Talk:Panther tank

message: The note here as well as the note on the IS-2 page suggest some error on Zaloga's side when mentioning the distances. I see there's a citation needed tag there since last year. I found Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen (but the info about the IS-2 is at page 30 not 34), but I can't find the 1944 Pz.-Beschußtafeln anywhere to confirm. I think there's a certain misunderstanding in here somewhere, since the IS-2 1943 had 120mm @30° on the driver's plate, and the KwK 40 is noted on its own page to punch through around that at 500m, so Zaloga's claim is plausible. Unless we can produce the Pz.-Beschußtafeln mentioned in Nachrichtenblatt der Panzertruppen to determine the exact context of what is written there, I think we can chalk this one up to a misunderstanding and remove the note. Thoughts? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 16:00, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, seeing how nobody seems to disagree or care, I'll go ahead and update the post. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 20:07, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Comparisons of the Panther vs IS2 is uninteresting from an armor point of view. Neither had problems penetrating one another at traditional ranges. The IS2 had protection issues against the Panther, which is one of the reasons the Soviets rescaped the upper frontal hull in 1944.--Blockhaj (talk) 23:44, 15 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unfavorable comparison to IS-2 

message: The article states that the tank was influenced by the sloped armour of the T34 which it is alleged provided superior protection.
This is simply untrue: The mass of a plate and the thickness of it (in a given orientation) covering a given area is unaffected by it's slope. 
In other words it's true that if you angle a plate to some orientation, it becomes thicker, but you will need more plate to cover the same area, ending up with the exact same weight-to-thickness ratio.
Now an angle might help deflect a shell, but that effect is insignificant for high velocity shells (they melt/'dig in' at any angle) which were the dominant AT weapons of the time.
(Think why an Leopard II a4 got straight plates at it's frontal turret) ~~.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:7660:289A:0:319B:6167:915F:9FA2 (talk) 22:18, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read Sloped Armor DynCoder (talk) 22:20, 19 May 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The article reproduces a common error 

message: In my opinion, the segmented look that this article's intro has doesn't look too good and also doesn't really have any flow to it. For example, here is the start of the intro
The Panther tank, officially Panzerkampfwagen V Panther (abbreviated PzKpfw V) with ordnance inventory designation: Sd.Kfz. 171, is a German medium tank of World War II. It was used on the Eastern and Western Fronts from mid-1943 to the end of the war in May 1945.
On 27 February 1944 it was redesignated to just PzKpfw Panther, as Hitler ordered that the Roman numeral "V" be deleted.[citation needed] In contemporary English-language reports it is sometimes referred to as the "Mark V".
I propose we get rid of the spaces and male it look like this  (with an edit or 2 to help flow and readability)
The Panther tank, officially Panzerkampfwagen V Panther (abbreviated PzKpfw V) with ordnance inventory designation: Sd.Kfz. 171, is a German World War II Medium Tank that was used on the Eastern and Western Fronts from mid-1943 to the end of the war in May 1945. On 27 February 1944, it was redesignated to  PzKpfw Panther, as Hitler ordered that the Roman numeral "V" be deleted.[citation needed] In contemporary English-language reports it is sometimes referred to as the "Mark V"
In my (relatively uninformed and wildly amateur historian mind) this looks and reads better  Redrhuadri (talk) 10:50, 27 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to make the intro less segmented?