Talk:Panther tank/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

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)

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)

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)

"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)

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)

Hi, the incident is very well depicted on Dierk's hompage. Yes, the Panther destroyed two Shermans, however, there a two main articles about it, Tank duel at the cathedral and Tank duel blow-by-blow aswell as some theories (in german, which includes the second Sherman) and analysis of the documentation "Köln Nahaufnahme 1945" with terrifying accounts of civilan casualties and eyewitness reports. Regards 79.141.163.7 (talk) 01:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Engine

1. I know it's from Carruthers, I just don't know the exact page. Google Books isn't kind enough to tell me the exact page.

2. "The readiness rates shoudn't be either mentioned in the engine section. Either remove it completely, but do not cherrypick!"

The readiness is relevant because it proves many of the engine issues were solved. The fact that the Panther became very good is not relevant to the engine section. That's how I see it. Add it to the introduction or somewhere else. Although to be fair, your later edits work too. I'm not against putting everything in the Combat use.

3. " already have an bibliography entry"

Sorry, I have no idea how I missed that. My bad.

So the only issue that remains to be discuss is the Carruthers citation.

--MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:02, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

So you agree, it fits substantively better in the chapter "Combat use".

I don't think the passage will get challenged anytime soon, however, it's also not advisable to source material without having access to the book. But, it shouldn't be too hard to find an additional citation by Jentz. HueHuey (talk) 13:04, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I found a very similar passage in the book with Google Books, so I'm pretty sure it's taken from there, to the point where I'd even edit it because it looks almost copy pasted. It might not be challenged, but I still think we should have a source for it, if you can find it in any of Jentz's books please add the citation. The books I have are either in EPUB format and thus I can't figure out the page, or in PDF picture format so I have to search manually. Thanks. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 13:15, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

I'll have a look. Peace. HueHuey (talk) 13:29, 21 October 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)

Hi Irondome, I appreciate and welcome the improving of the article. :) I observed a double statement in the "The Allied response"- Soviet section; fourth passage. It seems well sourced but I guess it could be shortened. What you think? It starting at: [ The Panther carried much more ammunition... ] Thanks. regards Bouquey (talk) 00:11, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi User:Bouquey! Very good to see you took my advice, made an account and joined Milhist. You will find a good group of colleagues here. Note User:Peacemaker67's friendly welcome. All are experts in their fields. I will take a look at the duplication as soon as I can, you seem correct there. Regards Irondome (talk) 00:31, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

User:Bouquey,removed duplication, and have tried to clarify and trim wording. Take a look when you have a minute. Cheers :) Irondome (talk) 02:50, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Hi Irondome, it looks quite well to me, good job on the improvement! I belive one of the cited source is bogus. I don't think Zaloga have claimed it himself, its likely comming from a russian intelligence report where it decribes the low firing rate of the early IS-2. - Page 3, third passage: "Conclusion" point three: "Low rate of fire. For every 1-1.5 shots, the enemy Tiger or Panther can fire 3-4 times." Thanks, with best regards Bouquey (talk) 12:01, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Steering and transmission

In this section it states "Plans were made to replace the final drive, either with a version of the original epicyclic gears planned by MAN, or with the final drive of the Tiger II. These plans were intertwined with the planning for the Panther II, which never came to fruition because the tank commission deemed that a temporary drop in production of the Panther due to a merger of Tiger II and Panther II would be unacceptable. It was estimated that building the epicyclic gear final drive would have required 2.2 times more machining work than double spur gears, and this would have affected output."

Now the main issue I have here is the suggestion the final would of changed in the Panther II, as many know Spielbergers 1993 work on the Panther II was shown to have many inaccuracies later by Jentz, and in fact the Panther II (and at that stage the Tiger II) was to keep the AK 7-200 transmission. Does Jentz actually addressed if the Final drive was to be changed? The main reason I ask is because A) The Panther II was cancelled before the Panther D entered service, and B) I'm unsure if the germans were aware of the scale of the final drive problem by the time the Panther II was cancelled in mid/late 1943, is it unlikely it would of been changed? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.27.161.77 (talk) 02:14, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Citation for surviving Panther in Heikendorf/private collector

http://www.ndr.de/nachrichten/schleswig-holstein/Erfolgreich-Kampfpanzer-aus-Villa-geborgen,munitionsfund124.html

http://www.spiegel.de/panorama/justiz/kiel-schwierige-bergung-eines-weltkriegspanzers-a-1041834.html --76.184.138.89 (talk) 23:32, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Carruthers Easter Front book page

Could someone that has a paper copy of that book find this page, please? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 16:27, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

If you don't know the page, don't make any citations to it, simple. I find some of Carruthers statements rather questionable. I mean, Bob Carruthers is a passionate filmmaker and Author to certain military subjects, but he's not a historian and should be cited with caution, hardly a reliable source if you ask me. Kheynom (talk) 17:22, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, the paragraph was already there, with most of it blatantly copy pasted from the book but uncited. Ideally I'll try to find another source, but with the exception of the last part, he's mostly right in regards to the overengieering and compromises. I remember reading about it in a Zaloga book, but I have to look for the details. For now leave it as is, it's better than having a completely uncited paragraph. As for leaving it uncited because I don't know the exact page, I'm not sure it's a good idea. Having an uncited paragraph that makes such notable statements is not recommended, and adding a page is much simpler than adding the whole citation. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 18:43, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

C&P from Wikipedia, a similar wording was introduced by DarthRad on September 20, 2009 (without source BTW). --Denniss (talk) 19:20, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Addition: diff --Denniss (talk) 20:18, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Was it you who initially posted that paragraph? Or how do you know it was posted C&P from Wikipedia? Either way, now we know where it is from. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 19:33, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No, Carruthers balantly copied it from Wikipedia, July 2011: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Panther_tank&oldid=688569147 and now claiming it as his own intellectual property.

