Talk:Panzer Lehr Division

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Article[edit]

User:Ansbachdragoner, I'm happy to see someone interested in writing articles about the German WWII order of battle, but please...

  • Remember this is an English language encyclopedia, so try to use English language conventions when referring to German stuff, when possible.
  • Also, try to stick to the convention of prefixing the names of articles about German military units with "German_". (It's not my convention, and I didn't like it at first, but I see that it's necessary for lots of units, and consistency seems to be the best policy even where it isn't strictly necessary.)
  • If you can't resist the urge to replace an existing article with your own variant, please have the courtesy to take along the see-alsos, references, and categories that someone has invested the trouble to create in the original article.

B.Bryant 05:17, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Firstly thankyou and i look forward to contributing more articles on WWI German OOB

1. I agree wikipedia is an english language encyclopedia, however there are many terms which (IMO and by popular convention) should be left in German. To refer to 3rd Panzer as 3rd German Tank Division or Panzer Lehr as German Tank Training Division creates added confusion. I have used german names for army groups, Corps and ranks (General officer ranks, this is necessay as they do not translate into the British / American ranks table). Where possible, I have created a link from the german name to the meaning (See the term 'Jabo' in the Lehr article.

On another note, to refer to PzLehr as Panzer Division Lehr is incorrect. Lehr was not a granted title, like Grossdeutschland or Kurmark, but a description of the status of the formation.

2. Agreed. Will move article from Panzer Lehr Division to German Panzer-Lehr-Division and create a redirect.

3. Apologies for that, but the Lehr article (as with most of my new articles on here) is a work in progress. I had kept your see alsos / refs etc, and now the article is complete these have been posted.

Also, i've noticed that you are the main author of the German OOB titles. I'm planning on entering unit histories (As in GD, BBrg, PzLhr, SSTK etc) on several other divisions, probably beginning with 116.Windhund Panzer. Any suggestions etc will be most appreciated. Best Ansbachdragoner--Ansbachdragoner 00:54, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hi. FYI, I just created a draft Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units), which I hope you'll look at and join the discussion on. (Notice that my recent stubs don't actually conform to it — it was the headaches I've encountered in generating the stubs, and feedback like the above, that convinced me we need some sort of guidelines. Once we get a consensus on the guidelines I'll try to go back through them and bring them up to spec.) — B.Bryant 00:25, 15 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Lehr = demonstration?![edit]

Does "Lehr" really mean demonstration? As a native German speaker I have to admit I've never heard it, only as a form of "lehren" (to teach) or the like. --84.61.197.40 15:42, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've been in a Lehr unit, and it's all about demonstrations. I'm not sure whether and how to translate it, but 'Demonstration Unit' is a good explanation.
I'd translate it as 'Instruction Unit', demonstration to me has a different meaning (show), iirc the Lehr units were originally instruction units for non comissionned officers.--Caranorn 21:38, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
'Lehr' actually means training in military terms, so a Panzerlehrdivision would be a division where recruits are trained in the use of tanks. 'Demonstration' definitely is the wrong word. Ulsterman 13:12, 18 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The Panzer Lehr was formed with personnel drawn from the instructors and other staff at the tank training schools. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.220.121 (talk) 18:09, 13 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The Article Title[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

is German really needed in the title of the article, German Panzer Lehr Division? was there another Panzer Lehr division from another country, e.g was their a French Panzer Lehr division? if so I've never heard of it. German is an unneeded modifying adjective, as I've always just heard Panzer Lehr.

--Jadger 23:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Panzerlehrdivision[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

The German word is Panzerlehrdivision, no dashes or gaps. Could someone logged in please move the article accordingly. (Though I'm sure that someone will point out that this is the English Wikipedia and different rules apply. Nevermind that it's ridiculously stupid to hack up perfectly correct German words only to match English grammar. Make up your mind, either use the German word or translate it.)

