Talk:10.5 cm K gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette

Suggestions for imrpovement

I have just completed the review of the article. It is still a start class, however, I think it could be a B class if the following was addressed:

• more in line citations - for a B, each paragraph needs at least one, if not two in line citations;
• grammar - mostly fine, except in the Lessons Learned section, this seems to be using the incorrect tense. I think the report should be summarised, rather than quoted verbatim;
• supporting materials - an image of the weapon would serve to illustrate it better. At the moment there is an infobox, so it does meet Criteria 5, but without an image it seems lacking.

Anyway, just a few suggestions. Hope this helps. Otherwise it is a pretty good article, with good content. AustralianRupert (talk) 22:22, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree about a photo, but I simply can't find a free image anywhere unless I feel like fighting with the fair use Nazis. I know of a Bundesarchiv photo online, but it doesn't seem to be one of those donated to the Commons. Frankly I regard the suggestion/requirement for each paragraph to be cited as a bit of a fetish when presenting the basic details of the subject. When the sources are in agreement I don't think that there's anything that needs to be cited. That should be reserved for information that would require an academic footnote.

The Lessons Learned section is a direct quote from a contemporary report and is in the proper tense. Should I somehow amplify the fact that it is a contemporary document so other people aren't thrown off by the change in tense like you were? Suggestions are welcome. I disagree with your desire to see it summarized as it is a valuable assessment of using the vehicle in action and we simply don't have enough of this sort of stuff as historians have summarized things too much already. Far better, I think, to present the contemporary view and then let the reader draw his own conclusions. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:36, 27 March 2009 (UTC)

I've tidied up the grammar for you and re-assessed, Congratulations you now have a bouncing baby B-class!!!Petebutt (talk) 20:06, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

If I am not mistaken the caliber of the gun is incorrect. According to von Senger und Etterlin, this vehicle mounted a 10.0 cm L 52 gun fitted with a muzzle brake. Although classified as Sturm artillery, it was created and used to kill Russian heavy tanks. I have seen a picture of a barrel with 19 kill rings. The 10.0 cm cannon was one of Germany's standard artillery pieces of the time, according to Davies. I have never seen a reference to a 10.5 cm gun of this caliber. As there were only two of three of these vehicles constructed, it is amazing the number of pictures on the net. According to an evaluation report from the summer of 1942, the frontsoldaten did not recommend this vehicle for mass production as its armament had a very limited traverse and the entire vehicle usually had to be turned to acquire a target. This was exacerbated by the smaller engine being fitted. In context, Germany was still on the offensive with the schwer punkt (spearhead, heavy point lit.)heading for Stalingrad. However there were not any operational Tigers or Panthers to combat the T-34s and KVs, only a few Panzer IVs and StuG IIIs with the 7.5 cm L43 gun. Other than the few 8.8 cm tri-purpose guns as well as captured Russian tanks and anti-tank guns, the Germans were at a loss to field an effective weapon to fight the Russian heavy vehicles at operational ranges. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.79.218.66 (talk) 14:35, 4 June 2011 (UTC)

Don't get confused between nominal caliber as used in the designation and the actual caliber of the shell. All German Army artillery 15 cm weapons were actually 149.1 cm caliber. Similarly the almost all German-designed army artillery weapons were actually 10.5 cm caliber.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 5 June 2011 (UTC)