This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Phillipsbourg (talk | contribs) at 21:04, 28 March 2006 (Restored DMorpheus' vandalism. Stop deleting my comments!). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 21:04, 28 March 2006 by Phillipsbourg (talk | contribs) (Restored DMorpheus' vandalism. Stop deleting my comments!)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)Welcome
Interests
I enjoy contributing to articles related to military history, especially WW2 and the Soviet-German conflict. I also do some contributions to articles on tactics and weapons. I hope folks find my contributions useful.
“…what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.” – George Orwell
Stop Reverting My Comments! It's vandalism!
- - - - - - You told me to discuss changes with you, and that is what I am doing! Your reverting my comments is vandalism! You should not do it just because you disagree with me or if I ask questions you can't answer. I'm not deleting, reverting, or otherwise altering anything you write, so please do not do it to me. - - - - - - Best Regards, Philppsbourg - - - - == T-34 nomenclature == == T-34 nomenclature == - Line 199: Line 192: - For your kind words. For your kind words. - --Molobo 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC) --Molobo 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - - ==Stop making wholesale reversions without discussion. It is against the rules!== - - - - - - Before you change anything else I contribute, I strongly suggest that you stop and take a look at my sources. I looked back at the history of the Sherman page and discovered that you contributed very little to it's development. Where the **** do you get off reverting material on a subject that you don't know that much about? I have since learned that your actions are frowned upon by Misplaced Pages. If it happens again I will report you. - - - - - - Philippsbourg - - - - - - :: Please feel free to report me anytime you wish; there is no need to wait. My record speaks for itself. While I have great respect for my fellow wikipedians, I have none for threats. DMorpheus 16:29, 27 March 2006 (UTC) - - - - - - 2115 Hours 27 March, 2006 - - - - - - By your response and your actions you demonstrate just how little respect you have for other contributors. The fact that the Eastern Front page is locked down is proof positive of your "record" here. You are right about one thing. Your "record" speaks for itself. - - - - - - Best Regards, Philippsbourg - - - - - - ::: You may enjoy your time spent on wikipedia more if you focus on edits, not editors. I have no desire to get in some kind of personal dispute with you. Attacking me on my talk page is not productive for either of us. If your edits are good contributions, other editors will support them. If enough of them disgaree, the edits will be reverted or updated. That's the nature of wikipedia. As frustrating as it is sometimes, in the long run it works pretty well. DMorpheus 15:17, 28 March 2006 (UTC) - - - - - - 0845 Hours 28 March, 2006 - - - - - - I understand how Misplaced Pages works. My concern is that you reverted my contributions to the Sherman tank page on your own authority, without following the website rules. It is mildly amusing that you have not, in the past, contributed to the page, and apparently know almost nothing about the subject, yet you still reverted my contributions. It is the acme of ignorance and arrogance to revert contributions on a subject you know nothing about. Congratulations on your success. - - - - - - Best Regards, Philippsbourg - - - - - - :: If you understand how wiki works, then you know that asking someone not to edit is not likely to be productive and is itself counter to wikipedia policy. If you believe I have broken some rule, please report me to an administrator who will take the proper action. I believe very strongly in following the protocol so I would not want to be in violation of it. If you don't stand behind your accusation, please stop the personal attacks. - - - :: If you review the history of the Sherman article you will see that I have in fact contributed, not that that is a prerequisite to reversions. DMorpheus 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC) - - - :: If you understand how wiki works, then you know that asking someone not to edit is not likely to be productive and is itself counter to wikipedia policy. If you believe I have broken some rule, please report me to an administrator who will take the proper action. I believe very strongly in following the protocol so I would not want to be in violation of it. If you don't stand behind your accusation, please stop the personal attacks. :: If you understand how wiki works, then you know that asking someone not to edit is not likely to be productive and is itself counter to wikipedia policy. If you believe I have broken some rule, please report me to an administrator who will take the proper action. I believe very strongly in following the protocol so I would not want to be in violation of it. If you don't stand behind your accusation, please stop the personal attacks. - - - :: If you review the history of the Sherman article you will see that I have in fact contributed, not that that is a prerequisite to reversions. DMorpheus 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC) :: If you review the history of the Sherman article you will see that I have in fact contributed, not that that is a prerequisite to reversions. DMorpheus 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC) - - - - “…what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.” – George Orwell “…what impressed me then, and has impressed me ever since, is that atrocities are believed in or disbelieved in solely on grounds of political predilection. Everyone believes in the atrocities of the enemy and disbelieves in those of his own side, without ever bothering to examine the evidence.” – George Orwell - - - - - - - - - - ==Deng Was Right! You were wrong!