Talk:Horstmann suspension

Reliable Sources

In this[1] version there no sources which can prove, that the inventions of Horstmann were adapted to any of the listet modells. In fact there is ab bunch of Patents from Horstmann to be found, and yes a good number of this patents are dealing with suspensions. BUT here is ZERO verification that a sole patent from Horstmann was used for tank-suspensions. Nevertheless ... you are free to see the patents i've found:

• CA319314A SUSPENSION SYSTEM FOR VEHICLES
• GB369986A Suspension system for motor cars and vehicles of all kinds
• US1877878A Suspension system for motor cars and vehicles of all kinds
• GB340996A Improvements in suspension for road vehicles and the like

If none of this connections can be proven the article should be deleted. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 22:49, 18 September 2021 (UTC) P.S. Notable are pages 441 ff. in this[2] publication.

@Ｔｏｍ: I believe there may be some language confusion here?

1. the Challenger and others do not use a "Horstmann suspension". They use a suspension built by the Horstman company (note the spelling, one N was dropped). You can see all of these vehicles on their web page, and they are also mentioned in the company history. The actual suspension on these vehicles is a modern hydrogas system. I believe the article is clear about this distinction.
2. I am not sure what "that a sole patent from Horstmann was used for tank-suspensions" is referring to. This article makes no claim of such. There are several different designs during the pre-WWII era, but the best known are the two-wheel design of the Bren Carrier, which is similar to the one in this patent, and the John Carden design of the three-wheel Valentine (originally from the A9).

Perhaps I am not understanding the issue properly? Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:04, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Maury Markowitz: Let me ask to make it clear: a) which exactly is a "Horstmann suspension"? (which variant?) b) which feature ist characteristic ? c) this definition comes from where? d) who can rightfully claim about this types? In the background we had some problems with paid-editing especially concerning company-related articles. In this case the company writes it's own urban-legends. See[3]. Thus we need reliable sources for the affected infos. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:25, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

@Ｔｏｍ:

a) This article uses "Horstmann suspension" to describe a particular suspension, which...

b) ...has the defining feature that two or more wheels are connected via a common suspension system (often a spring)...

b) ...that was introduced by the Horstman company in the 1930s...

c) ...which is a name that can be found in many places, including, for example, this, or this, which introduces the name Vickers-Hortsman, this which talks about post-war use, and this, which details its early use in the A6 and A7 series inter-war designs.

d) I do not know what this means.

I also do not understand the part about paid editing. Are you saying Horstman Corp has employed paid editors to change this article?

I am also not understanding the bit about "urban-legends". Are you saying Horstman made up a story, and images for that post?

I believe, ultimately, you are simply saying it needs better sources. I couldn't agree more, and encourage you start in Google Books. Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:55, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Hi @Maury Markowitz: i hope you are not jokeing. Sorry i'm here for more then 10 years, and have seen many jokes. It's up to you to deliver sources here. I did not write a single sentence in this article. BTW have a look in WP:MTR. Paid-editing ist a part of it. I might suggest to delete this article due to missing sources. Concerning the details ... if ... than it would be good idea to have a mainarticle for Category:Tank suspensions with all kinds of this suspensions informing about/comparing the differences. Can you explain the difference between Christie suspension and this article? And yes we need good colleguages like you with well based technical-knowledge. Cheers --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 18:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Yeah, I still don't understand the jokes or paid editing bits. But I re-wrote it anyway so have a look. Maury Markowitz (talk) 20:14, 19 September 2021 (UTC)

Thx for reworking. Some points stay obscure: "The name "Horstmann suspension" may be applied to any transmission system that has two opposed swing arms, no matter the type of springing between them." Really? It's a little bit funny. Doubtless the United States Army Materiel Command makes standards for naming of this kind off stuff, if F. Schreier has another idea, IHMO that's POV. Congrats you found Hunnicutt in the meantime; you should refer to the Army Materiel Command also. Remarkabel they do not mention Horstman with one word in this[4] documentation. Pls see Talk:Vertical_volute_spring_suspension#Claims for tech-terms, give thought to eliminate/egalise POV in the article and stay tuned ;-) --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:25, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I've spent enough time on this already. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:40, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

Sorry your "I've spent enough time on this already" left the article with uncomplete facts. To improve the artcle i made some addtions (incl.sources of university engineering publications). See this [5] edit. Best --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 08:29, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I have removed some of your changes. You inserted a paragraph of material that has nothing to do with this article, and changed the lede for no obvious reason. One of your refs very clearly does show the suspension, in Figure 11-7.