Actually Panzer-Lehr-Division is also used (Tessin for instance).--Caranorn 21:37, 1 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Should I add reference to videogames?[edit]

I just finished a game call Company of Heroes, this divison was featured as the main opponent of the game and is the main driving force behind the game's story. The game mainly featued this unit in action during Operation Cobra and also in a smaller extent Battle of Cherbourg and the closing of the Falaise pocket. Should I include this reference under the header Dramatization? Jim101 22:26, 8 April 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Targeted by Allies?[edit]

The text says, "Its great weakness was that it concentrated the cream of Germany's tank commanders/instructors in a single unit thus making it a primary target for destruction in terms of Allied strategy". I don't believe that was the case. It was "targetted" if that's the current phrase, because it was a powerful armored formation, not for this reason. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Antarctica moon (talk • contribs) 08:46, 25 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed, I just edited that bit out. They were targeted the same way as every other enemy formation. DMorpheus (talk) 18:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:PanzerGren - PzLehr.jpg[edit]

Image:PanzerGren - PzLehr.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 14:56, 2 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dropped to start[edit]

Since this article has no citations I've changed its status to start. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 12:21, 4 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Article name[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Hi all

I have read through the various discussions above and would like to raise the issue that the article be moved back to ‘Panzer Lehr Division’ as oppose to ‘Panzerlehrdivision’.

I recognise that in German the correct name is ‘Panzerlehrdivision’ however this is the not the term what appears to be most commonly used in the English language, plus this is the English wiki. Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English) would appear to support this issue and top of which we have not used the German language for other divisions i.e. 1.Panzerdivision when an English alternative is available i.e. 1st Panzer Division.

I have consulted the various sources that I have access to that, and will route through some more later, however the common name in use by English sources is ‘Panzer Lehr Division’.

I consulted 19 sources; the results of which are:

Those calling the division: Panzer-Lehr-Division (4) (in the order I checked):

Hubert Meyer, Kurt Meyer, Daniel Taylor, Ludovic Fortin.

Those calling the division: Panzer Lehr Division (15) (in the order I checked):

Carlo D'Este, Patrick Delaforce, Major Ellis, John Buckley, Colonel Stacey, Simon Trew and Stephen Badsey, Lloyd Clark, Anthony Beevor, Chester Wilmot, Stephen Ashley Hart, Ken Ford, George Forty, Michael Reynolds, Helmut Ritgen.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 13:56, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Support
To Enigma's list I can add Lucas and Barker (The Killing Ground), Max Hastings (Overlord), Major General David Belechem (Victory in Normandy) and Hart, Hart & Hughes (The German Soldier) for Panzer Lehr Division. Lefevre (Panzers in Normandy, Then and Now) uses Panzer Lehr Regiment (but puts Panzer Lehr Division in brackets behind it, and then uses that half of the time!). I'd also mention that most of these sources suggest Lehr means demonstration and not teach, as the lede suggests. Cheers Ranger Steve (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the additional sources Steve; i also concur (but will check at a later date) that from the sources i have seen, Lehr has always translated into demonstration; I don’t know how good www.freentranslation.com is, but that translates lehr into apprenticeship not teech but i would stick with the sources anyday of the week.
Expending my sources I can also add to the list for sources using the term “Panzer Lehr Division”/”Panzer Lehr”:
Stephen A Hart (not sure if it’s the same as Stephen Ashley Hart but it is a different source), David French, another book by Michael Reynolds, Ken Tout, Ken Ford (different source), Richard Holmes, Cornelius Ryan, Hastings (Armageddon), Lt-Colonel Jackson, Major Randel, Ronald Gill
Heinz Guderian (Panzer Leader, where he notes that this was the Panzer Demonstration Division) uses the term "Panzer-Lehr" while Brian Reid uses “Panzerlehr Division” bringing a 4th alternative into play. Note: A reproduction German Intel map, presented in Richard Holmes work, from 3 July 1944 simply calls the division “Pz.L.”
That brings the totals to:
Panzer Lehr Division/variants: 31 sources
Panzer-Lehr-Division/variants: 5
Panzerlehr Division/variants: 1
Panzerlehrdivision: 0 --EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 20:05, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support Panzer Lehr Division per WP:NAME ("Article names should be recognizable to readers, unambiguous, and consistent with usage in reliable English-language sources") and the above. EyeSerenetalk 23:22, 10 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support this is a quick move definitely as in German the correct name is actually not ‘Panzerlehrdivision’ but the correct unit designation in the Wehrmacht was Panzer-Lehr-Division! All books in Germany carry that name: i.e.
  • Die Geschichte der Panzer-Lehr-Division im Westen 1944 - 1945 - Helmut Ritgen, Motorbuch Verlag, Stuttgart 1979, 360 Seiten
  • Panzer-Lehr-Division. Die größte dt. Panzer-Division und ihre Aufgabe: die Invasion zerschlagen, die Ardennenschlacht entscheiden. - Franz Kurowski, Podzun, Bad Nauheim 1964, 222 Seiten
Also the German Federal archive names the division as Panzer-Lehr-Division [1]
therefore whatever the name of this article will be in the end - Panzerlehrdivision is factually wrong and needs to be changed! as it is neither common use in English nor correct in German! --noclador (talk) 03:57, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Wow i was not expecting that one; thanks for the German sources!--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 09:18, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Move to ???[edit]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