"Key elements of the Panther design, such as its armour, transmission, and final drive, were compromises made to improve production rates and address raw material shortages, whereas other overengineered elements, such as its highly compact engine and its complex suspension system, remained."

That's why Carruthers should be avoided at any rate, see: http//en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Wikipedia_and_sources_that_mirror_or_use_it

So please remove or revert yourself on those edits to Carruthers and stop making future citations on him. The prodcution figure in the lead is unneeded, as we have already a section that covers monthly output and total vehicles. Kheynom (talk) 19:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I removed Carruthers cites and reverted it to the last good. Kheynom (talk) 19:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The link you provided, Denniss, sends me to an old revision of the page, as edited by 71.161.196.89 (talk) at 21:43, 1 November 2015. But if it really is such a wording back in 2009 it might mean they both have a common source. What evidence do we have he C&P it from Wikipedia? Addition: OK, but as I said, that doesn't prove Carruthers copied it from here. It's quite the claim to say so. We need more proof for that, but for the moment, I agree we should't quote him. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Have you checked the link I have provided? The same paragraph is listed there on a July 2011 revision, while Carruthers book: Eastern Front Encirclement and Escape by German Forces was only publicated a year later on March 2012. That's a clear evidence not to use his works. Kheynom (talk) 20:30, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

That is circumstantial evidence at best. Maybe the guy who wrote it on wikipedia used the same source as Carruthers. Maybe it's a coincidence. Either way, I'm not sure we can accuse him of anything just yet. From what I can gather, his works are well received. Regardless, I agree that we should't quote him unless necessary. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:55, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Nope, just go back in article's history, (here's another proof, Dec. 2009) and you will find the paragraph available before Carruthers has ever publicated that book. So please stop denying that balanty and obvious C&P. If it would be true, he would make a clear reference and would give credit where credit is due. But he does not... Kheynom (talk) 22:02, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Accusing an acclaimed author of such copy pasting is a serious allegation. As I said before, I still hold that the evidence presented is circumstantial. Neither the Wikipedia paragraph nor Carruthers cited a source there. I still hold that it's probably a coincidence. This whole endeavor also made me test the similarity of the wording. 28%. I think this is a coincidence of wording. It has been said times and times before that final drive was bad and that compromises had been made. You wanna see something that looks a lot more like what you're accusing Carruthers of? Check out Ironsides by Harold A. Skaarup. But whatever, maybe Carruthers plagiarized, maybe he didn't, either way, I'm not asking to use his references, I'll find another source if it makes you happy. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:32, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Max, plagiarism is a serious issue, it represents an unpardonable sin. When your work is not original, it needs to be cited back to whose work it was. More than a few eminently respectable historians, scholars or officials with a doctoral degree, have fallen in disgrace, some of them had even to revoke their doctorate.. Stephen Ambrose for example, borrowed several passages almost word for word in his works, without making a footnote to cite the reference. Karl-Theodor zu Guttenberg did had to resign from his function and even had to revoke his Ph.D. dissertation. To get to the point, Carruthers is only a passionate amateur historian, without any degree. It doesn't matter that Wikipedia doesn't cite a source back in 2009. Carruthers had no rights to take it as its own. Yes, Skaarup in contrast, uses Wikipedia, and he does make a clear note on the very first page of his book.

Anyway, it's not about the correctness of the passage or about making me happy, it's about to tread against obvious plagiarism. Kheynom (talk) 11:14, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Again, you presume he took it from wikipedia. Am am not so sure. I think it's just a coincidence. But maybe it's not. I don't know, so right now I'm willing to presume the worst, that he took it from Wikipedia. I'll investigate this further, though. I has made me very curious. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 11:42, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes I do, because I think thats an unpardonable sin. Mabye Simon or Dennis have to say something else. Thanks thought for the conversation. Kheynom (talk) 12:08, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Carruthers took the phrase (and likely more) from somewhere with strong indications it was from our Wikipedia article. Wording is far too similar to assume these are his own words.--Denniss (talk) 15:40, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

I am becoming wary of using Carruthers as a source, purely because of his lack of academic credentials in this field. I have reworded the part about over engineering in the lede using a Zaloga and a Richard Docherty citation. Irondome (talk) 19:04, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Very well, I agree on avoiding Carruthers. Whether he copied Wikipedia or not, I'm OK with not risking it. I think we can archive this conversation. Thanks for the talk, guys. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 19:48, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

A couple of notes perhaps useful (perhaps not)

Guderian told the story in his memoir Panzer Leader that sometime in 1940 there was a visiting Soviet representative whom Hitler had given full access to German tank data. Hitler had given orders to hold nothing back, apparently as a way to impress the Soviets of the German's might. The Soviet inspector became very angry, claiming that he wasn't being shown everything like Hitler had ordered. When the Germans insisted they had the Soviet guy refused to believe them. This left in Germans in a quandary, and they wondered if the Soviets were ahead of them in tank development and spurred them on to more advanced tank design. The answer of this would become much clearer the following year with the arrival of the T-34.

