Talk:Panzer I

older comments

The article says the armor plate was homogenous, and also that it was face-hardened. Which is it? I thought most German armor was face-hardened. DMorpheus 16:19, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure that the Germans didn't routinely face harden their armoured plate until 1941/2, so I'd be surprised if the PzI had face hardened armour. That said, I don't have the means to verufy that so if someone can prove me wrong then go right ahead. Getztashida 11:46, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

In my re-write I decided not to include what kind of steel was used - none of my sources specify. JonCatalan 02:49, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

GA Review

I happily passed this - with flying colours! The only obvious way I can see to improve the article is a rewrite of the 'Second World War' section, which reads a bit too much like an account of the history of Panzers in the relevant campaigns, and not focused enough on the role of tha Panzer I in particular. Keep up the good work! The Land 21:23, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

As a second opinion, everything looks good. I'd like to see the tanks given to Spain section turned into prose, but I don't midn it as it is now.--Wizardman 17:03, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

The World War 2 section has indeed to be completely rewritten with a focus on the (after September 1939 very minor) role of the PzKpfw I in it. Also the article would gain much by not treating Perrett as a serious source. It isn't :o). I would strongly advise to consult the works of Spielberger, Ellis and Jentz.--MWAK 06:31, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

Translation of "light tractor"

While reading the article I (as a german) realized that the term "light tractor" was translated with "Leichtertraktor". The correct german term is "Leichttraktor". Greetings, Lars —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.252.173.14 (talk) 09:44, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I've given it a slight copyedit, but otherwise this is an excellent article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Regards, Jackyd101 (talk) 09:41, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Is there a link to the reassessment? The reason I haven't worked on this article further is because my sources are in San Diego, California, but my body is in Madrid, Spain. So, until I can get my sources over here, or buy them again, I can't really work on the history section. JonCatalan (talk) 09:45, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, just saw this. No, there is not link partly because I hadn't heard about the linking system when I did the review and partly because I didn't really have any comments to make. I thought it was a throughly professional article.--Jackyd101 (talk) 19:02, 18 July 2008 (UTC)

Fact check

A couple of issues:

• "no less than a quarter of Germany's tanks were unavailable due to maintenance issues or enemy action" Clarification of how many each would be useful...
• Sov 45mm was reportedly best AT gun of the era; in Kogun, IIRC. It bears checking & adding.

TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 03:58, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, my sources don't tell me how many tanks of each were unavailable due to maintenance - just that general figure. As per the 45mm gun, it probably was, but I don't have that source or a source that states that it was the best anti-tank gun of the era (well, it would be easy to assume so, but I don't have any source that I could cite). As per some of the changes you made - normally, tensioner and idler wheel are one in the same. JonCatalán (talk) 05:30, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

I've seen tensioner & idler wheel used as distinct items, but that could be a matter of UK/U.S. usage. I'll stand corrected if so. Otherwise, it's just a matter of finding & confirming (or refuting). TREKphiler ^{hit me ♠} 06:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

The idler wheel is the wheel at the opposite end of the vehicle to the drive sprocket and it is usually adjustable for correcting overall track tension due to wear in the track links. A tensioner wheel (if fitted) is usually located at one end of the road-wheels and is under spring pressure to maintain the wheel against the track and so maintain the track in sufficient tension to prevent the track slipping off the running gear during normal running. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.150.10.137 (talk) 18:36, 3 April 2018 (UTC)

Mind your Panzer I’s

Standard English rules are to pluralize letters using apostrophes, to prevent confusion: “mind your p’s and q’s.” I suggest same rule should be applied to the capital I used for the Roman numeral in Panzer I, otherwise Panzer Is looks like “panzer is” or “Panzer One Ess.”

