Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Panzer I

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history‎ | Assessment
The following discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Panzer I

edit
Previous nomination: Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Panzer I/archive 1.

Closed: promoted, --ROGER DAVIES talk 02:02, 7 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm reopening the review since I've finally been discharged from the Army and I have renewed free time (until I can look for a job :) ). JonCatalán (talk) 23:56, 1 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. Overall it seems fine, just three issues: The lead only has three citations. You should put some more in. Also, in the infobox, it says in service to 1941, but you also say that Spain used them into the '50s, so that should be noted in the infobox. Finally, there's one paragraph in Poland and the campaign in the West that is almost entirely italics, is this intentional? Fix those and it will absolutely qualify. Borg Sphere (talk) 15:31, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for catching those things! Everything should be fixed, except the citations in the lead. AFAIK, leads should have the least citations as possible, as everything in the lead should also be in the main body of text. In fact, I took out two of the three citations of the lead, since the first citation is not really restated in the main body. JonCatalán (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment At first glance I noticed that page ranges in references should have en dashes instead of hyphens. Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 16:16, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for reminding me. There are a few things I have to do which I would have to do before putting it through FAC, including the en dashes. I'll get to that now. JonCatalán (talk) 16:34, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment. Overall good article, but as my nickname suggests I'll be a little pedantic. :)
    • Why is the word Panzer written in italics and the index isn't ? It may be ok, but looks weird to me...
    • The lead section says the armament consisted "of only two heavy machine guns". I'm not sure MG-13 (7.92 mm, about 13 kg) is heavy machine gun.
    • The paragraph starting with "Despite the limitations imposed upon Germany by the Treaty of Versailles..." is not clear enough IMHO. The treaty prohibited many things, including development of tanks, but the first sentence almost creates an impression that it prohibited organization of think tanks dedicated to study of WWI :). What was the real influence of this group and their effect on tank development ? What body encouraged the German industry to develop tanks ? What did the cooperation with USSR contribute to German tank development ?
    • AFAIK early prototypes of Pz I were referred to as Kleintraktor. In this case, the name should be mentioned.
    • Some sources (e.g. [1]) mention Ausf D (VK 602) - apparently an upgrade of Ausf C (VK 601).
    • To be continued... Bukvoed (talk)
Here are responses one by one. Thanks!
  1. That is a good question. I didn't do that edit - yesterday another editor decided to italicize Panzer, but not the index. I don't even know if Panzer should be italicized. According to the Manual of Style, only foreign words which are not used in everyday non-specialized English should be used. Panzer is more or less well known, although it is specialized English - nevertheless, panzer replaces tank in most English literature when it comes to German armor. So, in my opinion, italicizing anything to do with Panzer is questionable, in the first place. What do you think?
  2. Another good question, and something I was wondering myself. I'm not sure if that was me, or if that was another editor. I will remove heavy.
  3. I changed the sentence to - Despite the manpower and technical limitations imposed upon the German Army by the Treaty of Versailles, several Reichswehr officers were able to establish a clandestine General Staff dedicated to the study of the First World War with the purpose of developing future strategies and tactics. Although at first the concept of the tank as a mobile weapon of war met with apathy, German industry was silently encouraged to look into tank design, while quiet cooperation was undertaken with the Soviet Union. I'll have to research to see if specific information is available for development between the USSR and Germany, although I don't think it is within the scope of the article - it's just general background information, not leading into an article on Soviet-German cooperation in the development of tanks.
  4. I will have to look that up. Thanks!
  5. Thanks! I'll have to see if I can find it in any book source, because unfortunately that site is not considered reliable by Wikipedia standards.
Thanks! JonCatalán (talk) 18:00, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The word “panzer” is naturalized in English, and isn't normally italicized, although German words like Panzerkampfwagen are. See also Wikipedia:Naming conventions (military units)#Type designations. Furthermore, a proper name like “Panzer I” should be capitalized and not italicized, even if it is a foreign term. —Michael Z. 2008-08-04 20:19 z
Also, “Panzer I Ausf. A” etc., should be treated as model names and not italicized. The word Ausfuhrung or its abbreviation Ausf. shouldn't be used as words on their own. If we consider it to be a common foreign term used in English, and therefore subject to being italicized, it would be better to translate it as “model” than to use a German word so many times in the article.
“Panzer Is” looks like a model name, and should be pluralized “Panzer I’s,” just like “mind your P’s and Q’s.” But this should be used sparingly: better to leave it singular or write “Panzer I tanks.” —Michael Z. 2008-08-04 23:23 z