I am ready to be bold- with one question remaining: Shall I move it to Panzer-Lehr-Division or Panzer Lehr Division? The first one is the correct German name of the unit and I favor it over the second variant. If there are no objections I plan to move the article to Panzer-Lehr-Division within the next 24 hours. --noclador (talk) 13:43, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I just checked German sources about the division:
Conclusion: I'm moving now! as there is no doubt left that the correct name is Panzer-Lehr-Division! --noclador (talk) 14:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I'd have preferred if you'd waited noclador, I'm not sure it's the best name to use. Panzer Lehr Division seems to be the overwhelming majority in English language sources, and I think, per WP:UE we should go with those. It's like using Spain instead of Espana, but I'll wait for other opinions. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:45, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Steve, I did not want to wait to move as the earlier name was clearly wrong and to me the difference between Panzer Lehr Division and Panzer-Lehr-Division is marginal - it comes down to 2 "-". I think in such an instant it is better to go with the units official name. --noclador (talk) 15:58, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough, but I'd request that you stop editing every use of the Division's name in other articles and wait for a consensus here first. It's easy enough to change this articles name again, but time consuming to go through and change all of the other articles once more. There is a very clear majority here, something you didn't seem to realise when you made your request at WP:RM. Ranger Steve (talk) 17:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I think you jumped the gun on this a bit, Noclador :) "Panzer Lehr Division" is, I think, better; per WP:NAME we should go with what's in most common usage in English language sources". EyeSerenetalk 08:44, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I did not think it made such a big difference if the name is written with 2 "-" or two "spaces". Especially since all the German sources I found stick with the name Panzer-Lehr-Division (which as an "honorific unit name" shouldn't be changed I think). I think we all agree that the original name Panzerlehrdivision was wrong and needed to be changed. Therefore now the question is to choose between Panzer-Lehr-Division- the correct name in German- or the most commonly used name variant in English Panzer Lehr Division; and also if the difference between the two variants is big enough to warrant another move. As for me: I rather go with Panzer-Lehr-Division, as this is the correct name in German. But I really wish to know User:EnigmaMcmxc opinion on this matter as he actually got the debate going and thus was the first to spot the error in the old spelling of the name, --noclador (talk) 21:51, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No need to apologise noclador I'm sure you were acting in good faith - just wish you'd stuck to the 24hr idea you suggested. This article name had been wrong for some time, so I'm sure an extra day wouldn't have hurt! Personally I prefer Panzer Lehr Division over Panzer-Lehr-Division, I think its a bit more aesthetically easy on the eye, not to mention easier to type (less thinking required for a space). Plus, as I said above, I think given that this is English wiki, we should reflect English sources. As well as the Spain example above, people who read about the division in a book might expect to see the same style of name used here. It's good to maintain consistency with sources outside of the wiki. I do understand your thoughts on the German name; personally, outside of Wiki, I think we speakers of the English language should be more accommodating of other people's 'foreign language names' I have several foreign friends, but I don't adapt their name to the English equivalent in the same way we adapt country names! But, this is wiki and the general rule is that we go with English language versions.... Ranger Steve (talk) 22:55, 14 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no need to apologise - we're all trying to improve the 'pedia, so harm no foul :) However, I agree with Steve. I think Panzer-Lehr-Division is probably a compromise attempt in English to concatenate the words as they would be in grammatically correct German, but it looks odd to native English speakers as we don't usually hyphenate words that way. As I said, I think the preponderance of English-language sources support the no hyphens version, but of course we can wait for more opinions. I'll drop a note on the milhist talkpage so we can get a wider spread of viewpoints. EyeSerenetalk 08:37, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with EyeSerene and Ranger Steve, spaces instead of dashes would be preferable for the reasons already mentioned. Hohum (talk) 19:52, 15 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Note, Panzer-Lehr-Division is neither a honorific nor a name, it's a type (another example would be the ephemeral Grenadier-Lehr-Division). That is to say Lehr was a unique formation without name or number.--Caranorn (talk) 17:11, 16 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi all, sorry about the wait ive been having a bit of a semi-break. Am not to fussed over which variant is used; Panzer Lehr or Panzer-Lehr as long as it is not the a-historical Panzerlehr. However i do feel that we have to go with the guidelines and the most common English form of the word appears to be Panzer Lehr.--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:07, 20 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move[edit]

