Jump to content


Rename the Marder 38T (unhistorical name)


  • Please log in to reply
20 replies to this topic

davidblader #1 Posted 21 July 2017 - 09:05 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6626 battles
  • 236
  • [DRACL] DRACL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

https://en.wikipedia....2C_Sd.Kfz._138

 

Like Wikipedia says, the Marder 38T's real name is actually Marder III Ausf. H (which would be shortened to Marder III H in WoT battles).

I haven't found any place using the name ''Marder 38T'', and there are more vehicles than that, that were based on the Pz. 38(t)'s hull.

Correct me, however, if I am wrong.

 

The game has a lot of unhistorical stuff, but why even a name? It should be changed, it doesn't take a lot of effort, right? At least let the names be as they are in real life.



RamRaid90 #2 Posted 21 July 2017 - 09:12 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 20579 battles
  • 6,284
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-14-2014

This is important why?

 

Also, what does it have to do with gameplay?



WindSplitter1 #3 Posted 21 July 2017 - 09:17 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 15517 battles
  • 2,260
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

Also unhistorical names:

 

  • FV215b (183) - 183 is in excess
  • Jagdpanzer 38t
  • FV4005 Stage II - It should be "Stage I"

And the rest.

 

Without disconsidering your point (it is a valid one) but it the game has other pressing concerns.


Edited by WindSplitter1, 21 July 2017 - 09:18 PM.


davidblader #4 Posted 21 July 2017 - 09:19 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 6626 battles
  • 236
  • [DRACL] DRACL
  • Member since:
    04-12-2013

View PostRamRaid90, on 21 July 2017 - 09:12 PM, said:

This is important why?

 

Also, what does it have to do with gameplay?

 

It's just a suggestion, never said it is or not important.

Where else should I post it than here? I've seen other stuff in gameplay that doesn't have to do with the gameplay.

Phobos4321 #5 Posted 21 July 2017 - 09:33 PM

    General

  • Player
  • 43089 battles
  • 8,213
  • Member since:
    09-27-2011
doesnt read like a suggestion more like a demand ...

Rataplan #6 Posted 21 July 2017 - 09:43 PM

    Sergeant

  • Player
  • 15808 battles
  • 273
  • [USAW] USAW
  • Member since:
    06-09-2011

I agree it is probably not the most urgent matter which has to be addressed By Wargaming, but why the salt and toxicity again?

 

Nothing the OP has stated is wrong.

 

So basically, if you think the topic isn't worth your time, why would you spend even more time typing an answer which is even worth less the time reading it.

 

I guess it is because some people would love to turn the forum into some inbred little club with the same 50 guys discussing the topics they like best.

 

But that comment would probably too toxic and salty as well, so basically screw it all and all shut up about everything and nothing at the same time.

 


Edited by Rataplan, 21 July 2017 - 09:49 PM.


Balc0ra #7 Posted 21 July 2017 - 09:44 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 64364 battles
  • 15,431
  • [WALL] WALL
  • Member since:
    07-10-2012

View Postdavidblader, on 21 July 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

Like Wikipedia says, the Marder 38T's real name is actually Marder III Ausf. H (which would be shortened to Marder III H in WoT battles).

 

Block Quote

 The full name of the Ausf. H was the 7.5 cm PaK 40/3 auf Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) Ausf. H

 

It's simply the two names merged into one if you will. Historical or not. Most names the tanks have are "unhistorical". Some has their nickname listed instead to keep it simple. As Germans were a fan of long names as show above. Marder 38T is simpler then 7.5 cm PaK 40/3 auf Panzerkampfwagen 38(t) Ausf. H. Or 12.8 cm Selbstfahrlafette auf VK30.01H instead of Sturer Emil.

 

 


Edited by Balc0ra, 21 July 2017 - 09:47 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #8 Posted 21 July 2017 - 09:55 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 7478 battles
  • 3,902
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostWindSplitter1, on 21 July 2017 - 08:17 PM, said:

Also unhistorical names:

  • Jagdpanzer 38t

Unhistorical how?

