Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Oberiko (talk | contribs) at 20:40, 4 April 2005 (→Third opinion: - Vote). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

I think vehicles that were never actually built but designed is fine so long as they are under the Experimental heading. Oberiko 10:46, 30 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Foriegn vehicles (debate in 2/05)

Almost every AFV produced by other nations has a German name and probably some mild instances of use after being captured. Only those vehicles which were used extensively should be listed here. Oberiko 14:29, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• Yes that is true there were a lot, which is why I only listed a couple of the more well known ones there in addition to the 35/38. The idea that only extensively used afv's should be listed is exceedinlg contradictory as many of the non-experimental ones on the list had fewer then a 100 produced and saw only limted action, less then many captured vehicles.
• The three Nzbf's you mention were only the three that saw action in Norway and used for propoganda, there were some other earlier prototpyes that existed of that general class. They were not really the typical prototype's since they saw action, but I will agree they probably shouldn't go alongside the major tanks since it was so limited.
• Right now the template is a mix of high and low production vehicles of widely varying degree's of use. Depending on what threshold of use should be used it is either very incomplete or has many uneeded vehicles.
• I am going to try and make some more changes, though I will leave some things. Starfury 05:49, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

The primary difference between the Panzer 35/38(t) and the T-74 & S-35 is that the Germans actively produced Panzer 35/38's after capturing Czechoslavkia. The other examples mentioned were simply models that they captured and pressed into use. I have seen no record of their producing further examples on their own initiative and for that reason do not believe they should be listed here. Oberiko 12:59, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

• That is a good seperation to point out, though, in this case I think relative use is a important criteria as well. Really I am not so concerned which section the 35/38 go, but for inclusion of the more heavily used foreign vehicles. To me the difference between capturing a vehicle, and capturing a factory is not so critical as amount of use in total. For example, there are some vehicles whose amount captured was greater then amount captured and produced of say, the 35.
• This is espcially true for german armed forces where captured vehicles formed a integral part of many fighting forces, and of relative number. In the case of the t-34 versions for example, it wasn't just a matter of being thrown into use, but of a whole network of support, supply and re-fitting for upwards of several hundred tanks.
• I do understand your point there, and I have seen tank websites handle it in a number of ways. Ultimately, it can be considered in different ways due the complicated nature of its adoption. My thinking here had been to sidestep the issue and try and focus on use, rather then on this usually complicated nature of adoption. Starfury 21:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Debate in 4/05

I'm going to remove the foreign section, I don't want to have it for every nation (asides from MAYBE the UK since they were leased a very large number). I think it should be restricted to production only. Oberiko 14:19, 29 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Im going to put it back, as the reasons I said still stand. The template needs to recognize the heavy use of these tanks. Starfury 00:40, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Do you plan on categorizing the T-34 and S-35 as German tanks on their pages as well? If you must have them, why not simply restrict to the List of German AFVs with a seperate heading?

Additionally, being that is you that wants to make a change, I think the burden of proof should be yours to the inclusion of the foreign vehicles or not. I have posted at Misplaced Pages:WikiProject Military for arbitration in the matter. I suggest we await their intervention. Oberiko 06:14, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The tanks have been listed that way for quite some time now, it is you who want to change it. If you want it the other way I suggest you actually raise some points to contrary of my earlier ones, rather then running off to some group to force your way with some made up regulations.

The "burden of proof" as you say is in history, in the hundreds of vehicles that were used, modified, and eqipped with these tanks. If the template is to accurately give an account of the vehicles, then it makes sense to include them.

I apologize if I sound harsh here, but I thought the matter was settled after our last discussion. if your just going to keep changing it back after a few months when Im not around, then by all means then I will not pursue this any further. However, I would much prefer that you be convinced of the importance of having the these tanks listed. Starfury 20:52, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)

It was originally without the foriegn vehicles, and you who wanted to change it to include; a move I have oppossed since the start. I have raised points contrary and supplied counter points for yours that are at least as valid. A quick example would be the hundreds of other French tanks that were taken whe France surrendered; will you include ALL of them as well? Again, I ask that you do not revert to include these until arbitration by a neutral party has been aquired. Oberiko 10:07, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Hardly, its been this way for nearly two months now. You only made 2 comments, both which both of were refuted, and have now much later snuck back and decided to revert the page.