Also, the data about the cost of producing the tank is interesting, if a tad confusing. How much would it be in 2015 dollars? A ball park estimate is that the 800,00 RM would be equivalent to about $2.75 million in 2015 (assuming that 4 RM equals $1.00, and that $1.00 in 1943 equals $13.67 in 2015). I remember once reading in a book on a comparison of German war production, comparing what one weapon system cost compared to another one. I don't remember the data but it was rather fascinating, like how many Panthers could have been built instead of a Tiger II given the amount of resources and man hours it required. I can't remember what all could have been produced otherwise if so much hadn't been wasted on the V-2s (of course that also would have meant that we wouldn't have made it to the moon by 1969). It also detailed why the Germans didn't try to build an atomic bomb, since the amount of resources and man-hours was beyond their capacity to devote to it. It would be nice to know how many Tigers were produced at the expense of Panthers, and vice versa. (Guderian also notes that at one point some bureaucrat almost issued an order to stop all production of Mark IVs, meaning that the sole output of tanks for the Germans at that point would be the Panthers and assault guns. The war might have ended long before by Christmas 1944.) __209.179.42.140 (talk) 15:41, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

Copyrights

I found many paragraphs (and many more which are still in) which were directly taken over from Carruthers book: Eastern Front: Encirclement and Escape by German Forces. All of them are either claimed to be quotes from Spielberger or Jentz, but none of them match their statements and expertise. Either way, its possible that Carruthers work is circular and should therefore be avoided. As Carruthers is not an historian, he's quotes should be taken with caution anyway. However, but what to do with content that are now under copyrights? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheynom (talk • contribs) 13:58, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

If the quotes are completely false, they must either be reattributed or removed. Ideally, if you have the books, check both the Carruthers and the Spielberger and Jentz books to make sure where the quote is from. I have stumbled, on occasion, on quotes that could have been attributed to multiple books... Maybe Carruthers quoted Jentz? But if you say none of them match their statements and expertise, it probably isn't the case. Anyway, if you have the time, rewriting or completely removing the quotes would be best. The same goes for the Tiger I page. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:11, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for your quick anwser, yes almost all which I have removed are directly taken from Carruthers. Example of plagiarism, claimed to be a quoted by Spielberger: "Furthermore, high quality steel intended for the double spur system was not available for mass production, and was replaced by 37MnSi5 tempered steel, which was unsuitable for high-stress gears." Which is exactly 1:1 copied, please make a google book search of that phrase and see yourself. Thanks comment added by Kheynom (talk • contribs) 15:41, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

I actually found another excerpt from Carruthers almost completely copy pasted in the introduction. I altered it and cited it. I'll try to figure out who wrote it, we might find our culprit of these copy pastings, but I fear it's a very old revision. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 18:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

French Panthers Chieftan's Hatch citation

I see there is a lot of debate about whether this source is reliable or not. I was a bit skeptical about the Chieftain and the Chieftan's Hatch at first too, but he uses primary sources, and the French Panther analysis was a real thing. What are your thoughts on this? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 18:56, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Armor thickness

The article states (in reference 3) that the 80mm of armor at a 55° is equivalent to 205 to 221mm (also strange since there should be no variance as that's the beauty of math, it deals with absolutes) of vertical plate, but according to the protractor and paper I just used it's equivalent to 141mm of armor plate. So unless this is assuming there is ballistic normalization involved, this statement is wrong. If it is factoring in normalization, this needs to be stated, and it would probably be helpful to link to a page that explains what ballistic normalization is, which I don't think exists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ian.vanharper (talk • contribs) 20:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

You are quite welcome to improve the article in any way you see fit. A person with knowledge of ballistics would be most welcomed! I am tagging the reference to reflect your concerns. Article Sloped armour may be of some use here. Have you looked at it? Regards Irondome (talk) 21:07, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

This 200+mm effective plus the same "effective" armor in the infobox look utterly bogus and should be reverted to real armor values. The effective strength should be explained in the armor section. Using the Panzerworld calculator I get ~140mm effective for bow/glacis armor plate.--Denniss (talk) 22:01, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Would you be kind enough to fix it Denniss? It was well spotted. Irondome (talk) 22:06, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

Such characterization, termed as "ballistic normalization", does not exist in the field of ballistic study. That's a term entirely given by "World of Tanks" to describe their simplified simulation of penetration. The correct description for what you are looking for, is called terminal ballistics. Also, Denniss, you seems to confuse the line-of-sight (LOS) thickness, (demonstrative example for T-34) to the effective armor resistance in relation to a fired projectile. The LOS thickness for the Panther is 80/cos (55)° = 140mm. In the study of terminal ballistics, however, the Panther has an effective armor resistance against a 76 mm APC projectile of 221 mm. - Nothing wrong here. I say, the values in the infobox can stay, because they are informative, one could also add the regular thickness next to it, but the values in the lead can be deleted. The difference given there, does account the variance in the brinell scale during steel manufacturing, e.g. tempering. HueHuey (talk) 00:42, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Being BOLD and removed detail in lede, however I have left the supporting cite. Is this consensual? Happy for any reversions. Simon Irondome (talk) 00:53, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

