed by the retreating Germans, fabricating them into a ‘plow' affixed to the front of a tank that then allows it to ‘cut' its way through the hedgerow. This allowed the tanks to break through in any unpredictable location, confounding the enemy's traps. Known as "rhino tanks" more than 300 are so equipped and help to speed up the Allied advance. Sergeant Culin was awarded the Legion of Merit Medal for his idea.

[Photo]

An M-4 Sherman tank with a "rhino plow" attached in front has just punched its way through a Norman hedgerow. Note the infantrymen riding on the back of the tank. National Archives and Records Administration

-- I'm not english, so I left to you the labor of redact a new text.

Even more

- From http://www-cgsc.army.mil/carl/resources/csi/doubler/doubler.asp, includes 3 cites at bottom of the page

- From http://www.matterhorntravel.com/2007/WWII/index.htm

Soldiers of the 2d Armored Division's 102d Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron invented the hedgerow device that gained the widest publicity. During a discussion between some of the 102d's officers and enlisted men, someone suggested that they get "saw teeth," put them on their tanks, and cut through the hedgerows. Many of the troops laughed at the suggestion, but Sergeant Curtis G. Culin took the idea to heart. Culin designed and supervised the construction of a hedgerow cutting device made from scrap iron pulled from a German roadblock. Testing showed that the device allowed a Sherman to cut easily through the hedgerows. Because the hedgerow cutter's blades made a tank resemble a large pachyderm with tusks, troops called the device a "rhinoceros," and Shermans equipped with Culin's invention became known as "rhino" tanks. Though the most famous of the hedgerow-reducing devices, Culin's "rhinoceros" was only one of many such contrivances invented and employed throughout First Army.32 a typical hedgerow-cutter device A close-up of a typical hedgerow-cutter device

Culin's device soon got the attention of the chain of command within 2d Armored Division and V Corps. On 14 July, General Bradley attended a demonstration of Culin's hedgerow cutter. Bradley watched as Shermans mounting the hedgerow device plowed through the hedgerows "as though they were pasteboard, throwing the bushes and brush into the air." Very impressed by the demonstration, Bradley ordered the chief of First Army's Ordnance Section to supervise the construction and installation of as many of the hedgerow cutters as possible.33

First Army Ordnance assembled welders and welding equipment within the beachhead and from the rear areas in England to assist with the project. Welding teams used scrap metal from German beach obstacles to construct most of the hedgerow cutters. In a prodigious effort between 14-25 July, the First Army Ordnance Section produced over 500 hedgerow cutters and distributed them to subordinate commands for installation. By late July, 60 percent of First Army's Shermans mounted the hedgerow-cutting devices.34

Not only "Shermans"!

Hi all, this article is not entirely correct with regards to the use of the "Culin cutter" in WW2. It was installed not only on the M-4 Sherman medium tank, but also on the M-5 Stuart light tank. Once I can locate a verifiable source for this fact, will ammend the article.
Kind regards, DPdH (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm in possession of a segment of Army Signal Corps film from the U.S. National Archives that shows these "Rhino" attachments being created from beach obstacles and assembled into a cutter, then welded or bolted to an M5. The film is dated 7/19/1944. Happy to provide a copy of the segment for the article. Sgreene820 (talk) 21:39, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Bocage, Not Mere Hedgerows.

These were used to bust through high, VERY thick bocage, walls of rocks and other rubble built up over hundreds of generations that served to clear the fields of said rubble and to hold water for irrigation; The use of the word “hedgerow” implies these were thin, spindly affairs that should have been breachable with mere machetes (or even bayonets), thus denigrating those who faced these improvised fortresses.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 20:35, 29 September 2011 (UTC)

I guess that depends what you think of when you see the word "hedgerows"; your mental image won't be the same as everyone's. No source I've seen mentions rubble - the main point seems to be that over hundreds of years the banks and hedges in Normandy have thickened and built up while the lanes between them have sunk down, creating something not unlike a natural trench system. EyeSerene^talk 08:30, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