You already pointed out about how there was 'other' captured tanks- to which I already replied earlier Yes that is true there were a lot, which is why I only listed a couple of the more well known ones there in addition to the 35/38. Which I eloborated on later This is espcially true for german armed forces where captured vehicles formed a integral part of many fighting forces, and of relative number. In the case of the t-34 versions for example, it wasn't just a matter of being thrown into use, but of a whole network of support, supply and re-fitting for upwards of several hundred tanks.

I ask you that leave the page alone, or at least actually try and make a valid point about this, which so far you have not. Again, this is somewhat rude thing to say, but so is going back 2 months after a argument and reverting it. Starfury 18:23, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The time was because I hadn't checked this page in awhile, after I made the last arguement against including non-produced vehicles. None of my arguments have been successfully refuted: it's simply your :

• Relatively high use

vs my

• Never actively produced
• Vehicle not categorizied (by virtually anyone) as a German AFV

Mine are quite clear distinctions where as yours is some ambigiously defined number of vehicles. Is it 10 vehicles? 100? 1000? Does it matter where and how they served?

I will not simply leave this page, I argued against the change when it was first made and have been reverting when I could. Since you made the initial debated change. Oberiko 18:38, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Reverted when you could? You made 2 points, which i thourghly replied to and left it for two months.

I already responded to your points about your proposed seperation, which you raised the first time:

*That is a good seperation to point out, though, in this case I think relative use is a important criteria as well. Really I am not so concerned which section the 35/38 go, but for inclusion of the more heavily used foreign vehicles. To me the difference between capturing a vehicle, and capturing a factory is not so critical as amount of use in total. For example, there are some vehicles whose amount captured was greater then amount captured and produced of say, the 35.

*This is espcially true for german armed forces where captured vehicles formed a integral part of many fighting forces, and of relative number. In the case of the t-34 versions for example, it wasn't just a matter of being thrown into use, but of a whole network of support, supply and re-fitting for upwards of several hundred tanks.

I do understand your point there, and I have seen tank websites handle it in a number of ways. Ultimately, it can be considered in different ways due the complicated nature of its adoption. My thinking here had been to sidestep the issue and try and focus on use, rather then on this usually complicated nature of adoption. Starfury 21:26, 13 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Your points re-hash

• "Relatively high use"- this is a oversimiplification.

vs.

• "Never actively produced" -I have already pointed out this is a a equally unclear distintion, and less important because it does not correlate to use.
• "Vehicle not categorizied (by virtually anyone) as a German AFV" -they are cleary marked as foreign, not german.

If your just going to come back in other few months and revert again, disregarding previous discussion then by all means, have your way. Otherwise I think you need to stop draggin up your orginal points-which have arleady been refuted and let this one go. Starfury 18:53, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps it is an oversimplification. That's why I asked for hard figures. What numerical value and other criteria seperate the captured vehicles from making it here or not? Which source are you using to come up with it?

There is nothing unclear about never actively produced. If the Germans ordered the vehicle, and had the means to create it, then it's produced. If they didn't then it's not. Simple.

I aware of many books and other sources on WWII AFVs, none of which mention the disputed vehicles as German, unlike the Panzer 35(t) and Panzer 38(t) which are usually listed as such. Do you have any documention / sources?

And your arguing about my reverts is really a pot-kettle thing. You've done the exact same thing to me as well. We both want the page a specific way and you are at least as stubborn as I am about having it displayed your way.

Keep in mind this template is also to help users navigate. Are you going to put it on the T-34 page? Do you think it will fit in?

To prevent this from getting worse though (and continuing an edit war), I will leave the main article page alone until we have further input. Oberiko 19:05, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I didnt care about your latest reverts, just that you came back nearly 2 months after the argument and reverted it. As for your points- the page already makes no distinction between use numbers: some points from earlier-

• Right now the template is a mix of high and low production vehicles of widely varying degree's of use. Depending on what threshold of use should be used it is either very incomplete or has many uneeded vehicles.

As for my examples, also from earlier

• "...the difference between capturing a vehicle, and capturing a factory is not so critical as amount of use in total. For example, there are some vehicles whose amount captured was greater then amount captured and produced of say, the 35.