We don't show armor resistance vs specific projectiles (just too many of them), we show plain armor thickness and may additionally show the effective thickness (LoS). Especially in the infobox we have to show some real thickness and not resistance vs 5 different types of projectiles. 200+mm is bogus because it's only vs the 76mm projectile but not vs other bigger ones. So the generic 140mm effective thickness has to be used in intro and infobox reverted to 15-120mm. Any further information/explanation about effective strength belongs to the armor section.--Denniss (talk) 01:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

We? How dare you to speak about the community as whole. Who are you? Wikipedia is made by you and me, and there's no directives to prohibit valuable information to our readers, or ignorant pricks like you. Why to start an entirely new section, like demanded on the T-34 page, when the regular and effective thickness can easily fit in together, without starting a whole new explanation in the field of ballistics. But, I guess you simply don't like it. I'm done here, ******** ! HueHuey (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Is "ballistically efficient" broadly accurate as a stopgap edit? Responses would be appreciated from the experts Irondome (talk) 01:17, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I have now restored the intro phrasing from an older article version + restored the broad armor summary in infobox (from several months ago). An armor comparison for tanks of this era should always be made vs vertical steel plate.--Denniss (talk) 12:25, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Stop speaking for your colleagues and insist that the additional armor value is unneeded. Would have you expressed your personal dissatisfaction in the first place: "No. I don't like it, we must try to find a different solution." I surely wouldn't have replied so harsh to you, otherwise. But instead, you went ahead, ignoring completely the clear consensus between Irondome and me, and kept "outlasting" your colleagues, with further reverts. Whatever you might have seen, it does not mean you’ve suddenly arrived at consensus. After reverting once more of your edit-wars, you accused me of WP:OWN at my own talk page. Are you nuts? You behave like somebody who wants to own the article!

Again, stop acting against the consensus, and if you keep doing so, feel free to report me, but I assure you, you will shoot yourself in the foot. HueHuey (talk) 17:01, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

No one is going to report anyone. Come on guys, this is just a content dispute, we can fix it here. I just finished with that IP who was attempting to take over real ownership of the article, so no more boards, please people. We can sort this out here. At least we communicate and know what the issues are. Simon Irondome (talk) 17:28, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

You know my standpoint Simon, and I even made a proposal before [sic] how to handle the additional content. We easily can fit the regular armor next to the terminal ballistic results in the infobox. Why is that such a big deal? Reto HueHuey (talk) 18:13, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm having a beer. I understand everyone's standpoints, just need a compromise that everyone's good with. Here are some thoughts. Denniss, would it being in the infobox be ok to you if it was just vertical thickness, with a N1 (note) added that goes into some explainatory depth about diff projectile effects? All this would be sourced. My feeling is that this should be in the armour section and not mentioned in the lede. Any thoughts on a Notebox incorporated in the infobox? Simon Irondome (talk) 18:43, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Check my recent proposal, Simon. That's how I intented to make... Reto HueHuey (talk) 18:52, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

As said above intro and infobox should contain simple, easily understandable values (which is standard thickness and a simple explanation of angled armor in the intro). Any further detail belongs to the already existing armor subsection. This is actually standard in most (WW2) tank articles. I don't know how good or bad this ballistics book is which claims these resistance values but these look questionable to me.--Denniss (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Honestly, I don't care what you are thinking about the source, but I dare you to damage the reputation of the two experts and their 25 years of empirical research for their equations of prediction in effective resistance to the most common WWII tanks. HueHuey (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm looking at Tiger I. Infobox does not go into this level of detail. If it has to be in infobox, hat it as N2, I'd say. Maybe this belongs in Armour section. My concern Reto, is that i'm not seeing comparable info in other tanks articles infoboxes..Simon Irondome (talk) 19:07, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Scrub that..I'm seeing it on M4 Sherman. I think we may have a broader problem here. Irondome (talk) 19:09, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

For a history buff, I say, such details of terminal ballistics are marvellous, without digging almost endlessly through the article. HueHuey (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

If it's hatted and well sourced in note form maybe. Relax Reto, no one is challenging reputations I'm sure. We may have a problem of inconsistancy. How many tank infoboxes have this and how many do not? Denniss, ok if this stuff is hatted as a note? We may need an RfC on this from MILHIST. Simon Irondome (talk) 19:21, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Simon, could you please do me a favor and put a hyperlink to those two shortcuts? Thanks in advance, Reto. HueHuey (talk) 19:36, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Its just the armour sections in the infoboxes I noticed Reto. Tiger I, M4 Sherman. Note M4 infobox armour part seems to have info on armour resistance. Tiger I is more basic. There may be more anomalies in our tank articles. Having a look now. Simon Irondome (talk) 19:51, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

The M4 infobox is a recent change from another troublesome editor, LeuCeaMia, who did this 4 months ago. Again - such a level of detail belongs into an armor subsection (which the article has). The infobox is for a general overview, not endless detailed data. Plus nobody knows what exactly this ammunition is whose resistance is shown there. Why only resitance vs 7.5cm and not vs 5 or 8.8cm ?--Denniss (talk) 20:55, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Huehuey, I don't pretend to be a terminal ballistics expert, I was paraphrasing the Allied Ballistic Tests in France about where they talk about the "Ballistic Normal" (their words, not mine, or War Gaming's) of the front glacis on a Panther Tank being about 185mm. My statement is simply that the explanation of how the armor thickness works (the terminal ballistics of the sloped armor) isn't clear when one doesn't clearly understand how terminal ballistics work. When someone who just does the math sees that (like I did), they question the validity of the article. I would reference the section of the sloped armor article at some point to clarify it to the reader if they care to take the wiki walk to learn more. Ian.vanharper (talk) 23:57, 11 November 2015 (UTC)

