This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Panzer 38(t) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Conflict here. This should be standarized with LT-35. Either they both go by their German name, or both by their original name. I vote for the German name since that's the only one they saw service under. Oberiko 00:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If one is the driver and the other radio-operator and bow gunner, then between the commander and the gunner one must double as a loader. My guess is the gunner must double as the loader--anyone know the answer?
-Chin, Cheng-chuan
As it does not accuratly represent the typical Panzer 38(t), I'm replacing the image of the Swiss tank with an older photograph of an actual German model. ( USMA2010 06:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
Is the image really a 38(t) s type? That's used by the ghost division in WW2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.11.132 ( talk) 18:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I restored the reference in the text to the "Hetzer" as at least a parenthetic to the proper name Jagdpanzer 38(t). I am not suggesting that the name 'Hetzer' is more correct than jagdpanzer 38(t) or that it was an official name. But it's listed as 'Hetzer" in the wikipedia article on that vehicle. If the term "Hetzer" is purely a postwar research error, I suggest the text here should contain the term as a common name with the explanation on the hetzer page. If it was a commonly-used, even if unofficial, name during WW2 then I suggest the text stays as it is. But omitting it entirely seems unhelpful. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 18:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have added a direct verifiable quote from Panzer Ace Otto Carius, who commanded Panzer 38(t). Purpose of such quote is to show that the quality of Czech steel used on 38(t) was brittle and inelastic, in the views of one tank commander, who actually fought in it in 1941.
Otto Carius stated that his tank was hit by Russian 47mm gun. Which is disputed. I have not heard of Russian 47mm AT gun either. However, that's what the man who destroyed over 150 tanks, mostly Russian, wrote on PP.7-8 "Tigers in the Mud," Otto Carius, Stackpole Books, 2003. Perhaps Otto Carius was mistaken. Perhaps the translator misread it from 76.2mm. But the point is not what caliber round the Russians used to penetrate his tank that day. The point is about the quality of steel used on 38(t), since this topic is about Panzer 38(t).
Point well taken. Thank you for fixing the citation. People get used to long-winded sentences after JD. What's worse is that one gets comfortable in them; sometimes even leaving out a verb after half a page long sentence. I need all the help I can get.
About the absence of 47mm gun you had pointed out-which was an excellent point that got my attention-, I wonder if Otto Carius meant to write 45-mm anti-tank gun model 1937 (53-K) (Russian: 45-мм противотанковая пушка образца 1937 года (53-К))created by Soviet artillery designer M.N. Loginov? The total number of guns produced was 37,354 pieces until 1943. Enough of these 45mm guns were around, German tankers would have been familiar with damages these 45mm guns could produce. They were based on the design Russians bought from Rheinmetall, which built German 37mm "door knockers," but with increased caliber. The numbers in "Model 1937, 45mm gun based on 37mm gun" may have been confusing enough to produce erroneous conclusion of the offending gun being "47mm." Otto Carius does not site how he came to know that it was 47mm. It's just a thought; the most plausible conjecture I can think of, to explain the historical mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.11.103 ( talk • contribs)
/BP 78.70.77.35 ( talk) 04:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"We cursed the brittle and inelastic Czech steel that gave the Russian 47mm AT gun so little trouble. The pieces of our own armor plating and assembly bolts caused considerably more damage than the shrapnel of the round itself."
To finalize this discussion, another passage by Carius regarding the Pz IV, V and VI: "Again and again, we admired the quality of the steel on our tanks. It was hard without being brittle. Despite its hardness, it was also elastic. If an AT round didn't hit the armour dead on, it slid off on its side and left behind a gouge as if you had run your finger over a soft piece of butter." BP OMowe ( talk) 02:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Argentina did consider purchasing this tank, however the transaction didn't go ahead, I think due to the annexation of Czechoslovakia by Germany. The book by Sigal Fogliani (in Spanish) explains this, however I can't find my copy in the storage... Will keep researching on this topic to add a paragraph properly referenced. Regards, DPdH ( talk) 17:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Under the pic on the left side it states the 38(t) was a medium tank. This is a light tank. I verified this here: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/Panzer-38T.php
And for your german modification to 38t - it was realy "heavy" modification - they just tranlated all user manuals to german, puted german radio and intercom inside and maked it 4 man crew not 3 (and removing some ammo due to added crew). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:9936:75E5:7FAF:344A ( talk) 11:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Panzer 38(t) article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Conflict here. This should be standarized with LT-35. Either they both go by their German name, or both by their original name. I vote for the German name since that's the only one they saw service under. Oberiko 00:43, 3 Jun 2004 (UTC)
If one is the driver and the other radio-operator and bow gunner, then between the commander and the gunner one must double as a loader. My guess is the gunner must double as the loader--anyone know the answer?
