Talk:Mareșal (tank destroyer)

Copyvio text from http://worldwar2.ro/arme/?article=244

For future reference the text that begins with the sentence "In parallel with the conversion of captured tanks, research started in December 1942 for development of a Romanian tank-destroyer." is taken from [1] and is copyrighted. No plagiarism please.--Sus scrofa (talk) 22:55, 27 November 2015 (UTC)

Table of statistics

Can someone please make a table of statistics for this vehicle, like it is with all military vehicles? A proper table for specifications, including the origin, type and number produced, just like any armored fighting vehicle? I saw such tables made for strange obscure prototypes, why not make one for this too? At least this actually had a use, served as model for a well-produced German tank destroyer.

Wrong

Get your facts right, people. Hetzer is similar to Mareșal, not the other way around. I don't care that Hetzer is popular, while Mareșal is barely known, your lack of culture is not my fault. =_= — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.113.132.179 (talk) 08:11, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Additional Information from Romanian Sources

I added significantly to the article on the Maresal based on my translation of the Romanian Wikipedia article. This Romanian article seems to be well-sourced but key sources are in Romanian and obtaining copies is difficult. In my opinion, the key sources are the history of the Romanian Armored Troops by Scafes and Serbanescu and "Maresal Tank Destroyer" by Axworthy and Scafes from the National Military Museum Bulletin (the rest of the sources are from scale modeling magazines). I left out information I felt was irrelevant or dubious, for example the mention that in March 1944 "engineer Wolrath" from the German Alkett Company and Col Nestorescu, designer of the M1943 Resita, joined the project. I similarly left out references to the co-axial 7.92mm ZB-53 machine gun because it cannot be seen in photos of the tank. It would be really nice if someone could go to the Romanian National Military Museum and retrieve these sources to confirm the accuracy of this article. I am hoping this has already occurred in the case of the Romanian Wikipedia.

In applying my translation, I tried to summarize where the Romanian uses tedious language that adds little meaning, e.g. I changed "Given the complex relations between the Army and [the armament] Industry, Marshal Antonescu decided to found a cabinet-level committee to supervise the project" to " Marshal Ion Antonescu took a personal interest in the project and ordered the creation of a committee to oversee the further development and production of the new vehicle". 129.137.25.90 (talk) 05:36, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sadly, I have reverted. You can't use wikipedia as a source. See WP:CIRCULAR. You can support text with non-english sources though, although they aren't ideal, see WP:NONENG.

The IP edits don't seem to be bad, at least they removed lots of BS added by by this Romanian and proud guy and his IP incarnations. May be better to restore the version but tag with verify sources (and/or add the references from ro wiki).--Denniss (talk) 19:02, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand this issue and agree RoWikipedia is not a source. The only reason I added the information is because the sources RoWikipedia cited were legitimate. There's a lot of misinformation about the Maresal because of the small number produced and it can stir up national sentiments so I wanted to give a realistic summary of its development. If I ever get to confirm these sources I will edit and properly cite.A. Mihai (talk) 00:46, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

I say go for the translated Romanian text, it matched well with the info in third axis fourth allies book by Mark Axworthy I posted before Mondria (talk) 19:08, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Number built

@GraemeLeggett: Hello.

So, the Series 0 was almost completed; it's very probable that some of its vehicles were indeed complete. Shouldn't at least the Series 0 be in the infobox? With a footnote about the further 90 Series 1+2 vehicles? Or, if not, then at least a footnote about both Series 0 and Series 1+2. Again, Template:Infobox weapon does not specifically state that only completed examples count. And in this particular case, it is definitely wrong to simply state that "7 prototypes were built" – it could also be misleading, in fact. Cheers! Lupishor (talk) 10:42, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

* number – optional – the number of weapons of this type that were manufactured. Per cited template so only completed examples count. --Denniss (talk) 18:34, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

at best you could say "7 prototypes and possibly some series production completed" but that's a really clumsy sentence. GraemeLeggett (talk) 18:41, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Denniss, as you cited, the template says "manufactured" and not "completed" or any other term suggesting that the weapon in case needs to have been completed.

GraemeLeggett, since you seem to agree with a reference to the serial production, I am going to add "7 prototypes" and "early serial production" (with no numbers specified) as separate points [*]. Indeed, adding it as a full sentence looks clumsy. Lupishor (talk) 20:16, 1 June 2021 (UTC)

Manufactured is just another term for produced or completed. --Denniss (talk) 20:56, 1 June 2021 (UTC)