Hah, the edit battle on the article reminded me of my battle with Denniss back on the KwK 36 page. He sure likes to undo revisions without explaining, doesn't he. I even reported him on the edit war page back then, and it's only then when I got his attention and got a response. I really don't know what to think about you, Denniss, mate. At times you come off as a wehraboo, then you do the opposite of what a wehraboo would do, then you revert without explanation, then you kindly discuss on the talk page. Make up your mind, are you a good guy or a bad guy?! As for the armour subject, I'm not sure I understand who wants what, but I'm for simplifying the data in the table and putting the details deeper in the article. EDIT: Hahaha, Dennis went on Huey's talk page and accused him of ownership. This should have been kept on the talk page, mate. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:20, 12 November 2015 (UTC)

Respect for Panther leading to the conception of the IS-2, Pershing and Centurion

Relevant. I can't believe I didn't see this earlier. The first version was in the introduction for more than a year. It's no even in the history page any more. We need to pay more attention for such dubious statements. From what I understand, that sentence was a bad way of saying that the arms race lead to the creating of better guns and armour. Does anyone want to put it back? If so, it has to be heavily edited to make more sense. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 19:09, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I simple reverted the IP edits, and cited to Zaloga. However, that doesn't last long, the Ip editor revised it again. Kheynom (talk) 19:40, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Let me see if I got this right, you tried to remove that part but the anonymous editor reverted it? If so, we should ask for a block on his IP or something. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Attempt to open communication with the IP in the first instance WP:BRD, then consider further action if it continues. The article has deteriorated since some of us worked on it last year. Irondome (talk) 20:11, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Could you expand on how the article has deteriorated? I am uncertain about what you mean by that. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:15, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

It has gained a lot of fat again, needs pruning a bit. See archives. Irondome (talk) 20:21, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I have to agree, both on the obese and the crap part. I did try to fix some of the more blatantly wrong parts, as with the panther reputation thing that I had previously missed, but pruning is a far more difficult endeavor. Still has to be done, though. I must admit that I did notice some repeated things and redundant information. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The trouble is, crap creeps in over time, even if its on your WL, one can't be here 24/7. Happy to help out on a trim. We could lose a few hundred words while making the article even more readable. Simon. Irondome (talk) 20:38, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

The Centurion was designed after British encounters with the Tiger I in North Africa, and the 1943 specification for what became the Centurion specifically called for frontal armour proof against the Tiger I's 88mm gun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.172.141 (talk) 18:27, 12 November 2017 (UTC)

Image of Speer and T-34 tank

This is indeed a Soviet T-34 Model 1940 tank w/76.2mm L-11 gun. A fairly clear image can be found here [1]. You can also note the HUGE Soviet headlight, as opposed to German blackout headlights.Pennsy22 (talk) 04:05, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Panther final drive

Are you sure we're looking at the same book? This is the page I was looking at. It states poor final drive reliability. It also states the Germans approached the french for improvements but nothing came of it. So we can easily deduce that the final drive was never fixed. Littlefield even states it would be impossible to improve it. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:58, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Addition: Also, page 231 states the final drive unreliability and even mentions the analysis Moran talked about in his French Panters World of Tanks article. At the very least, it's obvious the final drive was prone to breakdown, that much we should agree on, even if you don't agree it wasn't fixed. Additon2: Page 233 further tells of how desperate the Germans were and the request to the french to fix it mentioned in the 2005 book. So it's undeniable the final drive was crap. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 21:01, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No, we can not easily deduce that the final drive was never fixed. That's only your assumption and nowhere confirmed. I agree that the early Panther's were prone to break down, however, but the postwar french trials does only cover early production series of Panther A and D, which "Fahrgestellnummer" are publicated by Spielberger. The french also had two Panthers of the "Zwischenlösung", with the automobile drive train and suspension (and turret) of an Ausf. D but with an Ausf. G hull and engine.

However, according to Jentz, the German industry made a number of modifications to the final drive for the Panther Ausf. G in September and October 1944 to increase the durability. So it remains unclear if it was resolved or at least improved the situation. What's more interesting, there were even captured Panther's by the russians, which lasted at least 500km without dreakdowns. ( Was knocked out and put back in combat ) Kheynom (talk) 21:23, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Then lets write just that. Early production was prone to breakdown, but there were modifications in 1944 to increase durability, although to what extent they were successful is unknown. Either way, we should write something on this. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 21:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, we should make a clear note that it remains unclear. Kheynom (talk) 21:50, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Google books, "panther final drive problem" query returns a mass of sources. All seem to agree there was a major early problem, but one source mentions a fix in october 1944. Contemporary memoirs as late as 1945 mention final drive breakdowns. I am on and off tonight, but I would suggest a compromise along the lines of "The final drive was always the major mechanical weakness of the Panther, despite efforts in 1944 to rectify the final drive design" I think that statement, in the lede, can be sourced using the google query returns I have stated above. Irondome (talk) 21:47, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Ah, Google books, my best source for finding citations in books I do not own, and also my curse, because not all of the google books searches return the page... Yes. I agree with Irondome on this one. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 21:49, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I also agree, but take caution that those mentioned break downs in late 1944 does not refer to the postwar french trial. Kheynom (talk) 21:51, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

