Talk:Panzer 35(t)

Comment by Chrisboote
There is NO way this tank moved 190 km/h off-road. Might the figure be missing a decimal point?

Yes - also, from everything I've read over the last 30 years, the crew for this vehicle was 4 not 5. The accompanying text supports this - Unsigned comment by User:Chrisboote


 * Yup. Commander, loader, driver-MG operator and radio operator. And the 190 figure refers to range, not speed. 120 off-road and 190km on paved road. Halibutt 13:12, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Machinegun - Coax or Ball Mount?
The article says the turret MG was a coax - wasn't it in a separate ball-mount, like the 38(t) and the Soviet T-28? "Coax" means it is aimed with the main gun, and I am not sure that's the case. DMorpheus 19:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * No idea. WWII Vehicles has one source that says coax, and four sources that say nothing.  The gun in Image:Panzer 35(t) 1.jpg looks like coax, but it's not clear. --Carnildo 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Found the source of confusion - it was both. The MG had its own ball mount so it could be aimed and fired independent of the main gun - but they could also be coupled. DMorpheus 15:19, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Radio Operator
Was the radio operator in the hull with the radio, or in the turret as the article says? DMorpheus 19:14, 27 February 2006 (UTC)
 * WWII Vehicles says the radio operator doubled as the loader, so presumably he was in the turret. --Carnildo 02:31, 28 February 2006 (UTC)


 * But the radio and antenna are in the hull. Normal practice for most European designs (with the exception of the British) was to put the radio and operator in the hull. DMorpheus 15:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The radio operator sat in the hull, to the left of the driver. See: Spielberger, Walter, 1980, Die Panzer-Kampfwagen 35(t) und 38(t) und ihre Abarten einschließlich der tschoslowakischen Heeresmotorisierung 1920-1945, Motorbuch Verlag Stuttgart--MWAK 16:27, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Page move
while i appreciate that Panzerkampfwagen 35(t) was the full German title of this vehicle it does not automatically follow that that should be the article title. Panzer 35(t) seems to be a very common name for it in English language sources. Before moving can we get some other opinions on the article name first. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:51, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I think that this is a difference in approach to German names as many English-speakers adopt short names like Panzer X rather than spell out the full, cumbersome German name, or even its slightly less cumbersome abbreviation like Pz.Kpfw. X. But note that the major histories of German tanks spell everything out in full so these aren't exactly unfamiliar to people. My preference is to use the proper German name with redirects from the likely variants. That way I don't have to waste time explaining how the short form arose. I dislike Panzer X because it's a post-war name. Wartime names were usually, following the British practice, to use Mark X. And I bet that more people are familiar with that name than Panzer X, but I have no proof and there's no way to get it. I bet nobody is going to know that we're having this discussion so you might want to elevate it up to either the AFV task force or the MilHist project for further discussion. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:13, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

citation request deleted
I've deleted the citation request on armor penetration as it's covered in the citation several sentences later. But I will have to rewrite the sentence later to clarify it better. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 20:25, 14 May 2009 (UTC)
 * You could just repeat the appropriate citation at the earlier point... On a not unrelated note, I think perhaps I could move the parenthical statement about the "t" in 35(t) out of the leading sentences to a different point in the article - either a proper note or as a later sentence in the intro. There both translations/explanations of the Czech and German designations could be explained. Paraphrasing heavily - they work out roughly as "Light tank 1935 model" and "1935 Tank (Czechoslavakian)" don't they? Do you think that idea has mileage? GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:19, 15 May 2009 (UTC)
 * If you think it will read better, feel free to give it a try. I was thinking about deleting the list of designations as most of them are covered in the body of the text. What do you think? Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 22:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Romanian Production?
I reverted an edit that said Romania produced some 35(t)s, even though it was sourced to the normally-reliable Steve Zaloga. I checked a couple Romanian sources first and they do not make this claim. I'm also aware that Romania attempted production of the much smaller and simpler Chenillette UE and managed to build a few only with French-supplied engines. I will keep looking into this but for now I suggest it's a stretch. If I am wrong I'll be happy to put it back. Regards, DMorpheus2 (talk) 16:48, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * DMorpheus2 I agree, it's quite a stretch. But the bit about the overhaul and repair seems reasonable enough, so I added it back. Still, I myself can't help but notice how some things just don't seem to add up. Romania lost 19 tanks in the Siege of Odessa, but when the division entered back in action it had 109 tanks. 126 - 19 = 107. So...where do the 2 extra tanks come from? Also, it very specifically says later in the article that Romania could only muster 59 R-2/Pz.Kpfw. 35(t)s on 1 April and 30 August 1943, but raised this to 63 by 25 March 1944, emphasis on Romania and raised. I believe, that a very limited Romanian production would explain these increases, since the only documented transfer seems to be the 26 tanks given by Germany. Who knows, maybe the Romanians cobbled a few tanks from various spare parts, like they did with the sole AH-IV tankette they built. All is just speculation for now, but I will keep researching. Regards, 86.120.125.252 (talk) 18:44, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, the number of available/unservicable/lost tanks do not really add up. Maybe some confusion in the book source. Probably some 'lost' tanks were not total losses and may have been rebuilt/repaired over time once sufficient spare components were obtained. --Denniss (talk) 21:39, 11 August 2016 (UTC)


 * This may help....I checked a more recent Zaloga book, "Tanks of Hitler's Eastern Allies" ISBN 978-1-78096-020-3, p. 26. There was a pre-war plan to build over 200 R-2s (Romanian designation for the 35(t)) but this was never done. Older sources might have confused the planning for actual execution. In fact Romanian production of any AFV was severely constrained by their inability to manufacture armor plate. The Germans didn't want to supply it, nor did they want Czech factories supplying it - they needed it themselves. Even the Romanian production of a few dozen TACAM self-propelled guns relied on scrap armor taken from existing vehicles. Their UE tractors were assembled from French components.
 * Denniss, yes, the issue of how a tank loss is defined is always an issue. It's nearly impossible to fully reconcile records when, e.g., a completely destroyed, blown-up vehicle and a vehicle with, say, a broken track are both counted as 'lost'. DMorpheus2 (talk) 13:21, 12 August 2016 (UTC)