== - - - - - - - - - - Captured equipment was routinely used by both Germany and the Allies during WWII. For example, the Allies, particularly the U.S. Army used captured German artillery and ammuntion to the fullest extent possible. Germany was used everything that was useable, including captured Sherman tanks and artillery. Take a look at the Operational History of 12th Army Group if you don't believe me. - - - - - - - - - - Philippsbourg - - - - - - - - - - :: I have nver discussed the usage of captured equipment on the western front with Deng or anyone else on wikipedia, so I am not sure how I can be 'wrong'. I *have* discussed the issue on the Eastern Front page at some length, and no, nothing I wrote was wrong. Read the whole thing and find a quote where I have said that captured equipment was not used. In fact you will see that I wrote that captured equipment *was* used, by both sides, and that it was not siginficant in terms of assessing the strength of each side. Go ahead and find what I wrote - do not rely on what Deng says I say. Then feel free to return here and modify your intemperate remarks if you think that is appropriate. Thanks so much.DMorpheus 15:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC) - - - - - - - - - - 2100 Hours 27 March, 2006 - - - - - - - - - - Your response it typical of those who are unable to admit when they are wrong. You just blamed your error on someone else. I notice that you have not returned to the Sherman tank page to add any of the information I suggested. Perhaps you might consider writing a short paragraph about refueling a Sherman under combat conditions. Please tell us the standard procedure for refueling, how long it took on average, and who did most of the refueling. - - - - - - - - - - Best Regards, Philippsbourg - - - - - - - - == T-34 nomenclature == == T-34 nomenclature == - - - - Line 206: Line 192: - - - - For your kind words. For your kind words. - - - - --Molobo 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC) --Molobo 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC) - - - - - - - - - - ==RE: Edits to Sherman page 23 March 2006.== I did not realize that I needed permission to contribute to the page. The contributions were based on the Armored Force History, The Operational History of the Third US Army, the Ordnance Dept. Annex of the Operational History of 12th US Army Group, and several unpublished SHAEF and ASF special reports including the Lutes Report. Some comments were also based on my extensive interviews with American tankers who served during WWII. - - - - - - - - - - There seems to be a general misunderstanding of the role of the AGF in the development and implementation of Armored Force doctrine. It was the Armored Force under Lt. Gen. Jacob L. Devers, that created and codified armored doctrine, not the AGF. McNair and the AGF complicated matters by supporting the development and implementation of TDs, as well as advocating against more heavily armored tanks with greater firepower, but he did not influence Armored Force doctrine. Gen. Marshall made certain that Devers was left alone to do this without McNair's interference. At one point, Marshall gave serious consideration to placing the Armored Force on equal footing with the AGF and Army Air Corps, but decided against it when, in 1943, it became increasingly obvious that he would have to settle for fewer, lighter armored divisions. At that point it did not make sense to create a separate branch for what would be a smaller force, so the Armored Force remained under the AGF. Still, McNair was not allowed to interfere in the development of AF doctrine. - - - - - - - - - - Armored Divisions and independent tank battalions trained extensively to fight tanks according to AF doctrine. The Armored Force required its tanks to fight tanks in both defensive and offensive roles. I ask that you check my sources and see for yourself. - - - - - - - - - - Best Regards, Philippsbourg - - - - - - - - - - ::: You don't need 'permission', I simply suggested that we discuss such wholesale changes first. I'd love to check your sources. - - - - - - - - ==Stop making wholesale reversions without discussion. It is against the rules!== ==Stop making wholesale reversions without discussion. It is against the rules!