No, Kheynom, One is a German combat report. "Hold the Westwall:The history of Panzer Brigade 105", and this we can definitely date to september 1944 . Zaloga in Panther vs Sherman:Battle of the Bulge, pg 30-31, claims that in fact by Dec 44 the problem had got worse, due to shortage of critical alloys and increasingly poor quality control. I think we can safely say the problem was never fully rectified. None appear to mention the French trials. Regards Irondome (talk) 22:05, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but accounted for which tanks Irondome? The modification to increase durability took place on production of newer Ausf.G which started in October 1944, so you have to take attention not to confuse with Panther A and D, (spare parts) which were predominatly available in Normandy. Less than 40 tanks in Normandy were of newer Ausf. G's types. See Jentz Panzertruppen. Kheynom (talk) 22:24, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Zaloga, pg 31 above claims that 29% of Mk V's allotted were inoperable before the German December attack. They were all new builds manufactured between september and november. I think we are seeing a lingering mechanical problem that was never fully fixed. Irondome (talk) 22:32, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Well, Spielbeger published some "Fahrgestellnumbers" for Normandy, and Jentz claims only around 40 were of newer types there. Anyway, that would mean that Jentz made something up with claiming that they tried to increase durability of the final drive in September to October 1944. Something which I'm not inclined to belive. And how the russian managed to get the Panther beyond 500km (without proper logistical support in spare parts) when it should break down every 150km as Zaloga states? (The 150km number acutally comes only from the French trials of around 50 Panther A and D tanks.) Kheynom (talk) 22:53, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

Anyway I'm out, I hope you guys will find the right middle for it. Goodbye! Kheynom (talk) 23:00, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I think we can definately source an attempt to fix the issue in October by industry, it just didn't seem to pan out as well as hoped. No desertion Kheynom! You are needed at the wikipedia "front" :) Hope to work with you soon. Simon Irondome (talk) 23:07, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

I mean, we are speaking of 6000 Panthers after all, if they all lasted only 150km, despite several efforts and modification to the drive train; why they didn't droped further production? Anyway, thanks for the conversation to both of you, and it was nice to meet you Simon. Regards Bogdan Kheynom (talk) 23:35, 6 November 2015 (UTC)

For the same reason they produced Tiger IIs and tried to build the Maus. The leaders of Nazi Germany weren't exactly thinking straight. As for the Archive Awareness article, it's citing a report of the 198th Independent Tank Regiment for June 1944. Sure it's a primary source, but so was the journal entry of the German machine gunner in WW1 that said the British were calming walking the no-man's zone, with an officer carrying a walking stick. Maybe there is a mistake, maybe that particular Panther just got very bloody lucky. Either way, I'd rather trust Zaloga on this one. And since we're all on a first name basis now, you guys can call Max (I guess I'm the only one who uses part of his name in the username) --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:46, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Sorry, I don't see any connection from the Archive Awareness article, to the German machine gunner. Are you trying to say that report is faked? Or that this praticular Panther was the only exception? How so it can be that the Tiger II which weighted 68 tons had the same awkward upscalled transmission and backward automotive drive train of the 30's as found on the Panther, was able to pass 113 km (444km tachometer) in the hands of the Russians before breaking down? I'm not contesting Zaloga,(he's an excellent reference) I'm just saying that the issues is far more complicated and far-reaching as we suspect. May or may not be resolved, Zaloga does take the French trials (early Panther A and D) into account for his conclusion. However, I'm just skeptical to the subject, and I hope thats allowed? Regards Bogdan Kheynom (talk) 11:52, 7 November 2015 (UTC)

Of course you're allowed to be skeptical. I'm still skeptical that Carruthers plagiarized Wikipedia, but I didn't insist on keeping him as a source. Really, more than half of that conversation had nothing to do with the article. Maybe the Russians had magical ways of working the tanks. No, but seriously, those could be exceptions. And I'm not trying to say that the report is faked, maybe there's a mistake in there they didn't intend. I don't know. I'm not sure how to proceed with this. Simon, what do you think? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 19:53, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Bogdan and Max. (Maybe I should have username Simodome}. The Soviet citation talking about the 600km "march" of the panther puzzles me. It maybe a typo for 60km.. I am assuming from date of actions that it is describing operations in Operation Bagration. It is possible that final drive units were salvaged from other Mk V's. The citation reports that the Soviet tankers became extremely proficient in servicing and maintaining the vehicle. In other words, it may have not been the only F/D unit it went through. I was trying to find the locations mentioned, with no real luck. I am accustomed to thinking in miles, pounds, etc. Nearly 400 miles. That would be an amazing movement for one unit on the Eastern Front in one operation. The Tiger 2 report on final drives is less ambiguous. They were both "totally destroyed". It is puzzling stuff. Regards Simon, or..Irondome (talk) 20:34, 8 November 2015 (UTC)

Hello Max and Simon. I have seen the document by myself and if you are interested, you can find it under the title: ЦАМО фонд 33 опись 793756 дело 50. However, I can assure you, that it is definitely not a typo. It's hard to tell how Lt. Firsov managed to keep his trophy tank running that far. It sounds reasonable that he could have salvaged other tanks in order to gather spare parts replacements. On the other side, the Soviets didn't bother much with foreign tanks, once they broke down, as shown in the case of two captured Tigers. Nonetheless, the achievement is quite impressive.

