Talk:8.8 cm KwK 36

Validity of sources

Can we call the sources for this article valid? Most come from tank enthusiast websites, from which the figures come from. It would be much more reassuring if we could have some technical documents from which the data originates. AllStarZ (talk) 17:04, 28 April 2009 (UTC)

"JENTZ, Thomas L.; Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics" is a reliable source. Not sure about the second one, though. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 13:18, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Performance

The paragraph from performance seems to be a bit subjective. Shouldn't it be written in a neutral tone? MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:55, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

"renowned" doesn't exactly fit a neutral tone. I suggest removing it from the first paragraph of Design. The second paragraph also goes a bit off topic and should probably be trimmed a bit. MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:51, 19 September 2015 (UTC)

Update: Seeing that nobody reads this talk page or bothers to do anything to improve this article's subjective tone, I took it upon myself. I'll start editing right away using the rules from Wikipedia:Neutral point of view and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch. As expected, the word "renown" is not fitting here. It is puffery. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 14:02, 22 September 2015 (UTC)

If several independant sourcess calls it "renowned", wikipedia will do that as well as it is fully possible the gun indeed had a widely spread reputation among friend and foe alike. BP OMowe (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

Accuracy details

User:Denniss, User:PatersonJersey, let's try to make up our minds on whether the second column is combat or not. As absurd as it sounds to have 100% accuracy in real combat at any range, Denniss insists it is real combat. As I discussed with PatersonJersey on his talk page, this is from Thomas JENTZ's Germany's TIGER Tanks - Tiger I and II: Combat Tactics published in 1996 p. 9. It specifically states, as I posted in the Accuracy chapter that the second column is not actual combat accuracy. "The figures in the second column include the variation expected during practice firing due to differences between guns, ammunition and gunners. These accuracy tables do not reflect the actual probability of hitting a target under battlefield conditions. Due to errors in estimating the range and many other factors, the probability of a first hit was much lower than shown in these tables." So let's agree once and for all on what we write there because this is degenerating into an edit war. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 10:07, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

I'm not entirely sure what your question is, but I'll guess you rather want to clarfiy whether the second column would reflect combat firing or not. Jentz pointed, the x-percentage of expected hits against a 2.5m × 2m wide target do not include the first shot, instead, it estimates the accuracy of subsequent shots. This is considered to be a close approximation of accuracy obtained in practice and, if the gunner remained calm, also in combat. PatersonJersey (talk) 14:52, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes, but it's misleading. He even edited out the Practice/Combat row titles in the next version. Many a time did I hear people quote this page saying that the Tiger I never missed at 500 meters. It's highly misleading. I recommend we cut the table names or at least change them to make them less misleading. I'd rather not argue with people that the Tiger I did indeed actually miss sometimes at 500m. My point is that while the second column accuracy can be achieved in combat under certain circumstances, it does not actually describe combat accuracy nor is it calculated from combat encounters. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 18:41, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

It's quite obvious that the probability of a first round hit was significant lower and with a higher to miss, than shown in these tables. However, but that's out of the question, as the expected percentage of projectiles that will hit accounted only for subsequent shots after the range has been correct determined. But I'll agree with the demand of a better clarification to the column. You might want to also invite other editors to join the discussion via a post at WT:MILHIST. Regards PatersonJersey (talk) 22:48, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

So you're on the bench about this, I say we don't use practice/combat and User:Denniss, who still hasn't honored us with his presence, is for practice/combat, albeit without an argument for it. I'll see if I can drag somebody from military history here. Thanks for the suggestion --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 07:44, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

The table as it stands is misleading. Unless the reader also makes a point of reading the quoted paragraph first (& quoting the entire paragraph seems a bit overkill to me), the impression left is the "combat accuracy" is based on actual results. If we're going to list it as "combat", IMO it must be based actual combat. (IDK how readily available OR stats are...) That may mean a need to take it out. TREKphiler ^{any time you're ready, Uhura} 14:07, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

It's not necessary to take it out completely. Before Denniss undid my edits, I had already tried two ways to name the tables. Once as simply 1 and 2, forcing the reader to read the clarifications, and later more explicitly as Controlled test firing and Practice firing. I recommend we go with those, but I need some backup so that people won't undo my edit again. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 15:00, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