The use of the slightly awkward plural can also be reduced by rewriting for Panzer I tanks, Panzers, or using the model name in the singular: the Panzer I was tasked.... —Michael Z. 2008-08-15 16:07 z

Quite so; we don't want any sentences misunderstood, such as "The Panzer I was tasked to drive II the shop IV maintenance was running poorly" ;) DMorpheus (talk) 18:08, 15 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm in the minority again... Apostrophes are for possessives, not plurals, & I've seen "no apostrophe" used frequently, if not as freq, as with. I come down "none". (And DMorpheus is well on the way II driving me 2 distraction. ;D ) That Darned Etruscan ^{yes, Alex?} 06:40, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Quite right, but this is one of the rare exceptions, which most style manuals recommend. It's mind your a’s, i’s, and u’s—not as, is, and us. Likewise, Panzer Is is odd-looking and potentially confusing. (Another danger is mistaking a KV-1S tank for several ordinary KV-1’s—as with the KV-8S. Also, there's an IS-2M and a different IS-2m.) —Michael Z. 2008-08-23 07:39 z

I'm sorry, standard English rules are to use apostrophes only for possessives and abbreviations, NEVER for plurals. The common misuse of apostrophes for plurals, even those ending in Roman numerals, is a sign of the all too common illiteracy endemic in technology based fora like Wiki. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.96.44.189 (talk) 03:44, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Did you read the above discussion? I'm often wrong and willing to admit it, but being righteously outraged isn't a very effective argument. Pirate^Argh!!1! 07:41, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Data was referenced

Hi! I edited that page and changes were removed - explanation - "data had been already referenced". I also gave references and these sources are far more reliable than those which had been used previously. I used Hahn and Jentz who are basing on a German OKH report from 07.10.1940 which is giving a number of at least 832 tanks lost in combat as for that day (this includes 320 Pz-I, 259 Pz-II, 40 Pz-III, 76 Pz-IV, 77 Pz-35(t), 13 PzBef-III (according to Jentz and Fritz Hahn), 7 PzBef38(t), 34 other PzBefs, unknown number of Pz-38(t)) - but this report may be incomplete and it includes only combat casualties anyway. So no 650 tanks were lost in combat, but at least 832 - as I corrected it.

Furthermore - it is estimated that around 25% of all German Panzer I-s engaged in Poland had broken during the course of the Polish Campaign.

I also corrected ammount of Wounded in Action and German overall casualties - data was removed. Number of Polish dead, wounded and captured CANNOT be compared with number given there previously (40,000 casualties), because - this number - does NOT include any prisoners of war. Poles captured a dozen or so or even few dozens of German soldiers during the campaign - but all of them were recaptured by the Germans and by the Soviets before the end of the campaign.

If you compare, compare number of Polish dead/missing and wounded with number of German dead/missing and wounded.

The highest given official figures for German casualties are:

16663 KIA
5029 MIA - all reported dead later
34136 WIA

Total: 55828 (not 40,000)

This number of WIA is taken from the book "Wojna Obronna Polski 1939", page 851 - it is based on German daily reports from regiments and it seems to be the most reliable of all datas refering to WIA. It gives a breakdown of these losses for each Army - which is as follows:

3. Army - 4,768
4. Army - 2,258 - only to 25.09.1939
8. Army - 5,840
10. Army - 13,096
14. Army - 7,767
OKL - 407

Total: 34136

Notice that data above must be incomplete - there are no WIA from disposal units of Army Groups, disposal units of OKH and reserves, which were not subordinated to any army above.

"5029 MIA - all reported dead later"

This number is also incomplete - "Wojna Obronna Polski 1939" also states, that number of Missing in Action and Missing from 8. Army was unknown and was not reported properly by the Germans, because exact number of MIA and Missing from 8. Army was not known.

However:

"3. Army - 4,768 WIA
4. Army - 2,258 WIA - only to 25.09.1939"

According to "Guderian" by Kenneth Macksey, pages 88 and 92 - 4. Army lost 8,000 soldiers and Army Group "North" lost 15,000 soldiers.

Another thing corrected by me was amount of German Panzer-Divisionen in Poland. There were NO 6 Panzer-Divisions - there were 7 Panzer Divisions in Poland. There were also 4 light divsions and 2 independent tank battalions. Total strength of all German units armed with tanks engaged in Poland was not 2600 tanks (as was previously written), but around 2700 (as I corrected it) - here is a detailed breakdown of these numbers (strength as on 1st of September):

Unit - exact number of tanks (number of tank battalions in unit):

3. Panzer-Division - 394 (5)
4. Panzer-Division - 341 lub 357 (4)
5. Panzer-Division - 335 (4)
2. Panzer-Division - 323 (4)
1. Panzer-Division - 309 (4)
Panzer-Division "Kempf" - 164 (2)
10. Panzer-Division - 151 (2)