== - - - - Line 241: Line 217: - - - - :: If you understand how wiki works, then you know that asking someone not to edit is not likely to be productive and is itself counter to wikipedia policy. If you believe I have broken some rule, please report me to an administrator who will take the proper action. I believe very strongly in following the protocol so I would not want to be in violation of it. If you don't stand behind your accusation, please stop the personal attacks. :: If you understand how wiki works, then you know that asking someone not to edit is not likely to be productive and is itself counter to wikipedia policy. If you believe I have broken some rule, please report me to an administrator who will take the proper action. I believe very strongly in following the protocol so I would not want to be in violation of it. If you don't stand behind your accusation, please stop the personal attacks. - - - - :: If you review the history of the Sherman article you will see that I have in fact contributed, not that that is a prerequisite to reversions. DMorpheus 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC) :: If you review the history of the Sherman article you will see that I have in fact contributed, not that that is a prerequisite to reversions. DMorpheus 17:32, 28 March 2006 (UTC) - - - - - - - - - - ==U.S. Army Armored Doctrine== - - - - - - - - - - 2130 Hours 27 March, 2006 - - - - - - - - - - I notice on your user page that you are interested in doctrine and tactics. I would be very interested to read your thoughts on U.S. armor tactics and doctrine in MOUT during WWII. - - - - - - - - - - Best Regards, Philippsbourg - - - - - - - - - - ==38th SS== - - - - - - - - - - 0915 Hours 28 March, 2006 - - - - - - - - - - You might be interested in seeing the changes I made on the 38 SS page. Perhaps you will resist the urge to revert them, since I included two excellent sources in my contribution. (The original material on the page almost certainly came from feldgrau.com. Unfortunately, the information regarding the final days of the 38th SS was incorrect.) - - - - - - - - - - Best Regards, Philippsbourg - - - - - - - - - - ==17th SS PG Division== - - - - - - - - - - 0945 Hours 28 March, 2006 - - - - - - - - - - I made some changes to the 17th SS Panzer Grenadier Division page. Take a look at the section that covers the final days of the division in combat. As you can see, I used another good source for my information. Please don't revert it. - - - - - - - - - - Best Regards, Philippsbourg -
T-34 nomenclature
I've tried to explain the nomenclature at T-34#Variants. Please look over this note. —Michael Z. 2005-12-20 08:11 Z
- Nice edit. I think this is pretty good. The only improvement I can suggest is that the "Model 43" is still used as the designation for the hexagonal turret. That should be "Model 42", if we are going to use the latest info available from old Soviet records. So:
Model 40: L-11 gun Model 41: All narrow-turret (that is, turrets with one large hatch) variants, regardless of other detail changes Model 42: All hexagonal-turret variants
I recognize that the designation 'model 43' is still in *very* common use in the west, but you've done a good job of introducing the problem in the text, so it should be OK. DMorpheus 19:04, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Operation Barbarossa
I did not revert your work. I edited another section, removing vandalism. In that section operation Barbarossa was called a Latvian upspring against Stalinist occupants. I have no against your edits. Please, compare the edits.--Nixer 20:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
- I did. You reverted both my changes and the Latvian or Lithuanian (I forget which) issue. I have no problem with you reverting the Lithuanian thing - it was badly written and out of place, if not exactly inaccurate. DMorpheus 21:14, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean not accurate i give specific sources books and exact page nummbers what more do you want
I give exact page nummbers in books written by professors and institutions, if you disagree then plaese state your sources and please tell me why mine are wrong and HOW they are wrong
Deng Jan 18 2006 19.20 CET
- I have wasted too much time reverting and explaining your errors. Consult the discussion page or the history of the page and you will see the consensus of the editors is against you. Aside from all that, your grammar is nonsense. DMorpheus 18:42, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Re: AIV request - user dengXiaoPeng
I haven't looked closely at the article, but if there is a short term edit war, where opposing sides rapidly revert to their preferred versions, WP:3RR policy applies. For a longer term dispute, and talk page discussion proves fruitless, then it goes to WP:RFC. Essentially an RFC is an appeal to the wider Misplaced Pages community to form a consensus. I'm not a mediator, but there are some good ones who may have some potential solutions for you. –Abe Dashiell 19:56, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Eastern Front
Whew, good to see Im not alone- if only Deng changed his tone. I tried discussing in a civilised way the changes he's made, but all he does is accuse me of vandalism. Not only does he push his pro-Soviet, anti-German POV, but also throws in disputed numbers, writes in an amateurish way, and duplicates redundant text, as if trying to emphasise his POV. His "Soviet Turncoat numbers" are totally contradictory with the ones on World War II casualties, which are really well referenced. Anyway, I dont know what to do, Im relatively new here and all Ive done is put up a request for arbitration. We'll see how it goes. I want to incorporate some of the info Deng gives, but some of it doesnt fit the article. Cheers. Ksenon 20:58, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
Who invaded who?
