Talk:Panzer 35(t)

message: There is NO way this tank moved 190 km/h off-road. Might the figure be missing a decimal point?
Yes - also, from everything I've read over the last 30 years, the crew for this vehicle was 4 not 5. The accompanying text supports this - Unsigned comment by User:Chrisboote
::Yup. Commander, loader, driver-MG operator and radio operator. And the 190 figure refers to range, not speed. 120 off-road and 190km on paved road. Halibutt 13:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Comment by [[User:Chrisboote|Chrisboote]]

message: The article says the turret MG was a coax - wasn't it in a separate ball-mount, like the 38(t) and the Soviet T-28? "Coax" means it is aimed with the main gun, and I am not sure that's the case. DMorpheus 19:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea.  WWII Vehicles has one source that says coax, and four sources that say nothing.  The gun in :Image:Panzer 35(t) 1.jpg looks like coax, but it's not clear. --Carnildo 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Found the source of confusion - it was both. The MG had its own ball mount so it could be aimed and fired independent of the main gun - but they could also be coupled. DMorpheus 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Machinegun - Coax or Ball Mount? 

message: Was the radio operator in the hull with the radio, or in the turret as the article says? DMorpheus 19:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: WWII Vehicles says the radio operator doubled as the loader, so presumably he was in the turret. --Carnildo 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  But the radio and antenna are in the hull. Normal practice for most European designs (with the exception of the British) was to put the radio and operator in the hull. DMorpheus 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The radio operator sat in the hull, to the left of the driver. See: Spielberger, Walter, 1980, Die Panzer-Kampfwagen 35(t) und 38(t) und ihre Abarten einschließlich der tschoslowakischen Heeresmotorisierung 1920-1945, Motorbuch Verlag Stuttgart--MWAK 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Radio Operator

message: while i appreciate that Panzerkampfwagen 35(t) was the full German title of this vehicle it does not automatically follow that that should be the article title. Panzer 35(t) seems to be a very common name for it in English language sources. Before moving can we get some other opinions on the article name first. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that this is a difference in approach to German names as many English-speakers adopt short names like Panzer X rather than spell out the full, cumbersome German name, or even its slightly less cumbersome abbreviation like Pz.Kpfw. X. But note that the major histories of German tanks spell everything out in full so these aren't exactly unfamiliar to people. My preference is to use the proper German name with redirects from the likely variants. That way I don't have to waste time explaining how the short form arose. I dislike Panzer X because it's a post-war name. Wartime names were usually, following the British practice, to use Mark X. And I bet that more people are familiar with that name than Panzer X, but I have no proof and there's no way to get it. I bet nobody is going to know that we're having this discussion so you might want to elevate it up to either the AFV task force or the MilHist project for further discussion. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page move 

message: I've deleted the citation request on armor penetration as it's covered in the citation several sentences later. But I will have to rewrite the sentence later to clarify it better. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: You could just repeat the appropriate citation at the earlier point... On a not unrelated note, I think perhaps I could move the parenthical statement about the "t" in 35(t) out of the leading sentences to a different point in the article - either a proper note or as a later sentence in the intro. There both translations/explanations of the Czech and German designations could be explained. Paraphrasing heavily - they work out roughly as "Light tank 1935 model" and "1935 Tank (Czechoslavakian)" don't they? Do you think that idea has mileage? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: If you think it will read better, feel free to give it a try. I was thinking about deleting the list of designations as most of them are covered in the body of the text. What do you think? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: citation request deleted