1. Leichte-Division - 227 (3)
2. Leichte-Division - 162 (2)
3. Leichte-Division - 84 (1)
4. Leichte-Division - 76 lub 62 (1)

I./23. Panzer-Regiment - 76 (1)
I./10. Panzer-Regiment - 74 (1)

Schliesslehrgang - 27
62. Batalion Saperów - 7
Technische Uffz. Lehrgang - 2
Pionier Lehr und Versuchs Battalion – 1

All together German tanks sent against Poland: 2753

I want to return to the case of men casualties once again:

Different German official statistics were reporting different figures - and all of them were incomplete - Rudiger Overmans writes about that - he gives a tabel of statistics (only numbers of KIA):

Tabel from Overmans below:

http://img370.imageshack.us/img370/5005/tote1zp2.jpg

Overmans - "Deutsche militärische Verluste im Zweiten Weltkrieg" - pages 54 - 55

Important notes:

1. Tabel includes only casualties suffered due to enemy action. It concerns only combat casualties and only those suffered due to enemy action, not any friendly fire, accidents, died of illnes, suicides, etc.
2. According to Overmans in report from 30.08.1944 they admitted, that these are not all casualties - numbers are incomplete - and they admitted, that numbers will grow up after further more carefull counting in the future.
3. Data of WED, Sanitary Inspection and IVb includes Waffen-SS casualties. Data of WASt - does not include it.
4. Data of Sanitary Inspection includes DoW members of other military forces who died in Heer hospitals (but only up to a certain date !!). It does not include members of Heer who died in hospitals of other military forces at all.
5. Numbers given by IVb concern only members of Feldheer.
6. Numbers given by other institutions - if they concern members of Heer - they concern members of all Heer (not only Feldheer).
7. All of these numbers does not include Kriegsmarine casualties.
8. All of these numbers does not include casualties of Polizei, Grenschutz, SS, other para-miltary formations, formations like "Kampfverband Ebbinghaus", different "K-Trupps" and "Sabotage-Trupps", other German diversion units (subordinated to Department II of Abwehra), "V Column" - etc., etc. - and so on ...
9. All of these numbers does not include Luftwaffe and units subordinated to OKL (also AA defence) casualties.
10. All of these numbers include only casualties suffered up to a certain date - only casualties in September 1939 (probably up to around 25th - few days more or less - of September 1939) - and last German combat casualties in the Poland Campaign were suffered on 8th of October 1939 (OKH communicate says, that on 8th of October last parts of SGO "Polesie" surrendered to the Germans which is considered as the ending date of the Poland Campaign by the Poles).
11. Data given by KTB der Truppe includes only numbers taken from Regimental war / combat journals.

WASt = Deutsche Dienststelle (WASt)

If it comes to my corrections of the article again:

Data about casualties of Soviet armour (42 - 43 irrevocably destroyed tanks, 150 lost in combat all together, and further around 300 lost due to breakdowns) was taken from this site:

http://www.hetmanusa.org/polarticle2.html

Number of Germans irrecovable casualties was the official one (236 reported in September) + my own estimations from the following months (because many tanks damaged in Poland were reported impossible to repair during the following months, not in September - which is often forgotten). I was basing on Jentz's figures - book "Panzertruppen" - showing number of casualties in the following months (before the French campaign) - and this is what I established:

If it comes to Totalausfalle (write-offs, irrecovable losses), Jentz lists the following amount of write-offs between October 1939 and April 1940:

Pz.Kw. 1 - 248
Pz.Kw. 2 - 89
Pz.Kw. 35 - 52
Pz.Kw. 3 - 40
Pz.Kw. 4 – 6

All together: 435

Pz.Kw.1 – 248 pieces written-off in this period – this most probably includes:

8 pieces written-off in Norway, 38 rebuilt for SIG 33, 132 rebuilt for PzJg = 178 pieces

This probably includes too:

20 pieces renovated in April 1940 = 20 pieces

But – I’m not shure if renovated tanks were being written-off also.

= 178 – 198 pieces total

Pz-I which left as additional Totalausfalle due to the Polish Campaign:

50 – 70 pieces

Pz.Kw.2 – 89 pieces written-off in this period – this most probably includes:

2 pieces written-off in Norway, 43 rebuilt for Flammpanzer, 4 pieces rebuilt for Bruckenleger, 2 pieces possibly (?) written-off due to winter exercises = 49 – 51 pieces.