"This is espcially true for german armed forces where captured vehicles formed a integral part of many fighting forces, and of relative number. In the case of the t-34 versions for example, it wasn't just a matter of being thrown into use, but of a whole network of support, supply and re-fitting for upwards of several hundred tanks. "

Im not 'stubborn' about having them listed a certain way, and would accept a wide varity of compromise versions. For example, as I said before Really I am not so concerned which section the 35/38 go, but for inclusion of the more heavily used foreign vehicles. What is important to me is that the template reflect the wide variety and heavy use of foreign eqipment by Germany.

Finally- also I said before I do understand your point there, and I have seen tank websites handle it in a number of ways. Ultimately, it can be considered in different ways due the complicated nature of its adoption. My thinking here had been to sidestep the issue and try and focus on use, rather then on this usually complicated nature of adoption. Starfury 19:24, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Third opinion

I have requested a third opinion on Misplaced Pages:Third_opinion#Active_disputes. I will abide by the decision of the third party if/when they arrive. I hope you will as well. Oberiko 18:45, 3 Apr 2005 (UTC)

As somebody who has worked on this subject earlier, as well as this specific template, I would like to give my opinion. The goal of this template is to provide a quick overview and link to all the major German combat vehicles of World War II. This goal has te be accomplished in a limited space; if the template gets too big, it is in danger of overwhelming the articles it is appended to. Furthermore, having too many entries in the template also makes it more difficult to keep an overview.

Taking this as my starting point, I have the following objections against including the "foreign AFVs" row in the template:

• From the start, the template has always been divided into groups of similar function vehicles: tanks, assault guns, self propelled artillery, etc. The group "Foreign AFVs" does not fit the pattern.
• Off the four types in the group, only two entries (the pkzw 35 and 38) go into extensive detail about these vehicles in German service; the T-34 747(r) entry just links to the general T-34 entry, which logically concerns itself mostly with the T-34 in Russian and allied service. The 35(s) is even worse, as there is apparantely no entry for this tank at all.
• Finally, to accomodate this group in the template, the groups "Self-propelled artillery" and "Assault guns" had to be shoved into one row, making the template that more confusing.

For these reasons, I would prefer it if the group "Foreign AFVs" was removed, with the pzkw 35 and 38 moved into the tank group, (between the panzer II and Panzer III frex.) and the two entries on the T-34 and the s35 can be removed from the template entirely. Finally, separate the "self-propelled artillery" and "assault guns" groups again. Instead of the group "Foreign AFVs" you could then include a link at the bottom of the template to an article about the use of foreign AFVs by the wehrmacht. --Martin Wisse 08:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thank you for your input Martin. Oberiko 09:14, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Agreed, those are very good points. Specifically, that the template does not handle the division well. I do however, disagree about the T-34 and the Somua, as there is actually a breif mention of its service with Germany, and the Somua, as many entries do not have articles yet. Starfury 20:24, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I added the T-34 in to the normal tank section, for several reasons. In terms of scale there were several hundred used, more then the 35/38 by the midwar period and up to 1945; they were re-eqipped sometimes with German cannons and other changes; there were actual re-eqipping and maintence factories. For these reasons, it formed a significant part of tank force and worth mentioning in a template. Starfury 20:34, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another issue is the combined assault gun and SPG section, that was done seperately not because of forg. tank section. The reason being it made the table smaller, and both were used for indirect fire. This was not part of the debate I dont think, so I will put that back as well. The forg. tank section though, certainly I will not put back. Starfury 20:37, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I'm going to disagree with you again Starfury. For the same reasons as mentioned above and it will just mean transplanting the two tanks into the main tank section, still giving us a size increase.

I say (since we apparantly have three people now) that we have a vote on if to include the T-34 and any other non-produced but used tanks.

And I believe Martin stated a preferance for the seperation of Self-propelled artillery and assault guns. Something I agree with. Please change it back.

We'll close the vote in one week Oberiko 20:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Vote

This vote is on if to include non-German produced foriegn tanks that had relatively high use.

Closes April 13.

For:

Against:

• Oberiko 20:40, 4 Apr 2005 (UTC)