Deng, please don't write nonsense on my talk page. Thanks. DMorpheus 13:48, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
Did the Soviets invade the germans or was it the other way around Deng 19 Jan 2006 01:00 CET
Could you do me a favor?
Could you comment on the protection request page entry for Eastern Front? Deng has a request for unprotect up. I'd appreciate your comments. Thanks. --Woohookitty 14:05, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- Whoops. Link is fixed now. It should go to the right place. Just find the Eastern Front entry under the unprotect request section, which is towards the bottom. --Woohookitty 14:41, 19 January 2006 (UTC)
- I left a note on his talk page. I have a feeling he just doesn't understand how we do things here. --Woohookitty 21:14, 26 January 2006 (UTC)
- I am still monitoring the page. My patience with Deng is running very thin. --Woohookitty 06:24, 28 January 2006 (UTC)
Image copyright problem with Image:Ruintnk2.jpg
Thanks for uploading Image:Ruintnk2.jpg. However, the image may soon be deleted unless we can determine the copyright holder and copyright status. The Wikimedia Foundation is very careful about the images included in Misplaced Pages because of copyright law (see Misplaced Pages's Copyright policy).
The copyright holder is usually the creator, the creator's employer, or the last person who was transferred ownership rights. Copyright information on images on Misplaced Pages is signified using copyright templates. The three basic license types on Misplaced Pages are open content, public domain, and fair use. Find the appropriate template in Misplaced Pages:Image copyright tags and place it on the image page like this: {{TemplateName}}.
Please signify the copyright information on any other images you have uploaded or will upload. Remember that images without this important information can be deleted by an administrator. You can get help on image copyright tagging from Misplaced Pages talk:Image copyright tags. -- Carnildo 05:03, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
Meltiukhov
Unfortunately, the book has not been translated neither into English nor into other western languages. I'd advise you to babelfish the chapters/paragraphs you're interested in. Some Russian knowledge (or presence of a dictionary) is recommended though. I haven't managed to find any translations on the web.
I googled (the form Meltiukhov is often used):
A full-length review of the book 8and other similar studies): Constanz - Talk 16:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks so much for this link. While I think Suvorov is easily dismissed (his work is obvious nonsense), I can't tell much about Meltiukov without reading it myself. I followed the link you helpfully provided. It is glaringly obvious this "Institute" is an anti-semitic site of questionable validity - I see they have some David Irving content along with other offensive and ahistorical material. I would like to think the political bias of a site would be separable from their historical work, but in reading the review I don't think so. The review is largely political, highly illogical, and has little real military information. If the best evidence for a Soviet invasion plan is a plan written on May 15, 1941, the evidence look spretty flimsy to me. I hope to see the book in english to form a better judgment on it. DMorpheus 17:42, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
As for the so-called insitute: yes, I used it only for the simple reason that no other English reviews could be found. The things concerning that May proposal look complicated for 'traditial theory' supporters: Russian historians (incl those mentioned by 'institute' article) and specifically Meltyukhov in his op. cit. bring forth evidence, that this particular memorandum by Zhukov was no exception in the direction of Soviet stategical planning, on the contrary: M.M states Soviet military planning in yrs 1939-41 included first and foremost offensive planning; there were at least five different versions of the strategical military plan (from November 39 to May 1941), which provided offensive operations.