It’s not my “mental image” but a matter of history; Though your description of what a bocage is appears to be largely correct (an artificial hill the top of which has sunken in to form a roadway), a hedgerow is still just a line of bushes. (Some sources say there were hedgerows on top and intergrated into the bocage, others are silent on the matter; I have never found a source that says there is NO hedges in the bocage, implying they are part of the system). One (quick) source: “Most of the terrain over which the battle of the coming weeks would be fought was well-suited to such a strategy. In particular, Normandy was noted for the bocage, a dense chequerboard of small fields, surrounded by thick hedges and earth banks, with narrow sunken lanes running between them… The bocage extended for up to 50 miles inland, excellent country for anti-tank warfare which would also use up attacking infantry at a very high rate. Clever use of concealment in the woods and hedgerows also reduced the effects of Allied air attack by up to 75%.” militaryhistoryonline.com/wwii/dday/foothold.aspx Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 15:52, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

To be clear: A “Hedgerow” is a mere line of bushes all planted right next to each other. Good enough for property line markers and maybe some privacy, but CERTAINLY not enough to hold a man back, let alone a tank.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

Hastings describes the Bocage in much the same way as your source: banks with high hedges on top of them which were thick and impenetrable to vehicles and whose interlocking root systems made the banks extremely difficult to excavate even with machinery. We have similar countryside in parts of the UK. What I meant by my comment was that while some might think of "hedgerow" as meaning a tidy ornamental garden hedge like the one your second comment describes, others will picture something more like the bocage. We can't assume what someone else will understand by the word. The other point is that, as the article explains, one official US Army name for the breaching device was the "Culin hedgerow cutter". Given that I don't think it's unreasonable to use "hedgerow" in the article, as long as we have a link to "Bocage" and a description that shows these clearly weren't mere ornamental affairs. EyeSerene^talk 16:11, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

I notice that you've reverted my corrections. "Bocage" is the name for the entire landscape which includes lanes, copses and fields as well as banks and hedges. Using it in the way you've done in the article, as a synonym for "banked hedges", isn't really accurate. EyeSerene^talk 16:32, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

A source (Doubler) says "The hedgerows are sturdy embankments, half earth, half hedge. At their base, they resemble dirt parapets and vary in thickness from one to four feet, with heights that range from three to fifteen feet. Growing out of this earthen wall is a hedge that consists of small trees and tangles of vines and brush. This vegetation has a thickness of between one to three feet and varies in height from three to fifteen feet." and "The uneven and compartmentalized nature of the Bocage put increased emphasis on the importance of the network of paved roads in the First Army sector." and "General Bradley called the Bocage the damndest country I've seen." indicating the difference between the area and the features of the area. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:01, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

That's certainly in line with other sources. Despite what Andering J. REDDSON understands by the word "hedgerow" I don't feel we should call the hedgerows "bocage" when the sources call them "hedgerows" and use "bocage" to refer to the entire landscape. Perhaps additional description in the article would be helpful to prevent this sort of confusion in future? EyeSerene^talk 17:14, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

¿What source exactly? I ask because I’d like to see review “Doubler” myself (that description matches the one given one of the Militry Channel’s D-Day shows, though they described in being not nearly so high (at most 10 feet). (The history of the bocage describes it as rocks taken out of the fields and piled up over generations with trees and bushes, as mentioned, growing in thickets upon them over time.)Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 22:08, 30 September 2011 (UTC)

EyeSerene: “(A)s the article explains, one official US Army name for the breaching device was the "Culin hedgerow cutter".” The article also explicitly states that Sgt CULIN tried to give credit where crdit was due; I chalk this up to American laziness.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Doubler is currently the second reference given in the article. GraemeLeggett (talk) 01:32, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thank you.Trying To Make Wikipedia At Least Better Than The ''Weekly World News.'' (talk) 04:10, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Rhino tank/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: MathewTownsend (talk · contribs) 17:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

