Talk:Panther KF51

Puma and Lynx
I don't see how the section on the Puma and Lynx is relevant to the Panther topic. Also some information (granted, it is a pretty new tank) seems to be based on speculation rather than actual information. Genko313 (talk) 18:48, 15 June 2022 (UTC)


 * It was unsourced OR, so I removed it. BilCat (talk) 22:26, 15 June 2022 (UTC)

Hull is not based on the Leopard 2
I think the information in the article is not entirely correct - the Hull is a new design, merely the engine and drive train have been taken from the Leopard 2. Which is plausible since the Leo2 was built by Krauss-Maffei Wegmann which is a different company than Rheinmetall. Also KMW is working with the French company Nexter on the Main Ground Combat System, the demonstrator of which is based on a Leo2 hull and an Leclerc turret, so Rheinmetall has little to gain by showing off another design based on the Leo2. Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9FgwxxMsVgA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:C3:4F40:5C00:DDCA:9892:3CE4:F79A (talk) 17:39, 18 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I haven't found the width, length and height of this new tank from anywhere. It seems that such documents are not public. This is the only hint I have found: "The combat weight of just 59 tonnes provides far greater mobility than current systems. This puts it in a battle-winning weight category and it also fits the tunnel profile AMovP-4L without preparation: a requirement that no current MBT upgrade fulfils. Consequently, the Panther excels in tactical and strategic mobility." Source: https://www.rheinmetall-defence.com/en/rheinmetall_defence/systems_and_products/vehicle_systems/armoured_tracked_vehicles/panther_kf51/index.php ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 10:48, 20 June 2022 (UTC)
 * That tunnel profile could reveal something about the width of the tank. ⸻Nikolas Ojala (talk) 23:48, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Double check this whole page
There is a few errors in design regarding it origin. For example not the chassis was based on the leopard 2 A4 its engine and transmission. Double check if there is similar errors. Also quiet a few spelling issues. 2003:E0:AF41:D100:64D4:4772:B2E1:C9D7 (talk) 06:48, 6 August 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't see any obvious English spelling errors. As to the chassis, what's your source for that? BilCat (talk) 07:16, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Neutrality
I recently edited the page but it was revered immediately. Therefore, I'd like to present my reasoning and discuss this section:

"On 5 December 2022 Rheinmetall confessed that it saw little possibility of new sales and that it planned to target existing customers only. Because management had accepted the European Defence Agency forecasts, they had provisioned an assembly line to manufacture no more than 800 vehicles over the ten year period from 2025."

I find this part quite tendentious as it seems to imply that they miscalculated their market chances, which can not be inferred from the cited source. The word "confess" is imho not adhering to the neutrality requirements for an encyclopedia. Also formulations like "little possibility", "accept..." are troublesome in the context. None of this is supported by the cited article. Reading this it feels like someone wants to paint the tank in a bad light for whatever reason, so I tried to change it to a more neutral formulation.

Imho the only information that can be infered from the cited source is that they target existing customers and the market size estimations, but also not the assembly line dimensioning. This is why I edited out all the troublesome parts the and left only this fact.

Maybe I am wrong and all of what is implied by the previous version is true but in this case, I feel it required additional, or different, sources that state that Rheinmetall previously targeted a different market or higher volume. As a consequence I vote to change the section to remove the inferences done by the author, chose more neutral formulations and stay close to the cited source or add additional sources.--84.113.136.108 (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree with your assessment, the current wording doesn't reflect the content of the source. (Hohum @ ) 13:00, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Why does designer mention KMW
The infobox mentions KMW as designer in parentheses after Rheinmetall. AFAIK KMW is not involved but if they are, putting it like that is confusing at the very least. DynCoder (talk) 13:21, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

at the top near the redirect, there is two duplicate words, 'for' and 'see'
at the top in the redirect for the K2 Black Panther, it says "For For the modern South Korean Main Battle Tank, see, see". Suggest removing the duplicate `For` and `See`. 24.62.67.63 (talk) 00:14, 1 February 2024 (UTC)