Last time I checked, the Jagdpanzer 38(t) has been called that by 99% of germany at the time it was in use.

Hetzer being an incorrect name for it; being the development name for the E-10 instead.



Plasma_Fire #9 Posted 21 July 2017 - 10:42 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19581 battles
  • 722
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011

This game is not historical WG staff are making it up as they go along.

 

Nishi

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 21 July 2017 - 09:55 PM, said:

Unhistorical how?

Last time I checked, the Jagdpanzer 38(t) has been called that by 99% of germany at the time it was in use.

Hetzer being an incorrect name for it; being the development name for the E-10 instead.

 

  Well if you want to be picky as you clearly do then the name is the JagdPanzer 38, not the JagdPanzer 38(t).
It used the Panzer 38(t) chassis but the (t0 didnt carry over.

 

From what I remember this game is full of inaccurate names for tanks, Objekt 704 is a good instance of that, When I was in Kubinka I read the description which states that the name is ISU-152 1945 and its development name was Object 704... But then Kubinka seem to think that is an SPG not a tank destroyer.

Tiger Ausf.E is the more correct name, and Tiger Ausf.B is the more correct name for the Tiger II.

Even the German prototype tanks didnt get their proper designations until a couple of years back, For a long time they went without the punctuation in the designation. VK3601(H) became VK 36.01(H)... I remember posting about it at the time, my words fell on deaf ears, people told me it didnt matter as it isnt a sim game.

Littered with inaccurate names.



WindSplitter1 #10 Posted 22 July 2017 - 01:06 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 15517 battles
  • 2,260
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 21 July 2017 - 08:55 PM, said:

Unhistorical how?

Last time I checked, the Jagdpanzer 38(t) has been called that by 99% of germany at the time it was in use.

Hetzer being an incorrect name for it; being the development name for the E-10 instead.

 

I stand corrected.

DracheimFlug #11 Posted 22 July 2017 - 06:23 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 8957 battles
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostPlasma_Fire, on 21 July 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

This game is not historical WG staff are making it up as they go along.

 

Nishi

 

  Well if you want to be picky as you clearly do then the name is the JagdPanzer 38, not the JagdPanzer 38(t).
It used the Panzer 38(t) chassis but the (t0 didnt carry over.

 

From what I remember this game is full of inaccurate names for tanks, Objekt 704 is a good instance of that, When I was in Kubinka I read the description which states that the name is ISU-152 1945 and its development name was Object 704... But then Kubinka seem to think that is an SPG not a tank destroyer.

Tiger Ausf.E is the more correct name, and Tiger Ausf.B is the more correct name for the Tiger II.

Even the German prototype tanks didnt get their proper designations until a couple of years back, For a long time they went without the punctuation in the designation. VK3601(H) became VK 36.01(H)... I remember posting about it at the time, my words fell on deaf ears, people told me it didnt matter as it isnt a sim game.

Littered with inaccurate names.

 

Most military considered self propelled direct fire AT guns as SPG's too. SPG just means 'self propelled gun' not 'self propelled artillery.'



TheJumpMaster #12 Posted 22 July 2017 - 06:27 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 46291 battles
  • 4,308
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View Postdavidblader, on 21 July 2017 - 10:05 PM, said:

https://en.wikipedia....2C_Sd.Kfz._138

 

Like Wikipedia says, the Marder 38T's real name is actually Marder III Ausf. H (which would be shortened to Marder III H in WoT battles).

I haven't found any place using the name ''Marder 38T'', and there are more vehicles than that, that were based on the Pz. 38(t)'s hull.

Correct me, however, if I am wrong.

 

The game has a lot of unhistorical stuff, but why even a name? It should be changed, it doesn't take a lot of effort, right? At least let the names be as they are in real life.

 

Actually, I call my Marder 38T "Herman". Will I get banned for doing so?

Does it really matter?

Are the stars just pin [edited]in the curtain of night?

Who knows?

 

Until these riddles are solved, I shall continue to play my tanks as if the world continues to spin on.