• Will review. MathewTownsend (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

lead

• lead should be a concise summary of all important elements of the article. Anything in the lead should be in the article, with added detail when appropriate
• lead should set the context clearly and use links e.g. for World War II, the Allieds etc. and provide little context who they were, who they were fighting etc.
• Should link the particlar "German" government the Allied forces where at war with.
• Bocage - link isn't specific enough to explain what it means here. Hedges, forests, or what? Reader shouldn't have to read the link to try and figure it out.
• when you "American" do you mean United States? Use of "American" is imprecise. Please go through the article and use another term.
• "Initially the devices were manufactured in Normandy, - passive voice - who manufactured them?
• "Manufacture was then shifted to the United Kingdom, and vehicles were modified before being shipped to France" - all passive voice. Who shifted them, who modified them then who shipped them to France. - confusing sentence
• "While the devices have been credited with restoring battlefield mobility in the difficult terrain" - who credited them? not historians as they questioned their overall usage and tactical significance
• Please go through article and rewrite sentences to active voice.

Background

• This section should set the stage (background), not go immediately into detailed descriptions.
• The body of the article should contain all the info in the lead. This section doesn't mention that this occurred in World War II, explain who the Allieds were, explain why they were fighting in France and why Normandy.
• Goes into too much detail about Bocage , It's only necessary to describe what pertains to the article's subject - not what it doesn't pertain to.
• Photo in article indicates hedgerows were the problem.
• Again, should not loosely use terms like "Americans" and "Germans" - e.g. the German government today is not the same as the one then. "Americans" is a loose term without one fixed meaning.
• who was the "Allied infantry" - countries involved.
• please move photo down so it doesn't squeeze text.

Invention

• XIX Corps - should explain this is a US corps, and US should be mentioned way before this in the article. (Reader shouldn't have to click links to under stand basic context
• same with 79th Infantry Division - please give some context.
• "A hedgecutter developed by the 79th Infantry Division was in operation by 5 July," - was that 1944?
• quote: "Why don't we get some saw teeth and put them on the front of the tank and cut through these hedges?" all quotes should have citation immediately after
• "A prototype tusk-like assembly was created by welding steel scrap" - more passive voice - who created it?
• Culin, "an honest man" - needs citation immediately after

I'll stop here. The above are examples. If you go through the article, make the prose clear and concise, and carry through the examples I've given above to the whole article, it should be fine and pass GA.

GA review-see WP:WIAGA for criteria (and here for what they are not)

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   a. prose: clear and concise, respects copyright laws, correct spelling and grammar:

   see examples above, e.g. use of "Americans", "German" etc.

   b. complies with MoS for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation:

   see above, per lead, words to watch etc.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   a. provides references to all sources in the section(s) dedicated to footnotes/citations according to the guide to layout:

   b. provides in-line citations from reliable sources where necessary: (direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guideline

   uncited quote

   c. no original research:

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   a. it addresses the main aspects of the topic:

   focuses too closely on topic without providing context

   b. it remains focused and does not go into unnecessary detail (see summary style):

   see above regarding irrelevant detail about Bocage

4. Does it follow the neutral point of view policy.

   fair representation without bias:

5. Is it stable?

   no edit wars, etc:

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   a. images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   b. images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

• I emphasized on the nominators talk page that his input is desired so this article can reach GA status, in case he misunderstood.[1] MathewTownsend (talk) 18:04, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the review. I will get working on the requested changes ASAP. Regards EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 02:44, 17 July 2012 (UTC)

• Note Will fail. No edits to article (except by me) since June 14 and none by the nominator since July 8. Please renomination whenever ready. Thanks. MathewTownsend (talk) 19:38, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

“Innumerable” Inventions.

“Throughout July "innumerable" inventions were created by various American units to get tanks through the hedges quickly without exposing their weak underside armor.” I’m curious where the use of the word “innumerable” comes from. It seems like a quote from somewhere, yet it surely can’t really be “innumerable.” (No, there are more pressing matters, but if anyone knows where it came from offhand it would be handy to have the source.) A. J. REDDSON

Per the article, Blumenson 2005, p. 206.

Per the link to the book: "The gadgets invented in July 1944 were innumerable."EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 04:44, 7 December 2012 (UTC)