Another interesting claim is found on a forum post of a Bergepanther driver, (around same weight as a Panther) which was apparently honored in a maintenance commission report to Guderian in summer 1944. However, historian Peter Turza (Tanky nemeckého pôvodu vo výzbroji č s. armády v rokoch 1945–1959 p.90) describes the troublesome way of eighty Panthers in the Czechoslovak army during the postwar years. In 1958, there was a military trial to compare the T-34-85 with the Panther. It was claimed, that under good maintenance, the Panther would last 350km in rough terrain, before sheering off parts in the differential housings.

Anyway, as I said before, I belief that the issues is far more complicated and far-reaching as we suspect and as it is currently displayed in the media. It might be even a bit overstated, but it seems, that when appropriate logistical support was provided, the Panther did hold well up against all odds and flaws it had. However, I didn't intented to discuss that issues in that length, or about who might be right or wrong. And if I'm honest, I wanted to leave quite a time before. My english is not quite well as yours, due the language barrier in my head, (czech, russian) and I feel to have some trouble to express myself. However, thank you for your understanding and I hope to hear from you both soon. Regards Bogdan Kheynom (talk) 01:59, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

That's what I mean too when I talked about the validity of the report. Maybe he accidentally wrote 600 rather than 60. I think we should ignore this example as a statistical anomaly. For the most part, we can said with certitude that a Panther couldn't reach 600 km. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:44, 9 November 2015 (UTC)

IIRC, early Panthers used helical-cut gears in the final drive, these proved insufficiently strong in service resulting in stripped teeth, and so the gears were replaced with straight-cut gears in later vehicles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.149.55.68 (talk) 11:52, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Warsaw Uprising by Deczkowki - Wacek Platoon - 15911.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:33, 17 June 2020 (UTC)

The Panther's true opponent

Many people say that Panther was equal to the Sherman 76, T-34-85, and Pershing. Well, for the Pershing, that's quite true, but for the Sherman and the T-34-85, i don't think so. You see, Panther was very balanced in terms of speed, armor, and firepower. T-34-85 and the Sherman 76 is lacking armor. And because many people say that T-34-85 and the Sherman 76 was equal to the Panther, many people Will also think that T-34-85 was equal to the Pershing. But the truth is, both tanks were not equal to each other. In conclusion, Panther and Pershing is not an equal opponent to the Sherman 76 and the T-34-85. Thee Sherman 76 and the T-34-85 was more into the mid to late war Panzer IV variants (Pz. IV F, Pz. IV H, and the Pz. IV J), while Panther and the Pershing is more into T-44 tank, as well as the British Centurion Mk. 1. Kalashnikov413 (talk) 03:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Those many people do not know what they are talking about. Two book excerpts: https://imgur.com/OT7AGSG

use of colour in table in comparison of tank availability in 44/45

Panther_tank#Reliability has colours picked for various percentages. without knowing what the German army considered "good" or "bad" in terms of operational availability the colour choice is arbitrary and unverifiable. There is the added issue that operational availability may not be related to the "reliability" of the tank but combat losses or other external factors (eg lack of fuel) that prevent a functioning vehicle from being put into use - in which case we are looking at a case of WP:Synth. GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:13, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It at least gives a quick indication that availability dropped as time went on, which is useful, otherwise it is a sea of numbers which takes a lot longer to decipher. (Hohum ^@) 23:43, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

It might be possible to make a simple shaded background, with the percentage directly reflected by a single colour intensity, if that helps - there wouldn't be arbitrary red/orange/green breaks that way. (Hohum ^@) 23:45, 26 April 2021 (UTC)

For instance

Percentage of late war panzer models operational

Date	Western front			Eastern front
	Pz IV	Panther	Tiger	Pz IV	Panther	Tiger
31 May 44	88	82	87	84	77	79
14 Sep 44	80	74	98	65	72	70
30 Sep 44	50	57	67	65	60	81
31 Oct 44	74	85	88	52	53	54
15 Nov 44	78	71	81	72	66	61
30 Nov 44	76	71	45	78	67	72
15 Dec 44	78	71	64	79	69	79
30 Dec 44	63	53	50	72	61	80
15 Jan 45	56	45	58	71	60	73
15 Mar 45	44	32	36	54	49	53
Average	71	65	65	68	62	70

Less visually appealing, but no value judgements by colour. (Hohum ^@) 00:37, 27 April 2021 (UTC)

References

About Granular Delete

I made a new section for the Final drive, GraemeLeggett made it shorter, I accepted it. But why are those sections are got deleted, not shortened, what are were already accepted in august? And I told on my talk page to GraemeLeggett: "If many ppl are interested in the WW2 vehicles like me, why the wiki should not show them every detiails, when me or others do the research instead of the wiki? It's free for the wiki, and who want to know more, have the benefits from it. 2.Why I should not use the original WW2 reports? o.O Every historian using them for their books."