250swb #13 Posted 22 July 2017 - 08:23 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 21707 battles
  • 4,864
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-23-2015

View Postdavidblader, on 21 July 2017 - 09:05 PM, said:

https://en.wikipedia....2C_Sd.Kfz._138

 

Like Wikipedia says, the Marder 38T's real name is actually Marder III Ausf. H (which would be shortened to Marder III H in WoT battles).

I haven't found any place using the name ''Marder 38T'', and there are more vehicles than that, that were based on the Pz. 38(t)'s hull.

Correct me, however, if I am wrong.

 

The game has a lot of unhistorical stuff, but why even a name? It should be changed, it doesn't take a lot of effort, right? At least let the names be as they are in real life.

 

I look forward to the day all German tanks have their full and unabbreviated names used, oh the joy Mr Pedantic will have on the forums. But the joy of using English as a language is in it's ability to say the same thing in many ways, so if it looks like a Marder 38T it is a Marder 38T, even though if writing a text book it would be useful to use the full manufacturers and army designation at least once.

lord_chipmonk #14 Posted 22 July 2017 - 08:37 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33226 battles
  • 10,212
  • [-HOW-] -HOW-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2012

View PostWindSplitter1, on 21 July 2017 - 09:17 PM, said:

 

  • FV4005 Stage II - It should be "Stage I"

 

AFAIK this is actually correctly named. The stage 1 had no turret housing and had an autoloading mechanism. 

 



TheJumpMaster #15 Posted 22 July 2017 - 08:38 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 46291 battles
  • 4,308
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    05-04-2011

View PostTheJumpMaster, on 22 July 2017 - 07:27 AM, said:

 

Actually, I call my Marder 38T "Herman". Will I get banned for doing so?

Does it really matter?

Are the stars just pin [edited]in the curtain of night?

Who knows?

 

Until these riddles are solved, I shall continue to play my tanks as if the world continues to spin on.

I think that the language filter has exaggerated this time I wrote "pin p r i c k" and it edited the word "p r i c k" :P



leggasiini #16 Posted 22 July 2017 - 08:43 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 12394 battles
  • 6,072
  • [-GLO-] -GLO-
  • Member since:
    12-01-2012

View PostWindSplitter1, on 21 July 2017 - 10:17 PM, said:

  • FV4005 Stage II - It should be "Stage I"

 

Wrong.

 

FV4005 we have in-game has correct name. Stage I is the with autoloader and no turret. The turretted version with no autoloader is the Stage II, which is what we have.

 

-----------

 

As for other names:

 

FV215B 183 should be simply called as just FV215.

 

Type 95 Heavy should be Type 95 Ro-Go.

 

O-Ni and O-Ho didnt exist, but if they used the proper IJA naming system, they should be O-Ro and O-Ha (super-heavy 2nd and super-heavy 3rd), or if called as "alternate" versions of O-I, simply as O-I II and O-I III, because it is possible the Type 4/5 was actually the O-Ro, as it is 2nd Japanese super-heavy design afterall.

 

EDIT: I-Go/Chi-Ro should be named as just I-Go. Chi-Ro is not a real designation for it.

 


Edited by leggasiini, 22 July 2017 - 10:18 PM.


WindSplitter1 #17 Posted 22 July 2017 - 10:20 PM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 15517 battles
  • 2,260
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View Postleggasiini, on 22 July 2017 - 07:43 AM, said:

 

Wrong.

 

FV4005 we have in-game has correct name. Stage I is the with autoloader and no turret. The turretted version with no autoloader is the Stage II, which is what we have.

 

-----------

 

As for other names:

 

FV215B 183 should be simply called as just FV215.

 

Type 95 Heavy should be Type 95 Ro-Go.

 

O-Ni and O-Ho didnt exist, but if they used the proper IJA naming system, they should be O-Ro and O-Ha (super-heavy 2nd and super-heavy 3rd), or if called as "alternate" versions of O-I, simply as O-I II and O-I III, because it is possible the Type 4/5 was actually the O-Ro, as it is 2nd Japanese super-heavy design afterall.