BTW I've found a study by Albert L.Weeks covering Soviet offensive strategy . Constanz - Talk 15:46, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Montgomery POV
Hi. The more I read about Monty, the less black and white he appears, ditto his contemporaries. I've got 2 books on the go just now: The Battle for the Rhine 1944 by Robin Neillands and Armageddon by Max Hastings. Neilland defends Monty's tactical actions over Battle of the Bulge (but not his diplomatic skills), while being critical particularly of Bradley and less so of Eisenhower. I'm surprised: I'd always thought of Ike as the great diplomat and commander and Bradley as a reasoning, careful commander. Hastings is less critical but details the failings of the troops at the schwerepunkt of the German assault. I find interesting how the American commanders were looking over their shoulders at the politicos in DC.
The divergence of US & UK war methods is interesting as is the personal differences that arose thereby. Please let me know your thoughts on my NPOV additions to Monty. The talk page is interesting and suggests that opinions are rather "dug-in". Folks at 137 20:33, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- I couldn't agree more. I find it impossible to find anything very 'neutral' (that's a poor term but I can't think of a better one right now) about Montgomery. The partisanship is very strong and unfortunately, in my opinion 90% of it is ill-informed on both sides. You really need to weigh it yourself. It is very hard to get anyone to move on their opinions either. We all have our biases. I dropped a few comments on your talk page.
- I don't find too much fault with his operations in the Bulge, certainly nothing major. He could have moved faster but you can say that about most of the Allied commanders. I wrote much of the content on the page about the conduct of operations in Normandy, as well as the Villers-Bocage page. There's a lot to criticize there; less so in the Ardennes.
- I've seen Hastings' Armageddon in the bookstores but haven't picked it up yet. I loved his Normandy book - Overlord. I look forward to Armageddon at some point soon. DMorpheus 21:01, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks for your comments. I've applied your suggestions/ corrections throughout. I would however like to comment further:
- "Recent historians also point out that Allied armies were drawn from populations that were less militaristic than the Germans and this difference repeatedly showed up in German skill and determination in critical situations." Added to highlight the difference in performance and thereby Monty's lack of success in Normandy - also applicable to Hurtgen, Italy, etc.
- "Allied victory - if recovery from an avoidable defeat can be so described - at the Battle of the Bulge" Removed it, but I still think it's fair comment and it explains Bradley's heightened sensitivity to criticism. Eisenhower had commented to Bradley that the area was lightly defended, frontline US troops were not properly dug-in or supported and Bradley's reaction and leadership has been reported as slow and unprepared. Evidence of German preparation was discounted. That's the "avoidable" bit: I don't think that restoring the status quo ante is a victory, anymore than Dunkirk, it's a recovery.
- I've amended the bit about Patton (still got a soft spot for the old rogue) and the Scheldt error was an error - Thanks.
- I may be out of circulation soon - major domestic errands and holiday - not deliberate rudeness. Folks at 137 21:55, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Stop posting in the middle of my posts
You implied that no equipment ever changed hands during the war, which is an absolut lie so why should i even waste time in looking up your so called source when it is clear that you do nothing but lie and missinform. Stop posting in the middle of my posts. And to answer your very idotic question how one side recovered the other sides tanks for the field. The answer is very simple the same way they recovered their own. Stop posting in the middle of my posts. Stop posting in the middle of my posts. Stop posting in the middle of my posts.
Deng 08-02-06 12.40 CET
You attacked me you posted
"Please tell me what good it is to capture an expensive howitzer only to find the crew destroyed the sights before running away. Please tell us how many hours of mainteance per day it takes to keep a tank battalion operational. I guess the effort both sides spent on providing ordnance units, recovery tractors, repair units, and so forth was wasted. You don't have the slightest notion what you are writing about."
But ofcurse you do not see your own faults you only see what you want to see.
And I will say it again they recover enemy equipment the same way they recover their own.
Deng 10-02-06 01.45 CET
- Not so. Posing a question is not an attack. I have asked you to explain some of your posts which, on their face, are not credible. You, on the other hand, have made personal accusations against me and other editors. You are being reverted over and over by virtually every active editor. Thus there is some tendency, from many of those editors, to question your edits.
DMorpheus 16:16, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Reverted by every editor is wrong.
