Talk:Panzer II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Military history (Rated C-Class)
MILHIST 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.
C This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Tanks (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tanks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tanks on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Germany (Rated Start-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
Checklist icon
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Re: the suspension system of the Panzer II - this is a tough issue since there were at least four different systems used: the very early ones had leaf springs, but the ausf D had Christie, the F reverted to leaf spring, and the Luchs had torsion bars.

I agree with the recent edit to make it 'leaf spring' since this was by far the most common type. But since the lead photo shows a Luchs it is a bit confusing. May I suggest the lead photo show an ausf C or F, which were the most common types? The Luchs is a minor if well-known variant. DMorpheus 01:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

The photo doesn't have to match the infobox; but then both the infobox title and caption should state which model they represent. I would prefer if the infobox data was for the most common, or most typical model. Michael Z. 2005-12-11 01:17 Z
Agreed. The same problem appears on the Panther page - the lead photo (which is a great photo by the way) is an ausf A but the infobox is for the ausf D. DMorpheus 12:51, 11 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added a caption there. Michael Z. 2005-12-11 17:02 Z
By the way, for which model are the infobox statistics? We should name it in the infobox title. Michael Z. 2005-12-11 01:21 Z
Way back when I first started editing this article, the stats were for an ausf A. I don't think they've been changed since then. --Carnildo 00:44, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Could someone please confirm or refute that this tank was known as the Flamingo? See Flamingo (disambiguation), which claims this to be the case, but I could not find any mention of the word flamingo on this tank's article. Is this a mix-up with another tank, perhaps? If anyone could clarify this and update the Flamingo disambiguation page, I would be very grateful. -Leevclarke 22:19, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Flamingo is a nickname sometimes used for the flamethrower version, although I don't know how 'official' it was. DMorpheus 16:36, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, I have now found a source for the "Flamingo" version, and added this info to the article. Thanks again for the help.  :-) Leevclarke 00:06, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Suspension performance[edit]

The article Christie suspension claims superior off-road performance compared to leaf spring suspensions. However, this article here says that the Ausf. D and E of that tank was constructed with Christie suspension, but were later withdrawn for poor off-road performance / speed, with later models returning to the original leaf spring design. Could someone clarify here? -- DevSolar (talk) 05:56, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

They were withdrawn for exactly this cause but I don't know if it's a general problem with this suspension type or the implementation on these two types. The germans also claimed the cross-country performance of the T-34 was not that superb either. With cc-perf they probably meant how much the crew is shaken around on higher cc speeds. A german comparison of a SU-122 or SU-85 with some german vehicles is here (from Panther and its variants)--Denniss (talk)
The Christie suspension's advantage was that it allowed an unusually large suspension travel, allowing a tracked vehicle to roll over obstacles at speed in a way that other suspension systems of the time could not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.7.147.13 (talk) 18:06, 16 November 2013 (UTC)
neither of the two had a real Christie suspension. --Denniss (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2013 (UTC)


PS vs HP[edit]

HP and PS are virtually identical and the terms are used interchangeably. Why are German units (obsolete terms at that) used to decribe an engines power output? Would it not make more sense to use modern measures that the average reader can understand? See: Metric horsepower for a discussion of the difference.16:51, 5 March 2014 (UTC)Scout1067 (talk)

The engine had 140 PS or 138 hp, not 140 hp. It gets even worse with higher output engines like in aircraft. Articles about historical items should always use the specified term but feel free to add a {{Convert}} template if it does a proper calculation from PS into hp and kW. BTW it's not uncommon for older german books about tanks/aircraft of WW2 to be translations of english books which used an improper PS->hp conversion, with a correct hp->PS conversion in the german books you got some odd PS ratings for these engines. --Denniss (talk) 18:27, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Add measurements for Americans. (English Metric System)[edit]

Heinrich Rictenberg Stuhler (talk) 20:38, 31 October 2014 (UTC) Add measurements for Americans.

Split to Panzer II variants?[edit]

  • Oppose What advantage does splitting the article give?
There is a stronger argument for splitting off the SPGs (although there is no content sufficient to justify this). Splitting off though the tank variants, as was done here, simply makes the main article unreadable. Andy Dingley (talk) 13:22, 31 October 2015 (UTC)