Revision as of 00:49, 15 January 2015 editSimon Adler (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers17,016 edits →Lede far too long and detailed: new section← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 19:40, 19 December 2024 edit undoSzolnok95 (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users511 edits →Reliability table: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
(254 intermediate revisions by 45 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=C| | |||
{{WPMILHIST | |||
|class = Start|WWII= |
{{WikiProject Military history|class = Start|WWII=yes|AFV=yes|German=yes | ||
|Weaponry-task-force=yes | |Weaponry-task-force=yes | ||
<!-- B-Class checklist --> | <!-- B-Class checklist --> | ||
Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
|B-Class-5= yes | |B-Class-5= yes | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{WikiProject Germany |
{{WikiProject Germany|importance=mid}} | ||
}} | |||
{{ |
{{British English}} | ||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
| algo=old(90d) | | algo=old(90d) | ||
| archive=Talk:Panther tank/ |
| archive=Talk:Panther tank/Archive %(counter)d | ||
| counter=2 | | counter=2 | ||
| maxarchivesize=400K | | maxarchivesize=400K | ||
Line 30: | Line 31: | ||
{{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | {{Archives|auto=yes|search=yes}} | ||
== The article reproduces a common error == | |||
The article states that the tank was influenced by the sloped armour of the T34 which it is alleged provided superior protection. | |||
==uncorrected teething troubles == | |||
This is simply untrue: The mass of a plate and the thickness of it (in a given orientation) covering a given area is unaffected by it's slope. | |||
The Panther's D, A , and G under went numerous upgrades throughout their production life to fix issues relating to reliability. Jentz goes into detail about this in "Quest for combat supremacy" and the Germans themselves also stated in a report that by November 1944 all major "teething issues" related to the Panther's reliability were fixed particularly relating to the final drives (there are also some earlier reports stating the improved reliability of the Panthers after various production modifications as well). | |||
In other words it's true that if you angle a plate to some orientation, it becomes thicker, but you will need more plate to cover the same area, ending up with the exact same weight-to-thickness ratio. | |||
Now an angle might help deflect a shell, but that effect is insignificant for high velocity shells (they melt/'dig in' at any angle) which were the dominant AT weapons of the time. | |||
The rest of the article goes on speaking of the final drives never being corrected however as stated the Germans seemed to have thought so in their reports also speaking of the final drives it is important to note that during the rebuild of the little field Panther A (a vehicle built previous to Nov 1944) it was found that the final drives on that Panther (A) was made of good quality alloys which suggests a long life span and no predisposition to fail/break before reaching the end of their rated lifespan this is indirect opposition to what is written about the quality of the final drives in this article. A lot of these quotes come from the "duel series books" which are not really the best books for vehicle information. Information from these books is slanted in favor of a vehicle (ie not objective) is usually 3rd or 4th hand information or cherry picked from other sources. Zolga also in a few of these speaks about metallurgy which he has no background in and makes unsubstantiated claims relating to plate quality (in this article as well) therefore I think it would be best to scrub the duel book quotes off the page. | |||
(Think why an Leopard II a4 got straight plates at it's frontal turret) ~~. <!-- Template:Unsigned IP --><small class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 22:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)</small> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
The line I dubbed dubious in the article states unequivocally that the Panther's "teething issues" were "never corrected" is overly generalizing this vehicle, its issues, and more specifically its variants and is somewhat disingenuous as the implication of that line suggests that vehicle was never upgraded at all and that all Panther variants had the same problems with no improvements whatsoever the article moves on and later states that the vehicle was modified so the line needs to be rewritten or dropped ( to remove redundancy) to match rest of article. | |||
⚫ | ] (]) |
||
--- | |||
Regarding the armor quality, the armor was indeed poor towards the end of the war. | |||
Claims about the brittleness of late-war German armor are well documented by the allied powers, and Mr. Zaloga cites his primary sources. Some of the more well-known tests are: | |||
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954952.pdf | |||
http://www.dtic.mil/dtic/tr/fulltext/u2/a954940.pdf | |||
There are far more sources as well from American and Soviets. Brittle armor started to appear in 1943, whereas tests prior to that showed much higher quality armor. | |||
:Please read ] ] (]) 22:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC) | |||
In addition, the logistics of the war are also very well documented and it is known that the German war economy, particularly steel production, was very dependent on imports from northern Europe and Ukraine, which were disrupted later in the war. Remember that German steel was rare enough that supply trains were horse powered and plans for a real navy were pretty much scrapped. | |||
== Proposal to make the intro less segmented? == | |||
The metallurgy part should not be marked dubious, but I'll put in better and multiple references when I have some time. | |||
In my opinion, the segmented look that this article's intro has doesn't look too good and also doesn't really have any flow to it. For example, here is the start of the intro | |||
] (]) 09:42, 2 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