This possibly includes too:

18 pieces renovated in April 1940 = 18 pieces

Pz-II which left as additional Totalausfalle due to the Polish Campaign:

20 to 22 pieces - 38 to 40 pieces

Pz.Kw.4 – 6 pieces.

Pz-IV which left as additional Totalausfalle due to the Polish Campaign:

6 pieces

Pz.Kw.3 – 40 pieces – this may possibly include:

1 piece possibly (?) written-off due to winter exercises, 34 pieces sent to general renovation before sending them to training units – of course only if those 34 pieces were written-off (which is very doubtfull) – and one more thing is that I don’t know when they were sent to those schools and to this renovation.

Anyway – number of Pz-III which left as additional Totalausfalle due to the Polish Campaign is:

5 to 6 pieces – 39 – 40 pieces

Pz.Kw.35 – 52 pieces

I know that 26 pieces of Pz.Kw.35 were sent to general renovation and later sold to Bulgaria, BUT:

These tanks were from 11. Pz.Rgt. and were sent to Pilzno for renovation before the war started (on 18th of August 1939 Bulgars after visit in Padeborn agreed for buying them). Beginning of war extended duration of their renovation to beginnings of 1940.

So – even if it happened that tanks which were sent for renovation were being written-off – even then we must remember that those tanks were sent for renovation in August of 1939, not in period October 1939 – April 1940.

So from the initial number – 52 – we can either substract 26 (which is doubtful because they could also be written off in August 1939), or nothing – 0.

Number of Totalausfalle of tanks Pz.Kw.35 which left for the Polish Campaign then is:

26 – 52 pieces

However, I have some doubts if there was no an additional group of 26 Pz.Kw.35 tanks, which was sent for general renovation in this period – apart from those 26 which had been sent for renovation in August 1939 before sending them to Bulgaria in March 1940 (so they might have been also written-off). Then number of Pz.35s which left for Poland would possibly be: 0 – 26 pieces.

Total number of additional irrecovably lost tanks which left for Poland is:

102 to 105 pieces – 205 to 208 pieces.

OR - if number of additional Pz.Kw.35 was 0 - 26 (as I wrote - I have some doubts here about tanks sent for renovation):

If that number was 0:

76 to 79 pieces - 179 to 182 pieces

236 (this is a number given by Jentz for tanks written-off due to casualties in Poland untill - 20th - I think - of September) + 102 to 105 – 205 to 208 =

= 338 to 341 – 441 to 444 as irrecovable losses in Poland Campaign

OR - if additional number of Pz.Kw.35 was only 0 - 26:

= 312 to 315 - 415 to 418 as irrecovable losses in Poland Campaign

To this we must add additional - at least - 43 Soviet tanks as irrecovable Soviet casualties in Poland Campaign.

Here some interesting links:

http://chrito.users1.50megs.com/

http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=55&t=75823&start=30

Regards, Domen =

= Peter558 (talk) 00:29, 2 November 2008 (UTC)

Panzer I pulling a train?

From Perrett's German Light Panzers 1932-1942, pp30-31 - "Worse, the autumn rains created a sea of mud in which only tanks could move with difficulty; many of the less combat-worthy PzKpfw Is and IIs found themselves towing trains of three or four lorries through axle-deep slime so that communications could be kept open."167.21.1.225 (talk) 12:32, 2 July 2009 (UTC)Charles

See comments above about Perret. While he has authored several popular tank books, he is not a serious historian and I've found contradictory statements within single books of his. My favorite is in the Osprey "Allied Tank Italy" in which he describes the M4A1 76mm as being muzzle-heavy on one page and breech-heavy on another.

Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:15, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

EW141

Einbau Waffe 141 was an odd weapon. A semi-automatic, belt fed weapon firing the 7.92 x 94 german anti-tank rifle round. An earlier weapon, the MG141 had been fully automatic but the barrel wear cause by the large cartridge to calibre ratio had been extreme.