I support the declaration with two consecutive numbers. This would make further challenge unlikely; would indeed force casual readers to deal with the quoted clarification and, it would not just replace a misleading term as it stands, with another as proposed additionally. PatersonJersey (talk) 15:54, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Done! We have two votes for 1 and 2 columns. I'm on it. --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 08:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

The huge quote from Jentz about what the table data means needs to be reworked. 1) for easier reading, 2) to more directly link it with the table. And be directly attributed to Jentz. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:04, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

In regards to the practice vs. combat accuracies, it is interesting to observe the accuracy for a five percent misjudgement in range, compared to the calculated accuracy during combat, for the 7,5 cm Pak 40 (L/48) at 1500 meters.

	Practice	Action	5 percent misjudgement
Pzgr 39	77%/75%	33%	30%
Pzgr 40	66%	24%	12%
Gr 38 Hl/C	42%	15%	5%

http://www.panzerworld.com/7-5-cm-kw-k-40-l-48, http://www.panzerworld.com/tank-combat-firing-methods

I don't want to update the article myself, as the two articles above are from my website. The information in the first one is readily available, but the information in the second one has to my knowledge not been translated or published elsewhere. It should be clear from the numbers, however, that considering the action/combat accuracy representative of an actual combat situation is somewhat optimistic. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 21:26, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

The German primary sources on gunnery—pamphlets and memoranda from the Heers Waffenamt—discuss the problems of accuracy at some length, and nothing in any of them support this data. For example, the Germans were surprised to learn that the majority of hits against Soviet Tanks at "Long Range"—1,000 metres or more—were made by StuG crews. Investigation led them to discover that because the StuG crews were drawn from the Artillery, they were far better at ranging than tank crews, whose training did not prepare them for long range firing. Thus, the conclusion was that a change in training was called for. How does this information relate to Christian Ankerstjerne's secret source that cites "In regards to the practice vs. combat accuracies, it is interesting to observe the accuracy for a five percent misjudgement in range, compared to the calculated accuracy during combat, for the 7,5 cm Pak 40 (L/48) at 1500 meters"?

The whole idea of an "accuracy table" is absurd in the context of a Wikipedia article. Certainly Panzerworld would be a place where such information would be very relevant—and eternally argued ("challenged" in Wikipedia terms). When designing a game, the idea of accuracy is essential to the combat abstraction, but it is entirely dependent upon the scales chosen and the means of resolution to be employed—the combat engine, if you will.

I believe the article would be improved by leaving out the "accuracy table". Considering that problems abound in this article, every little bit helps. Ranya (talk) 19:07, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

The numbers I quoted are from a primary source, as WaPrüf report, as cited in my article. I fail to see why you would refer to it as a 'secret' source. Also, I don't quite understand who have given you the idea that I'm designing a game. The basic accuracy of the gun was the dispersion that would be expected when firing a perfectly aimed gun, i.e., the accuracy of the gun itself. Including these numbers seem as relevant as the penetration data. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 19:26, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

Made the thing readable. Unless massive objections to the wording, I#ll do the same on the Kwk 43. BP OMowe (talk) 00:40, 5 July 2016 (UTC)

General Comments on this Article

Concerning the general tone of this article: as a reader, would call it laudatory; as a game designer trying to use Wikipedia for a quick check or lookup, I would call it adulatory. What sparse factual information is present is not supported by reference to reliable and authoritative sources—and I'm sorry, but Jentz is only one source, and his book is not a technical study of armaments; it is therefore a secondary source in respect of the 8,8cm Kampfwagenkanon Modell 1936—the 8.8cm KwK 36.

Please don't get crazily defensive. I am not tarnishing Jentz, I am merely pointing out that his volumes deal with the Tiger tank and it's tactical employment. While information about the AFVs the 8.8cm KwK 36 was deployed in is certainly topical, it is not the primary subject matter. Also, Jentz is not a primary source in any respect, nor is it authoritative for the subject matter of this page, the 8.8cm KwK 36.

