Talk:Panzer 38(t)

message: 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)
replies: text: Also, the German names are more commonly used in English-language publications. -- Cabalamat 11:23, 9 Jun 2004 (UTC)
replies: text:  Minor point here. The German name is by far the best known, but they saw service under other names, e.g. in Romanian service. DMorpheus 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

text:  Not to reopen this, but the tank also saw combat service in the 1941 Peru-Ecuador War, where the German name was not used. Unlike the Romanians, Slovaks and other East European armies, the Peruvians were not German allies or influenced by the Germans (the Peruvian doctrine was developed by the French military mission in Peru in the 1930s). But I agree it's a minor point, I seldom see the tank mentioned as anything but Pzkw 38(t).Darkstar8799 (talk) 19:11, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

text: while it is true for lt vz 38 that it served only under germany and thier designation (unless you count sold of few 38 sold later to romania) lt-35 did was know many other designation and it served under original owner too - czechoslovakian army, not counting tanks sold to otehr nation pre-war. So most corretc way for lt-35 will be if you were speaking about gerrman army to use german name, using it to descibe whole desing as it was mostly know under it is posible, but not correct. romanian designation was r-2, peru did have own too. If you dont know desigantion of non-german user, i think most corect will be to use lt-35 :).  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:1028:9198:E50E:9936:75E5:7FAF:344A (talk) 11:40, 22 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article name 

message: 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
::: Based only on the exterior turret layout, it appears the tank commander was also the gunner. The machinegun was belt-fed and is on the opposite side as the commander's cupola, so the loader had to be on that side. The gunner's sight is on the same side as the commander. At least that's how it looks to me. DMorpheus 14:49, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gunner-Loader? 

message: 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)
replies: text:  Good edit, thanks DMorpheus 15:49, 22 August 2006 (UTC)

text: Not that good as the image is missing source and copyright holder. --Denniss 17:15, 22 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Picture

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Hetzer" or Jagdpanzer 38(t) 

message: 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).
::: The point is not your content but the fact that it was uncited. It was therefore removed in accordance with wikipedia policy (WP:Verify and WP:RS for starters). You put it back improperly cited. I have fixed it for you. If you are a native speaker of english I ask that you please take care with your grammar also. Thanks. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 15:25, 31 March 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The point is that Carius (his idelogical bias set aside) was no expert on weapons, neither an expert on metallurgic properties of steel. Most probably, mere 25 millimitres of any WWII steel would give way to a Soviet 45mm AT gun projectile at close range, "too brittle" or not. Anyway, the alleged brittleness of steel should be supported by a more reliable source - most sources give for the phasing out of the Pz 38(t) after 1941 just the obvious reasons - thin armour of the vehicle, impossibility of weapons upgrade.--87.249.145.69 (talk) 15:02, 15 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The issue Carius describes with the armour isn't that the shot penetrates (which would be expected), but rather the effect known today as spalling, whereas a softer and more malleable armour would not send such an amount of splitters.
/BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 04:00, 3 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you really think so? --87.249.145.69 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you for finding the exact quote. /BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 15:58, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome. Then we can proceed to the preceding statement of the old dyed-in-the-wool unrepentant Nazi: "[brittle and unelastic Czech steel] that gave the Russian 47mm AT gun so little trouble." Do you really think it's realistic to assume that any 25 mm of steel of the era would give more trouble to the 45 mm Soviet Anti-Tank gun, without ripping off quite substantial chunk of plate, outside of the world of Carius' metallurgico-racial phantasies?--87.249.145.69 (talk) 18:05, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we talking about Carius' political (de)merits or his professional evaluations here? It is quite realistic to expect a difference between different materials. For instance, a surface hardened plate would not spray the interior with sharp splinters on a non-penetrating hit while a hard and brittle plate very well could do so and thus the first plate would provide better protection even if both are easily penetrated by a 0° (|<---) hit. It would also make it harder for a AT-round to knock the tank out if it can only rely on it's own splinter to damage the interior. Finally a more elastic plate will also lessen the shockwave impact on the seems where the various plates are joined (which was part of the reason the Italian riveted armour simply fell apart on impact). (BP 78.70.77.35 (talk) 11:01, 22 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Brittle Armor against non-existing 47mm gun 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Argentina considered this tank