Details on this obscure gun are scarce to say he least! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.217.231.2 (talk) 17:21, 7 January 2010 (UTC)

Vandalism

Looks like a lot of vandalism has been hitting this article, at least since it has become a featured article. I recommend that it be locked for editing. XXVII (talk) 02:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Seconded

RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 02:58, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Not right now, see WP:TFAP. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 03:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Ooops... thanks Ed. RobertMfromLI | User Talk STP2: Producer/Gaffer/Webmaster 03:17, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

I concur

Harvey Henkelmann (talk) 22:19, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

A featured article should be locked against vandalism, in order to show newcomers to Wikipedia that this encyclopedia is something to be taken seriously, and not just a frivolous internet toy. Harvey Henkelmann (talk) 22:40, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Survivors

Would this article benifit from a section on surviving tanks, such as that in the Mark I tank article, or are there too many survivors to make such a section practical? Mjroots2 (talk) 14:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines

I think I recognize these things from Commandos: Behind Enemy Lines! Specifically, in Mission 7, Chase of the Wolves, you get to drive one of these things around. It's not too good at blowing up stuff like enemy cannons or tanks, due to its light armament, but it can take out enemy infantry pretty well, and it's pretty resistant to small arms. Tisane (talk) 00:33, 22 February 2010 (UTC)

Polish success

Deep in the back-most recesses of my mind, I recall that before WWII began, there was a rumor among Polish soldiers (likely held over from the days when the Germans were making at least a pretense of abiding by the Treaty of Versailles) that German tanks had cardboard "armor", and that this belief, once Poland was invaded, encouraged attacks that proved to be foolhardy (cavalry charges, etc.)--possibly hastening the end of the Polish army as a fighting force. Can anybody find something on this? --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 19:34, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

Myth/propaganda. Invasion of poland#Nazi_propaganda. (Hohum ^@) 20:05, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

OK, that's the cavalry charge sidelight. What about the cardboard (etc.) rumor? (the real point of the question--bad intelligence about the armored units led to particular success on their part) --Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 21:19, 23 February 2010 (UTC)

There might have been a rumor that they were using mild steel or thin sheet steel in place of armor (those were used for mock-ups and prototypes), but I can't find any evidence of such. Nobody in their right mind would have claimed that the tanks were using cardboard armor.

That said, a good shot from a heavy machine gun or anti-tank rifle would go through the side armor of a Panzer I, as would a hit from almost any artillery piece. --Carnildo (talk) 22:38, 24 February 2010 (UTC)

Possibly a reference to the use of dummy tanks/armoured cars for training during the Weimar years?Nigel Ish (talk) 21:42, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

After discharge

An interesting and quite complete article! However, what I was wondering while reading it: What happened to the tanks after being discharged by the Wehrmacht? Some of them were used for the Panzerjäger I, ok, but what about the rest (i.e. most of them)? Scrapped? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.172.65.183 (talk) 19:35, 9 February 2011 (UTC) They were destroyed in combat or used for training 103.91.192.2 (talk) 23:22, 27 May 2018 (UTC)

EW141

The EW141 is stated in the article as being a "semi autocannon". How can this be? Semi and autocannon do not go together. This needs to be changed to semi automatic. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Cirran (talk • contribs) 22:29, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

• • It also says that "[it] was armed with an EW 141 semi autocannon, with a 50-round drum, firing 7.92mm anti-tank shells." First, like you said, there is no such thing as a "semi autocannon". That suggests a sort-of autocannon. The proper term is "autoloading cannon". But more importantly, a 7.92mm is a machine gun (or a rifle), not an autocannon. The Mauser EW 141 was a powerful rifle caliber semi-automatic anti-tank weapon, originally called the "MG 141", but limited to semi-auto to preserve the bore from erosion caused by the enormous 7.92x94mm Patrone 318 AT round. Not sure if the "semi" was inteneded to desribe the power of the round or the rate of fire, but it's inncorrect either way. It's a semi-automatic (or better, "self-loading") anti-tank rifle. It would be an anti-tank rifle even if it was a 12.7mm - even if it was a 20mm, in my opinion, because it'd be firing solid AP shot. But it's not, it's a 7.92mm, and hence is not a cannon by anyone's standards. Cannons are generally considered to be anything 20mm or larger in modern Western classification systems. By German standards even 20mms were considered "machine guns", hence the "MG" designation on their 20mm weapons, and "MK" for >20mm weapons like the MK108 (machinengehwher and maschinenkanone, IIRC). The Japanese called anything over 11mm a "cannon", so their 12.7mm weapons were classified as "autocannon" (and were loaded with explosive rounds, as was the German's 13mm weapon). But a 7.92mm is far under the "cannon" cutoff line, even for the Japanese. Anyway, it's an arbitrary classification; you can fire explosive shells out of a 12.7mm, or you can fire solid AP shot out of a 20mm. In any case, I've never heard anyone call anything 7.92mm a "cannon".