Which brings me to my second point—this page is very much representative of why Wikipedia is unreliable, and even where on expects it to be useful, so often disappointing. One could be excused leaving this page believing the 8.8cm KwK36 was the best tank main gun ever fielded by any nation at any time. And because so much space is given to lauding the principle armoured fighting vehicle to which the 8.8cm KwK36 was fitted—the Tiger ausf E—one could be forgiven believing it to be some sort of super-tank; a WWII equivalent of the M1A1 MBT of US Army propaganda (or public relations, if you prefer).

Instead of spending so much space arguing over "accuracy tables", it would be of more benefit to the reader to strip this article of its superfluous content—including "accuracy tables"—and backfill it with accurate, balanced, and useful information on the actual subject, the 8.8cm KwK 36.

For example: if, in fact, the 8.8cm KwK 36 is unrelated to the 8,8cm Flugabwehrkanon Modell 1936—the 8.8cm Flak 36—then a primary source directly supporting this contention must be sited, or balanced viewpoints must be presented, because the weight of existing professional research is against this assertion, making the idea that the 8.8cm KwK 36 is a "parallel design" original research.

I recognise that Wikipedia has no subject matter experts in the professional sense—a vetted, published, and recognised authority on a subject. But when the information in an article is so egregiously biased as this one, one would hope the user community could act more effectively than to debate the merits of one or two columns in the highly questionable, entirely secondary, "accuracy tables"—tables which, in professional documents, would be considered so unreliable as to be worthless.

Frankly, this article is useless even for a Wikipedia entry. Not even simple facts can be checked up. Nothing in the article is reliable; if I didn't know it, I would be suspect that the 8.8cm KwK 36 was even fitted to the Tiger ausf E. Ranya (talk) 18:51, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

I don't think anyone would object to you adding more contents or finding better sources. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 19:29, 27 May 2016 (UTC)

This article is incredibly one-dimensional. I came here looking for details about this weapon's dimensions and all I can find is muzzle velocity/armour penetration/range stuff. Does anyone have anything about installation weights, length including the breach, etc.? It seems amazing that this was not included. Flanker235 (talk) 10:52, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

VK 4501 (P)

"the high velocity 88 mm KwK L/56 gun which was derived from the German 88 mm flak gun" — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.248.11.204 (talk) 12:51, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

de:8,8-cm-KwK 36: "auf der Grundlage des Basismodells der bekannten 8,8-cm-Fliegerabwehrkanonen FlaK 36/37 aus den 1930er-Jahren entwickelt", so just Wikipedia sillyness. There probably were some votes of one kind or the other, and as it happens, results are different for different articles.217.248.11.204 (talk) 12:57, 15 July 2016 (UTC)

Wow.

I just noticed the same contradiction between 8.8 cm Flak 18/36/37/41 ("Its successful use as an improvised anti-tank gun led to the development of a tank gun based upon it: the 8.8 cm KwK 36") and this article ("Although sharing the same caliber as the 8.8 cm FlaK 36 anti-aircraft and anti-tank gun, the KwK 36 was not derived from it."). Now I see that the same problem was already report in 2016, and nobody gave a fuck.

Great work, Wikipedia! 91.10.53.2 (talk) 13:45, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Neither Wiki has a source for the questionable parallel design statement. A gun developed 5+ years later than the 8.8 Flak having the same gun barrel lenght, ballistics and the same ammo is either a modification/adaption of an existing weapon or derived from it making heavy use of existing components. --Denniss (talk) 15:55, 18 January 2018 (UTC)

Still a direct contradiction between several WP articles, and nobody gives a shit. - 91.10.6.240 (talk) 21:38, 27 January 2018 (UTC)

Every couple of months I come back here, and Wikipedia proves to be the same pile of shit it was the last time. Contradiction? Why would anyone care? Let chance decide which information is given to the reader! That's much more fun, isn't it?

It's especially funny that "regular" editors are considered to be better than IPs. Sad, but funny. 91.10.26.201 (talk) 01:13, 19 July 2018 (UTC)

Rather than complain, why don't you fix it?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 13:49, 19 December 2018 (UTC)

The Gun is the Subject

So, as a thought, maybe this article could be an encyclopaedic entry on the German Krupp Kwk 36. Still. Forgot to sign my talk. Ranya (talk) 18:40, 26 June 2020 (UTC)