The only ones who revert me are Ksenon and he has been blocked for deleting to much in other articles and you. Now if Ksenon is beeing blocked in other articles for deleting to much information couldnt it also be possible that he deletes to much in the eastern front article?
All my facts are correct and 100% proveable whilst Ksenon, who is the main deleter, dosent give any sources he just deletes.
And your statements are personal attacks even if "you" dont think so. Also I have proven without any doubt what so ever that equipment did change hands.
(Deng 11:55, 19 February 2006 (UTC))
Nevezhin V.A
I know the author, he has Candidate of history degree and is scholar at the Institute of Russian History. As for the Journal of Slavic Military Studies, I remember I recently tried to find some articles in English (most probably by the very Nevezhin): what I managed to find was table of contents of a magazine, I'm quit sure it's the same journal. Of course it would be of utter interest to have a look on it.
I've found some interesting articles on internet by Nevezhin in Russian. Right now, I am too busy to try to translate them (you might try babelfish i.e , sometimes the babel translation is OK). BTW, if you take deeper interest in the subject, I may send you my translation of a chapter of Meltyukhov's work. Constanz - Talk 12:52, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Victory Day / Victory Army
I'll watch the edits. I'm not sure it's a sock. Could be. --Woohookitty 16:35, 18 February 2006 (UTC)
To check for socks
Go to Misplaced Pages:Requests for CheckUser and request an IP check. --Woohookitty 13:43, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
Edits in history of the tank
A while back you added some considerable information to the section /*Between the Wars*/, which was more in its place in the Tanks (1919-1939) article. I've moved/merged this information into the latter article and would appreciate it if you could look over both articles to see if nothing has been lost or inadvertely been duplicated? --Martin Wisse 15:11, 21 February 2006 (UTC)
- Thanks, I made a few edits to it. I also removed a few small items that were correct, but not 'between the wars' info. DMorpheus 15:30, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
Superdeng warned
User:SuperDeng has been reminded on their talk page regarding personal attacks and civility. Please report them to the personal attacks intervention list if they begin again, though I am also monitoring their contributions as of now. Thanks! --Syrthiss 14:48, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
This and that
Firstly, I edited a chapter of my Meltyukhov translation a couple of days ago, but lamentably after my last save the Word annaounced that the file was 'corrupt'. Problems emerged while I was trying to send it via mail, as the copy of text I tried to add from recovered version of this 'corrupt' file was declared to 'contain no data'. The same thing occured, as I tried to post the whole text into my wikipage. I don't know what to do about it, I actually need this text for preparing an article in wikipedia as well (rough notes on my page) .
Secondly, (another unpleasant news) 'our mutual friend' Deng has become active again! See his changes to WW2 Eastern front proposal page.
(Is it necessary to add, that he is obviously trying to revive the old story of 'bad Germanns and goodd Soviets'? He replaced a paragraph on Vlasov etc with his version of the events (a rather belletristic 'improvement', BTW), and usual English with his understanding of the English grammar...) Constanz - Talk 13:18, 9 March 2006 (UTC)
There is currently a debate going on in Eastern front talk page, whether to use the current proposed page and unlock. I suggest you express your opinion there. --Constanz - Talk 15:50, 14 March 2006 (UTC)
What about Nevezhin's article? What were his points?--Constanz - Talk 15:45, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Prices of tanks and other things
You asked for prices, I give you this link
http://members.tripod.com/George_Parada/prod.htm#price
(Deng 12:34, 15 March 2006 (UTC))
Also if you go here
http://members.tripod.com/George_Parada/stug.htm
You will find this sentance
"Stug III was one of a series of assault guns/tank destroyers produced by the Germans during the war. Assault guns were easier, cheaper and less time consuming to produce than turreted tanks and that is why German factories built them in large numbers. Cost of single Ausf G was 82500RM making it cheaper than both PzKpfw III Ausf M at 103163RM and PzKpfw IV Ausf F2 at 115962RM. It is interesting to see that almost four Ausf Gs could be purchased for the cost of single King Tiger."
(Deng 12:45, 15 March 2006 (UTC))
Thank you
For your kind words. --Molobo 21:29, 21 March 2006 (UTC)