Apparently there was some experimental prototype MG/EW 141 firing 14mm rounds with a 9mm squeeze-bore, but this was apparently not any sort of production weapon and was never fitted to the Pz.I

Idumea47b (talk) 04:09, 5 August 2018 (UTC)

Spanish Civil war had no BA-10

In the part of the Spanish Civil war it's mentions that the Panzer I was engaged by engaged by the Commune de Paris battalion with BA-10 Armored cars.

The BA-10 was not even developed at the time. It's most likely a confusion with the BA-3 and/or BA-6. Can someone check a reliable source which what they where equipped? 2A02:810C:C0:3480:C1E2:D92F:264C:4A24 (talk) 23:19, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

Panzer I Classification

While classified as a light tank, the Pz. 1 actually fits the designation of a tankette. It is only armed with machine guns, has paper thin armor, ETC. If nobody objects, I will soon change the article to say this.

• Oppose of course. It doesn't matter what you or I think it is, it's what the sources describe it as. Also the historical background to it is that it was produced as a training vehicle (when it was politically difficult to build anything larger) rather than intended as an extemporised vehicle as most tankettes were, and as such it was the lowest limit of the German tank ranges, not some invasion-fear makeshift. It was also three times heavier than typical tankettes, putting it into the light tank range. Andy Dingley (talk) 18:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Andy Dingley is spot on in his analysis here. Scr★pIron^IV 18:40, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

Woah.

Got to a featured article by clicking the random article link. Nice. Sincerely, TintedFate 13:34, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Ladungsleger - another version not mentioned

Ladungsleger auf Panzer I Ausf. B. Either 10 or 100 built (10 issued per panzer division). In 1939/40, 100 PzKpfw I Ausf A/B were converted into Ladungsleger) – 50/75kg explosive charge layer vehicle. Two variants existed and differed only in the equipment used for the delivery of the charge (an arm that stretched over the vehicle's rear or a slide built on the rear of the vehicle). They were especially designed for engineer units to provide them with the charge carrier for delayed action explosives. The armour was rather thin but at least it was a small target, same idea as a Churchill AVRE dustbin-thrower. Since it had to get really close to its target to drop the charge, the ultra-thin armour of a Panzer 1 must have made it rather dicey to use! Engineer units also got Panzer 1's with the turret removed. I don't have a book reference for this, only web pages with the photographs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sitalkes (talk • contribs) 23:57, 20 May 2018 (UTC) https://nl.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ladungsleger_I This discussion even gives several sources andSitalkes (talk) 00:04, 21 May 2018 (UTC) an account of its use, which seems to verify the thought that it had to be backed up to its target to be used, exposing the rear armour to the enemy!!! https://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=38967Sitalkes (talk) 00:13, 21 May 2018 (UTC)

"Only a training tank" is controversial.

There are examples of cavalry tanks with similar overall configuration (~6 ton, featuring machine guns only) which are contemporaneous with the design of Panzer I, such as namely its French and English counterparts the AMR 33/35 (no to mention the many, many French tanks carrying low velocity 37mm guns) and the Light Tank MkVI. This is in addition to all the Carden-Lloyd tankette clones which were saturating Europe at the time. The T-26 is obviously, like much of Soviet Tank design, simply ahead of its time. 76.94.110.1 (talk) 23:10, 19 July 2019 (UTC)

Panzer I ausf C

This article, as far as I could see, makes no mention of the antitank rifle mounted on the Panzer I ausf. C. PrussianOwl (talk) 22:01, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Not much is known of Ausf. C/F usage but the little that is known does not mention AT-Rifles. --Denniss (talk) 01:10, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect citation?

Citation [14] reads "Franco, Panzer II, pp. 4–5", but Franco seems to have only written a book on Panzer I and no book on Panzer II AFAIK. Is that a typo? If not, full citation of the book should be given at least once. --Happyseeu (talk) 08:19, 24 April 2021 (UTC)

AFAIK, probably is. Thy Pyrometer (talk) 04:19, 11 January 2022 (UTC)