I'm still not sure what point you are trying to make with these edits. I have asked you several times to explain exactly what the problem is, but I have not seen a cogent reply. It appears that you don't believe this suspension had this name... or something, I'm still baffled. What exactly is your concern?

I suggest further discussion should be moved to the MilHist discussion, as it appears this current discussion is not helping things. Maury Markowitz (talk) 12:14, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I can only note your rollback which is near to vandalism. You do not understand the point. And again you left the article with uncomplete facts. Sorrowly. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 12:46, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

You are right I do not understand the point. Which is why I have asked you to explain it three times now. If you simply explain your point, I would be happy to help you fix whatever it is you think is wrong. Maury Markowitz (talk) 13:01, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

WP:Do not disrupt Wikipedia to illustrate a point. You illustrate in the article that the Horstman-Invention is superior to others. In fact the references are given by the United States Army Materiel Command and University of Bundeswehr and the Academy of Armored Force Engineering (Beijing). Sorrowly you removed the dedicated citationlink for the army-doc. [6] [7] If you can't understand, that the Horstman-Suspenstion is only one of various variants in the group of bogie-suspensions; sorry i can't help it. Once again: I'm to old and to long in wikipedia for playing tricks on me. Let it be. --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 13:21, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

So, your concern is that you feel this article does not adequately explain that Horstman is one type of bogie suspension? Is that correct? Maury Markowitz (talk) 14:15, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Yes. One of various variants as it was explained here (first 5 sentences) and there (4 main-types of bogie suspensions) . --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 14:49, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

I believe the article already explains this in sufficient detail. The US Army reference you provided illustrates the two main variations in Figure 11-7, along with unrelated designs. If you feel there needs to be additional clarification, please post that here and I will consider it. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:31, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

What else should be content of Horstmann suspension#Comparable suspension designs? Perhaps you personally (your POV) demonstrate better knowlege as the sources can do? What's the problen not to shorten the infos i have added? --Ｔｏｍ (talk) 17:20, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Now (1/2 year later) you can still read the US-Army reference, Section III, Suspension for tracked vehicles, Pages 11-12 to 11-23,Online again and again. Not a single time you can find the word ″Horstman″ in this source. Only ″Christie″ is mentioned as a classic design, which is nowadays referred as a ″flat track suspension″. Especially for the T-37 the used suspension is named ″coil spring bogie″ in the US-Army reference. More about Horstman might be included in Flechter (p. 190-202) but up to now nobody has proven a second reliable source with a dedicated definition for the "classic Horstman-design" as claimed to have been used for the ″A6E3 Medium Tank prototype in 1935″ and the ″Light Tank Mk II″. The information of the current company could be regarded as advertising. Thus the current[8] informations of the article are still under dispute of neutrality and might be misleading. Best Ｔｏｍ (talk) 11:53, 6 February 2022 (UTC)

• @Ｔｏｍ: If you investigate the patents for the suspensions, you will see that Vickers (both as a company as well as under the name of Trevor Dawson) and John Carden patented whatever important they designed themselves (for obvious reasons), but they have not patented what everyone considers classical Horstmann suspension (bogie, two cranks and one or several parallel coil springs). They also built the first vehicle to use the idea, which I have outlined in the article. I checked the relevant Cooperative Patent Classification category in Espacenet for 1927-1937 and found only a Hotchkiss patent of a similar suspension in 1935, FR 808204 . It's not clear for me whether Vickers/Cardon/Horstmann haven't patented it at all (if yes, why?) or if the patent got into a different classification. To sum up my impression, even though verified Horstmann automotive designs are clearly different, he must have been related with what we call "Horstmann suspension" now as well, since his coauthor (later an engineer at Rolls-Royce) mentions the tracked suspension in January 1934, calling it exactly like we do now. Ain92 (talk) 13:37, 19 May 2023 (UTC)