The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved Ranger Steve (talk) 19:52, 12 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Panzer-Lehr-Division → Panzer Lehr Division — As per the reasons above. I imagine this is a fairly uncontroversial move, but as per the instructions at WP:RM this is the correct way to go about changing it. Ranger Steve (talk) 15:39, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Survey[edit]

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.
  • Support as per nom and wiki naming conventionsRanger Steve (talk) 15:40, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per all of the above--EnigmaMcmxc (talk) 17:43, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per normal English common naming procedure. Hohum (talk) 20:21, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Aye EyeSerenetalk 21:37, 5 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suppport what a weird way to write it, why was it placed with multiple dashes in the first place? 76.66.197.17 (talk) 04:23, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neutral The move from Panzerlehrdivision to Panzer-Lehr-Division was done by me, as Panzer-Lehr-Division (with multiple dashes) is the factual name in German - as for the current move request I am neutral as both Panzer-Lehr-Division and Panzer Lehr Division are fine with me. --noclador (talk) 04:59, 6 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Panzer Lehr Division[edit]

The operation was not called Wacht Am Rhein. Wacht Am Rhein is a cover name for the build up portion of the operation designed to disguise the purpose of the German build up. The actual name of the execution portion of the offensive was Herbstnebel (roughly translated Autumn Mist).

Re: discussion on German words. Is it Wikipedia's focus to be a 6th grader's research tool? If not, then let the German words stand and provide translation as a courtesy. Serious non-professional, researchers encounter rafts of German words and often encounter exact quotes from the participants in their original deutsch (German). Some of us bother to learn some deutsch. Also, many of those words and phrases (e.g. Blitzkrieg) are not English, yet are common knowledge. Please don't dumb down the article to the lowest common denominator.

Panzerlehrdivision? I've never seen it written this way in my forty some years of interest. Why wasn't this suggestion ignored out of hand and so much time spent documenting the obvious? If I change the word, THE to TEH in an edit. Does everyone then have to go consult fifty different dictionaries to change it back?

Papa greystoke (talk) 01:02, 19 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Graf Strachwitz?[edit]

In a few minutes of research I could not find any reference other than the English and German Wikipedia articles on the Panzer Lehr Division themselves that mentions Graf Strachwitz ever having commanded Panzer Lehr. Neither of the articles on Strachwitz or Bayerlein make any mention of Bayerlein having relinquished his command on 7 or 8 June 1944 (a day after D-day!). Samuel W. Mitcham, "The Panzer Legions: A Guide to the German Army Tank Divisions of World War II" has Bayerlein commanding from 10 Feb 1944 to 5 Jan 1945, with Gerhardt and von Hauser as Acting Commanders from 23 Aug to 8 Sep (supposedly even Knight's Cross holders needed a break every now and then!). Mitcham hedges his account with the weasel words "Commanders included ...", but seems in line with any other source I could find on the German and English speaking web,

I am not going to edit the main article, but could someone please look into this.

81.179.10.85 (talk) 11:16, 4 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Panzer Lehr Division. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:32, 31 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Panzer_Lehr_Division&oldid=1204518723"