Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:49, 15 January 2015

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2Auto-archiving period: 3 months

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / European / German / World War II C‑class

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 C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  Military land vehicles task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force

Germany C‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany C This article has been rated as C-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

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

1, 2

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 4 sections are present.

uncorrected teething troubles

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).

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.

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.

VNCCC (talk) 16:10, 8 April 2014 (UTC)

--- 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.

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.

The metallurgy part should not be marked dubious, but I'll put in better and multiple references when I have some time.

2605:6000:1701:4043:4CD8:BD9A:49F:8C32 (talk) 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.

MWAK

Very nice picture, 119! ;o)

MWAK--84.27.81.59 16:20, 22 Mar 2005 (UTC)

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. — B.Bryant 02:21, 6 Apr 2005 (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. — B.Bryant 13:30, 25 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Production part of the text

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)

"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.

Bit of a cleanup to article

Graeme and Hohum Just going to embark on a bit of a cleanup to Panther as recently completed to Tiger I. 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 Irondome (talk) 22:32, 20 November 2014 (UTC)

Update. Will be continuing with suspension and transmission tmrw. Any comments welcome. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 02:15, 21 November 2014 (UTC)

"Manganese became unavailable"..factually inaccurate?

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? Irondome (talk) 23:07, 21 November 2014 (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. Irondome (talk) 22:12, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

British English and metric/imperial units

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.--Sus scrofa (talk) 20:45, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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. GraemeLeggett (talk) 21:25, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

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. --Sus scrofa (talk) 21:34, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

M26 vs Panther tank at cologne.

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.200.48.214.19 (talk) 18:07, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Lede far too long and detailed

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 Irondome (talk) 00:49, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

• 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