It shakes my nerves, all my spent hours in august just got deleted with 1 click.....Szolnok95 (talk) 08:07, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Encyclopedia entries are necessarily overviews of their subject. Including *every* detail would require the length of several books. WP:TOOMUCH explains this well.

WP:PRIMARY explains how original reports should be treated. Most sources used should be WP:SECONDARY.

I realise it is discouraging to have your work reverted. Try not to let it curb your enthusiasm for the subject. We're not disagreeing with you to spite you. This discussion is to try and find a way forward using consensus. (Hohum ^@) 09:38, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Then I would like to ask you or Legget (As I did ask him when I made the Sherman reliability section) to not just delete it, but also make it shorter. Thank you!Szolnok95 (talk) 11:04, 30 November 2021 (UTC) PS: And as I said, he did make shorter the Final Drive section and I accepted it, but still not understand, why those sections got deleted, what are were already accepted it august. And you should understand 1 another important thing: wikipedia has a good reputation, gratitude for the good moderator/admin/organizer team. Therefore many youtuber/novice researcher use the wikipedia as a main source for the start. Thus if the wikipedia glide over important things, the youtuber/novice researcher will also glide over and then thousands of viewers/readers will don't know about that or get misinformed. Good example for this: the Panther engine problem in late 1943. It was new for me aswell, but what the youtubers said in their videos? "The reason was the final drive!!"... And this is the short story, how myths are created. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szolnok95 (talk • contribs) 11:12, 30 November 2021 (UTC)

Any intermediate proposal ? Szolnok95 (talk) 18:39, 1 December 2021 (UTC)

Panther naming

The last sentence of the head section "The naming of Panther production variants did not, unlike most German tanks, follow alphabetical order: the initial variant, Panther "D" (Ausf. D), was followed by "A" and "G" variants.: " is not entirley correct. German military used lower case for pre-production versions (a,b,c,d) and upper case (A;B;C) for production versions.

Proposal to change the wording to: "The naming of Panther variants was a deviation from the standard practice of the Wehrmacht naming following alphabetical order, as the pre production variant, Ausf. "d", was used in the field before the production variants Ausf. "A" and "G". Usually, pre production vehicles were marked by lower case variant designation and would not see frontline service. The Panther d was an exception to this." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.169.191.84 (talk) 12:18, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

What on earth was a Panther 'd' ? There was only a Panther 'D' followed by A,G,F (going backwards again with 'F'). --Denniss (talk) 14:24, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

New "Panther" tank

Rheinmetall has just released a new tank, KF51 Panther. I don't know what its marketing department was thinking (if anything), but we may need a new article soon. See e.g. https://www.defensenews.com/global/europe/2022/06/13/rheinmetall-pitches-panther-battle-tank-as-heir-to-the-leopard/. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 19:34, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

The article was created earlier today at Panther KF51 GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:02, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Thanks! --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:47, 13 June 2022 (UTC)

Fake Panther II tank

Has anyone seen the second image about the Panther II, the one with the Tiger II tracks and cannon? I'm pretty sure that's a fake tank. ArthurMattje (talk) 15:44, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

Which image are you talking about specifically? ― Blaze Wolf^Talk_{Blaze Wolf#6545} 15:48, 11 October 2022 (UTC)

The image on the section about the Schmalturm turret. ArthurMattje (talk) 03:16, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Per museum and image description this is a Panther F, not a Panther II. These Tiger-II-like steel wheels were also seen on latewar Panther G, AFAIR from MAN. --Denniss (talk) 07:27, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Didn't know about that, thanks for letting me know, always good to learn something new. ArthurMattje (talk) 03:36, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 July 2021

Remove the “dubious” tag after the THREE sources provided for frontal armor under the “Armor” subheading on the page for the Panther tank. 70 year old information that has been well documented and archived and even cited in the article is not “dubious”, it’s obvious. 2601:541:4302:8BD0:954C:EF75:5962:2DBF (talk) 23:06, 14 July 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:51, 15 July 2021 (UTC)

I don't know if I buy it that the 90 mm M3 could go though the Panthers UFP. Fi you have a link to a firing test or something? BobMcGeoff (talk) 04:44, 27 June 2022 (UTC)

It depends on what shell we're talking about. The HVAP/APCR certainly did. I'll see if I can dig up some tests. EDIT: ADA954868 and AD301343 seem to support this. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:26, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Unfavorable comparison to IS-2

The note here as well as the note on the IS-2 page suggest some error on Zaloga's side when mentioning the distances. I see there's a citation needed tag there since last year. I found Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen (but the info about the IS-2 is at page 30 not 34), but I can't find the 1944 Pz.-Beschußtafeln anywhere to confirm. I think there's a certain misunderstanding in here somewhere, since the IS-2 1943 had 120mm @30° on the driver's plate, and the KwK 40 is noted on its own page to punch through around that at 500m, so Zaloga's claim is plausible. Unless we can produce the Pz.-Beschußtafeln mentioned in Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen to determine the exact context of what is written there, I think we can chalk this one up to a misunderstanding and remove the note. Thoughts? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Well, seeing how nobody seems to disagree or care, I'll go ahead and update the post. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)

Comparisons of the Panther vs IS2 is uninteresting from an armor point of view. Neither had problems penetrating one another at traditional ranges. The IS2 had protection issues against the Panther, which is one of the reasons the Soviets rescaped the upper frontal hull in 1944.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)