-Chin, Cheng-chuan
As it does not accuratly represent the typical Panzer 38(t), I'm replacing the image of the Swiss tank with an older photograph of an actual German model. ( USMA2010 06:38, 22 August 2006 (UTC))
Is the image really a 38(t) s type? That's used by the ghost division in WW2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.116.11.132 ( talk) 18:45, 10 July 2019 (UTC)
I restored the reference in the text to the "Hetzer" as at least a parenthetic to the proper name Jagdpanzer 38(t). I am not suggesting that the name 'Hetzer' is more correct than jagdpanzer 38(t) or that it was an official name. But it's listed as 'Hetzer" in the wikipedia article on that vehicle. If the term "Hetzer" is purely a postwar research error, I suggest the text here should contain the term as a common name with the explanation on the hetzer page. If it was a commonly-used, even if unofficial, name during WW2 then I suggest the text stays as it is. But omitting it entirely seems unhelpful. Regards, DMorpheus ( talk) 18:00, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have added a direct verifiable quote from Panzer Ace Otto Carius, who commanded Panzer 38(t). Purpose of such quote is to show that the quality of Czech steel used on 38(t) was brittle and inelastic, in the views of one tank commander, who actually fought in it in 1941.
Otto Carius stated that his tank was hit by Russian 47mm gun. Which is disputed. I have not heard of Russian 47mm AT gun either. However, that's what the man who destroyed over 150 tanks, mostly Russian, wrote on PP.7-8 "Tigers in the Mud," Otto Carius, Stackpole Books, 2003. Perhaps Otto Carius was mistaken. Perhaps the translator misread it from 76.2mm. But the point is not what caliber round the Russians used to penetrate his tank that day. The point is about the quality of steel used on 38(t), since this topic is about Panzer 38(t).
Point well taken. Thank you for fixing the citation. People get used to long-winded sentences after JD. What's worse is that one gets comfortable in them; sometimes even leaving out a verb after half a page long sentence. I need all the help I can get.
About the absence of 47mm gun you had pointed out-which was an excellent point that got my attention-, I wonder if Otto Carius meant to write 45-mm anti-tank gun model 1937 (53-K) (Russian: 45-мм противотанковая пушка образца 1937 года (53-К))created by Soviet artillery designer M.N. Loginov? The total number of guns produced was 37,354 pieces until 1943. Enough of these 45mm guns were around, German tankers would have been familiar with damages these 45mm guns could produce. They were based on the design Russians bought from Rheinmetall, which built German 37mm "door knockers," but with increased caliber. The numbers in "Model 1937, 45mm gun based on 37mm gun" may have been confusing enough to produce erroneous conclusion of the offending gun being "47mm." Otto Carius does not site how he came to know that it was 47mm. It's just a thought; the most plausible conjecture I can think of, to explain the historical mystery. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.2.11.103 ( talk • contribs)
/BP 78.70.77.35 ( talk) 04:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
"We cursed the brittle and inelastic Czech steel that gave the Russian 47mm AT gun so little trouble. The pieces of our own armor plating and assembly bolts caused considerably more damage than the shrapnel of the round itself."
To finalize this discussion, another passage by Carius regarding the Pz IV, V and VI: "Again and again, we admired the quality of the steel on our tanks. It was hard without being brittle. Despite its hardness, it was also elastic. If an AT round didn't hit the armour dead on, it slid off on its side and left behind a gouge as if you had run your finger over a soft piece of butter." BP OMowe ( talk) 02:34, 21 April 2013 (UTC)
Argentina did consider purchasing this tank, however the transaction didn't go ahead, I think due to the annexation of Czechoslovakia by Germany. The book by Sigal Fogliani (in Spanish) explains this, however I can't find my copy in the storage... Will keep researching on this topic to add a paragraph properly referenced. Regards, DPdH ( talk) 17:54, 24 April 2014 (UTC)
Under the pic on the left side it states the 38(t) was a medium tank. This is a light tank. I verified this here: http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/nazi_germany/Panzer-38T.php
And for your german modification to 38t - it was realy "heavy" modification - they just tranlated all user manuals to german, puted german radio and intercom inside and maked it 4 man crew not 3 (and removing some ammo due to added crew). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:9936:75E5:7FAF:344A ( talk) 11:51, 22 February 2015 (UTC)