==Comment== | |||
How shall I put this? Could it be that some of the data presented here are a bit, well, ''outdated''? It would seem to me that the stated production numbers are of WW2-vintage themselves, being derived from contemporary intelligence reports. I do know that the most recent works of Mr Jentz are prohibitively expensive in the original English, but could you perhaps lend them from someone and carefully have a peak? Also the stated date of the encounter with the T-34 is of course much too late. Most sources give July 1941 - and even they are too late: it was at least as early as June 23rd. November 1941 is the date of the official German investigations into the matter. | |||
The '''Panther''' tank, officially '''''Panzerkampfwagen V Panther''''' (abbreviated '''PzKpfw V''') with ]: ''Sd.Kfz.'' 171, is a German ] of ]. It was used on the ] and ] Fronts from mid-1943 to the end of the war in May 1945. | |||
MWAK | |||
On 27 February 1944 it was redesignated to just '''''PzKpfw Panther''''', as ] ordered that the Roman numeral "V" be deleted.<sup>]'']</sup> In contemporary English-language reports it is sometimes referred to as the "Mark V". | |||
Very nice picture, 119! ;o) | |||
I propose we get rid of the spaces and male it look like this (with an edit or 2 to help flow and readability) | |||
MWAK--] 16:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC) | |||
The '''Panther''' tank, officially '''''Panzerkampfwagen V Panther''''' (abbreviated '''PzKpfw V''') with ]: ''Sd.Kfz.'' 171, is a German ] ] that was used on the ] and ] Fronts from mid-1943 to the end of the war in May 1945. On 27 February 1944, it was redesignated to '''''PzKpfw Panther''''', as ] ordered that the Roman numeral "V" be deleted.<sup>]'']</sup> In contemporary English-language reports it is sometimes referred to as the "Mark V" | |||
There's a nice "group photo" of Pkw V's in Russia at , and a cropped variant at . It might be worth including if the copyright issues can be figured out. — ] 02:21, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
In my (relatively uninformed and wildly amateur historian mind) this looks and reads better ] (]) 10:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC) | |||
If "Panther II" and "Panther 2" refer to the same tank, the article should be consistent with the use of one type of numeral or the other. — ] 13:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC) | |||
== Proposal to add a short section about spotting differences between different models (Ausführungen) of Panther tank - A, D and G == | |||
== Production part of the text == | |||
Hi everybody, | |||
Production part needs quotation marks and the text should be edited, some parts of it are written from first person point of view. Citations would rock too. 21:15, 12 June 2006 (UTC+3) | |||
Having removed today from image's caption in ] the part about Model D being recognisable by drum-shaped commander's cupola and "letterbox" machine gun slot in the hull (because not only Ausf. A had them, as can be confirmed here: => https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/panzer-v_panther.php; but those features appear to have been present also in Ausf. G, as can be seen in the following image below in Wikimedia): | |||
"y correspondent", etc., near the bottom, does sound like personal reasearch, ostensibly a Misplaced Pages no-no. Apologies if this is redundant as a comment. | |||
] | |||
That got me thinking that it might be a good idea to add a short section about easy-to-recognise differences between models. | |||
== Bit of a cleanup to article == | |||
And it seems that the only such reliable feature was the "chin" on ] in Ausf. G - there is no easy way to differentiate between Model A and Model D... 🙄 | |||
: ] and ] Just going to embark on a bit of a cleanup to Panther as recently completed to ]. As always will be exclusively fat trimming and removing superfluous wording. Will be sticking to article architecture and sources. As usual H.T.D any edits made. Cheers ] (]) 22:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
::Update. Will be continuing with suspension and transmission tmrw. Any comments welcome. Cheers all ] (]) 02:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Does anybody have any objections to my adding such a section? | |||
== "Manganese became unavailable"..factually inaccurate? == | |||
Cheers, | |||
:Speer mentions a conference in December 43 where he distributed a report which reflected an optimistic outlook on manganese stocks. He stated there was over a years stockpile in hand. This infuriated Hitler, who claimed that this merely encouraged the generals of AGS to withdraw from the sector where the mines were located. Speer claims this was the beginning of the rupture of their relationship. Its in inside the 3rd reich and also Gitta Sereny mentions it in A.S His battle with truth. Any thoughts on this? ] (]) 23:07, 21 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
15:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC) ] (]) 15:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::The source for this is A.Speer. Inside The Third Reich. Macmillan. London. 1970. Pages 315-6. Speer claims stocks were sufficient for "18 months". Have removed the claim. ] (]) 22:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
:] | |||
== British English and metric/imperial units == | |||
:The source you provide suggests it's not easy to tell the difference because various visible changes spanned versions. | |||
: "It can be difficult to identify the Ausfuehrung version of a Panzer V Panther tank without knowing its Fahrgestell-Nummer (Fgst.Nr.) chassis number... " https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/panzer-v_panther.php#index18 | |||
: Also, I don't think your image above shows the "letterbox" type machine gun port, which had a simple cover, your picture shows ball mounts. Strangely, the left tank in your image also has the driver vision port in the front hull, which was normally on earier models. (] ]) 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