3 Concerning German-Soviet cooperation, it is known that Soviets agreed to let Germans to test their armored vehicles in the USSR; both Grosstraktor and Leichttractor underwent trials in the USSR in 1929-30. Also, Soviets allowed Germans to operate a training facility for armored corps officers. Whether it is relevant enough to include in the article, I am not sure. I don't know if there was any direct technological cooperation of Soviets to the German tank development; I guess in late 1920s - early 1930s Soviets didn't have that much to contribute in this area. Bukvoed (talk) 08:20, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
4 I took a look at the article in ruWiki ( [2] ) and the Kleintractor is mentioned there. While you probably don't read Russian, perhaps the refs from that article can be helpful. In this case, the information came from T. L. Jentz Panzerkampfwagen I Kleintraktor to Ausf.B. — Boyds, MD: Panzer Tracts, 2002. (Panzer Tracts № 1-1) ISBN 0-97084-076-4. The article says the development of the Kleintractor was initiated by Reichswehr in 1930 and entrusted to Krupp, and only in 1933 was the La S designation introduced.
5 Ausf D is also briefly mentioned in ruWiki, as re-engined Ausf C, the source is not clear. Bukvoed (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
3 I think leaving it as it is is fine, or red-linking to a topic called Soviet-German Interwar Cooperation or something like that. The articles is not really on cooperation between the two countries, or the Grosstraktor or the Leichttraktor, or on Soviet cooperation with the Germans over armor technology. It just leads to how the Germans began the development of the Panzer I - this article is already at 40kB, regardless.
4 Unfortunately, I don't own that book. I find it strange that none of my sources mention that, and Jentz is a very reputable source. But since I don't own the book, I'm a little wary of adding that information in - I'm not sure it was a misinterpretation by the Russian editor who worked on the Russian Panzer I article (I'm not saying this is true, just saying that this is a possibility). In fact, from what you give above it says that the Kleintraktor came before even the LaS and the LAK, which may be a reason why my sources don't mention it - they attribute those as the direct ancestors of the Panzer I.
5 Like I said above, I believe that it existed, but I don't have a verifiable source to prove it.
JonCatalán (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, I didn't mean you should blindly transfer information from ruWiki, just that it may be worth checking. Bukvoed (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I changed them all to Panzerkampfwagen. JonCatalán (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment More remarks:
  • The article in ruWiki explicitly claims the following about tha LKA: LKA was for a long time erroneously considered a prototype of Pz I developed in early 1930s; in fact was developed by Krupp from May 1936 as a version of Pz I intended for export. A single prototype was built in 1937. The article also says LKA was short for Leichte Kampfwagen Ausland.
  • The same article also mentions LKB, an export version of Pz I Ausf B. Three prototypes were built in 1937-38. According to refs, the information on LKA and LKB came from T. L. Jentz Panzerkampfwagen I Kl.Pz.Bef.Wg. to VK 18.01. — Boyds, MD: Panzer Tracts, 2002. (Panzer Tracts № 1-2) ISBN 0-97084-078-0. I wonder what LKB can stand for.
  • The same article also mentions Grusonwerk as one more manufacturer of Pz I (Jentz Panzer Tracts 1-1 again).
  • The same article also mentions training vehicles on Pz IB chassis called Schulfahrzeuge (mild steel, without superstructure, 295 produced in 1936-37) and Umsetz-Fahrzeuge (at least partially armored, with an option to convert to tanks by addition of superstructure with turret, 147 built in 1937-38) (Jentz 1-2).
  • The article also lists Croatia (4 Pz IA, according to Panzer I. История создания и применения. — Москва: Восточный фронт, 1996 (Историко-техническая серия № 17)) and USSR (a small number of captured vehicles, according to Koschavtsev, Knyazev (А. Кощавцев, М. Князев - Лёгкий танк Panzer I - Москва: Моделист-конструктор, 2000. (Бронеколлекция № 2 (29) / 2000))) as operators. Bukvoed (talk) 09:31, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This may be true, but none of my sources agree. My sources agree that it wasn't a prototype of the Panzer I per sé, but a further development of it (LKA 1) indeed was. Because I understand what my sources say, and I'm not sure if that statement is sourced on the Russian Wiki, I rather rely on what I know is reliable (Bryan Perrett aside, since he's not the source). Actually, it's interesting - I believe we are referring to two different vehicles - Landswerk Krupp A (prototype) and the Leichte Kampfwagen Ausland or the L.K.A., which was developed for export.
  2. That's what this article says, as well - Between 1935 and 1936, an export version of the Panzer I Ausf. B, named the L.K.B. (Leichte Kampfwagen B), was designed for export to Bulgaria. The modifications included up-gunning to a 20mm gun and fitting a Krupp M 311 V-8 gasoline engine. Although three examples were built, none were exported to Bulgaria...
  3. This article doesn't really state any specific manufacturers, apart from those responsible for early prototypes.
  4. That is probably relevant to the subtopic on Panzer I variants - Panzer I variants.
  5. If you can understand the source, could you add that in? Since I can't read Russian and I don't know specifics I don't like to add facts like that in.
JonCatalán (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
5 I have the book by Koschavtsev&Knyazev "buried" somewhere, I'll try to check what exactly it says on this and perhaps other topics. Bukvoed (talk) 07:31, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks - the article is correct, given the caliber of the gun. JonCatalán (talk) 05:38, 6 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.luquay.com/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Panzer_I&oldid=1138359963"