::That driver vision port on the opposite site of the MG port was still featured in Ausf. A, just the MG ball mount was introduced in late Nov/early Dec 43 according to Panzer Tracts 5-2 ] (]) 21:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
:::Great to have this discussion started and find people interested in it. 😎 | |||
:::As you both (] and ]) clearly know what you're talking about and are obviously much more knowledgeable on the subject than me, can I appeal to either one of you to go ahead and add such a section to the article? One can see how this topic could be confusing, what with various changes spanning various models of Panther (A, D and G; presumably no need to bring Ausf. F into the discussion here).😉 | |||
:::Or does it really boil down to this: with early-design vs. later-production differences for each model, '''the only reliable recognition feature is the anti-ricochet "chin" on ] in Ausf. G''' and '''there is no easy way to differentiate between Model A and Model D'''? In which case I could add that brief summary to ]... Those two images in side-by-side comparison are available in Wikimedia separately (as there might be some objection to Gothic script of the lettering in it being perceivably pro-Nazi): | |||
:::] ] | |||
:::And presumably there would be no objections to citing that webpage (=> https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/panzer-v_panther.php#index18) as reliable source, right? 🙄 | |||
:::So I'm waiting for a verdict from you two, | |||
⚫ | :::] (]) 08:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC) | ||
::::I think the solution to the question is a single line of text noting when the change is introduced in production rather than a section. ] (]) 11:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC) | |||
I recently changed the language in the article to be British English (except for direct quotes). I don't know which is preferred, American or British English, but I strive for consistency as the article previously used both. I also tried to harmonize metric/imperial units so that most units have metric then imperial. Again, don't rightly know what is preferred, but it's more consistent now.--] (]) 20:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
== Reliability table == | |||
::If an article is in a real mix of spellings, then there's nothing wrong in harmonization (Oxford spelling) but if it started off with one form, then it's against the guidelines to swap to another. It would be appropriate to have metric units first as it was built in metric, but bear in mind that in some cases it is more appropriate to have cm than mm, eg in German weapon names so "7.5 cm Pak 40" when talking of a specific weapon, but "75 mm anti-tank guns" when talking more generically. ] (]) 21:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
Where can I find it? | |||
:Right, I was uncertain what to do about the German guns that had their caliber in cm, but decided to go with mm for consistency. I'll aim to change them back soon. --] (]) 21:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC) | |||
I want to add this source: <ref>Panzertruppen 2: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force ¥ 1943-1945 by Thomas L. Jentz p. 202 and 230</ref> | |||
== M26 vs Panther tank at cologne. == | |||
And I would like to copy that table to Panzer IV reliability section as well. | |||
The Tank vs Tank Battle filmed on Cologne dubbed Battle of Cologne depicts a m26 attacking a Panther after the latter destroyed a m4 Sherman, dont remember two shermans being destroyed. Only a U.S tank crew scaping from the turret hatch with a rifle in one hand and with a leg missing. Any sources claiming two Shermans killed.] (]) 18:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC) | |||
Thank you! ] (]) 20:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Lede far too long and detailed == | |||
:Any answer? ] (]) 19:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC) | |||
:I intend to begin trimming it quite drastically beginning tomorrow. Any comments welcomed. Remember the lede should only give a brief outline of the article to come, summarising the main points. At the moment, if it were a person, it would be diagnosed as morbidly obese! Cheers ] (]) 00:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 19:40, 19 December 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Panther tank article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
This article is rated C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Archives |
This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present. |
The article reproduces a common error
The article states that the tank was influenced by the sloped armour of the T34 which it is alleged provided superior protection. This is simply untrue: The mass of a plate and the thickness of it (in a given orientation) covering a given area is unaffected by it's slope. In other words it's true that if you angle a plate to some orientation, it becomes thicker, but you will need more plate to cover the same area, ending up with the exact same weight-to-thickness ratio. Now an angle might help deflect a shell, but that effect is insignificant for high velocity shells (they melt/'dig in' at any angle) which were the dominant AT weapons of the time. (Think why an Leopard II a4 got straight plates at it's frontal turret) ~~. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:7660:289A:0:319B:6167:915F:9FA2 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
- Please read Sloped Armor DynCoder (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
Proposal to make the intro less segmented?
In my opinion, the segmented look that this article's intro has doesn't look too good and also doesn't really have any flow to it. For example, here is the start of the intro
The Panther tank, officially Panzerkampfwagen V Panther (abbreviated PzKpfw V) with ordnance inventory designation: Sd.Kfz. 171, is a German medium tank of World War II. It was used on the Eastern and Western Fronts from mid-1943 to the end of the war in May 1945.
On 27 February 1944 it was redesignated to just PzKpfw Panther, as Hitler ordered that the Roman numeral "V" be deleted. In contemporary English-language reports it is sometimes referred to as the "Mark V".
I propose we get rid of the spaces and male it look like this (with an edit or 2 to help flow and readability)
The Panther tank, officially Panzerkampfwagen V Panther (abbreviated PzKpfw V) with ordnance inventory designation: Sd.Kfz. 171, is a German World War II Medium Tank that was used on the Eastern and Western Fronts from mid-1943 to the end of the war in May 1945. On 27 February 1944, it was redesignated to PzKpfw Panther, as Hitler ordered that the Roman numeral "V" be deleted. In contemporary English-language reports it is sometimes referred to as the "Mark V"
In my (relatively uninformed and wildly amateur historian mind) this looks and reads better Redrhuadri (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
Proposal to add a short section about spotting differences between different models (Ausführungen) of Panther tank - A, D and G
Hi everybody,
Having removed today from image's caption in WP:Infobox the part about Model D being recognisable by drum-shaped commander's cupola and "letterbox" machine gun slot in the hull (because not only Ausf. A had them, as can be confirmed here: => https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/panzer-v_panther.php; but those features appear to have been present also in Ausf. G, as can be seen in the following image below in Wikimedia):
That got me thinking that it might be a good idea to add a short section about easy-to-recognise differences between models.
And it seems that the only such reliable feature was the "chin" on gun mantlet in Ausf. G - there is no easy way to differentiate between Model A and Model D... 🙄
Does anybody have any objections to my adding such a section?
Cheers, 15:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC) Szagory (talk) 15:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- The source you provide suggests it's not easy to tell the difference because various visible changes spanned versions.
- "It can be difficult to identify the Ausfuehrung version of a Panzer V Panther tank without knowing its Fahrgestell-Nummer (Fgst.Nr.) chassis number... " https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/panzer-v_panther.php#index18
- Also, I don't think your image above shows the "letterbox" type machine gun port, which had a simple cover, your picture shows ball mounts. Strangely, the left tank in your image also has the driver vision port in the front hull, which was normally on earier models. (Hohum ) 19:15, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- That driver vision port on the opposite site of the MG port was still featured in Ausf. A, just the MG ball mount was introduced in late Nov/early Dec 43 according to Panzer Tracts 5-2 Denniss (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- Great to have this discussion started and find people interested in it. 😎
- As you both (Denniss and Hohum) clearly know what you're talking about and are obviously much more knowledgeable on the subject than me, can I appeal to either one of you to go ahead and add such a section to the article? One can see how this topic could be confusing, what with various changes spanning various models of Panther (A, D and G; presumably no need to bring Ausf. F into the discussion here).😉
- Or does it really boil down to this: with early-design vs. later-production differences for each model, the only reliable recognition feature is the anti-ricochet "chin" on gun mantlet in Ausf. G and there is no easy way to differentiate between Model A and Model D? In which case I could add that brief summary to "Development and production" section of the article... Those two images in side-by-side comparison are available in Wikimedia separately (as there might be some objection to Gothic script of the lettering in it being perceivably pro-Nazi):
- And presumably there would be no objections to citing that webpage (=> https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/germany/panzer-v_panther.php#index18) as reliable source, right? 🙄
- So I'm waiting for a verdict from you two,
- Szagory (talk) 08:51, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
- That driver vision port on the opposite site of the MG port was still featured in Ausf. A, just the MG ball mount was introduced in late Nov/early Dec 43 according to Panzer Tracts 5-2 Denniss (talk) 21:12, 29 July 2024 (UTC)
- I think the solution to the question is a single line of text noting when the change is introduced in production rather than a section. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:46, 30 July 2024 (UTC)
Reliability table
Where can I find it?
I want to add this source:
And I would like to copy that table to Panzer IV reliability section as well.
Thank you! Szolnok95 (talk) 20:46, 14 December 2024 (UTC)
- Any answer? Szolnok95 (talk) 19:40, 19 December 2024 (UTC)
- Panzertruppen 2: The Complete Guide to the Creation & Combat Employment of Germany's Tank Force ¥ 1943-1945 by Thomas L. Jentz p. 202 and 230
- C-Class military history articles
- C-Class military land vehicles articles
- Military land vehicles task force articles
- C-Class military science, technology, and theory articles
- Military science, technology, and theory task force articles
- C-Class weaponry articles
- Weaponry task force articles
- C-Class European military history articles
- European military history task force articles
- C-Class German military history articles
- German military history task force articles
- C-Class World War II articles
- World War II task force articles
- C-Class Germany articles
- Mid-importance Germany articles
- WikiProject Germany articles
- Misplaced Pages articles that use British English