 

EDIT: I-Go/Chi-Ro should be named as just I-Go. Chi-Ro is not a real designation for it.

 

 

True, I was too hasty in my remarks. I was referring to the full turret traverse on Stage II

Plasma_Fire #18 Posted 22 July 2017 - 11:11 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 19581 battles
  • 722
  • Member since:
    08-13-2011

View PostDracheimFlug, on 22 July 2017 - 06:23 AM, said:

View PostPlasma_Fire, on 21 July 2017 - 10:42 PM, said:

This game is not historical WG staff are making it up as they go along.

 

Nishi

 

  Well if you want to be picky as you clearly do then the name is the JagdPanzer 38, not the JagdPanzer 38(t).
It used the Panzer 38(t) chassis but the (t0 didnt carry over.

 

From what I remember this game is full of inaccurate names for tanks, Objekt 704 is a good instance of that, When I was in Kubinka I read the description which states that the name is ISU-152 1945 and its development name was Object 704... But then Kubinka seem to think that is an SPG not a tank destroyer.

Tiger Ausf.E is the more correct name, and Tiger Ausf.B is the more correct name for the Tiger II.

Even the German prototype tanks didnt get their proper designations until a couple of years back, For a long time they went without the punctuation in the designation. VK3601(H) became VK 36.01(H)... I remember posting about it at the time, my words fell on deaf ears, people told me it didnt matter as it isnt a sim game.

Littered with inaccurate names.

 

Most military considered self propelled direct fire AT guns as SPG's too. SPG just means 'self propelled gun' not 'self propelled artillery.'

 

Your confusion is understandable.

 

A Tank destroyer like the JagdPanther was used in a direct fire mode, the Soviets used the likes of the SU-85 in this manner, while the ISU-152 was used mostly in an indirect fire mode. Standard deployment and operating meant they were used in this manner due to their gun, If you read some of the information plaques as I have that are in front of tanks like Object 704 at Kubinka it makes it clear how they were to be used.



Beltalowda #19 Posted 22 July 2017 - 11:26 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 60311 battles
  • 685
  • Member since:
    03-02-2011

View Postdavidblader, on 21 July 2017 - 08:05 PM, said:

https://en.wikipedia....2C_Sd.Kfz._138

 

Like Wikipedia says, the Marder 38T's real name is actually Marder III Ausf. H (which would be shortened to Marder III H in WoT battles).

I haven't found any place using the name ''Marder 38T'', and there are more vehicles than that, that were based on the Pz. 38(t)'s hull.

Correct me, however, if I am wrong.

 

The game has a lot of unhistorical stuff, but why even a name? It should be changed, it doesn't take a lot of effort, right? At least let the names be as they are in real life.

 

The "T" stands for Tschechien, German word for Czech, because it was built in Czechoslovakia during the war. :) 

 

We had a lot of factories you know, and the second largest weapon industry in the whole Europe. Also Czechoslovakia was among the top 10 wealthiest countries in the world in the absolute sense, despite its not being a large country. The economic strength became particularly strong in the late 1920s. The GDP per capita was above those of Germany, France, Italy, and the U.K., at least in 1929. In the late 1920s, the Czechoslovak crown was arguably the strongest currency in Europe.


Edited by TrewSx, 22 July 2017 - 11:31 PM.


DracheimFlug #20 Posted 23 July 2017 - 06:23 AM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 8957 battles
  • 4,033
  • Member since:
    11-13-2014

View PostPlasma_Fire, on 22 July 2017 - 11:11 PM, said:

 

Your confusion is understandable.

 

A Tank destroyer like the JagdPanther was used in a direct fire mode, the Soviets used the likes of the SU-85 in this manner, while the ISU-152 was used mostly in an indirect fire mode. Standard deployment and operating meant they were used in this manner due to their gun, If you read some of the information plaques as I have that are in front of tanks like Object 704 at Kubinka it makes it clear how they were to be used.

 

My understanding is that it was designed primarily as an assault gun, for direct fire use against fortifications. The other uses (indirect fire and direct fire TD) are secondary and tertiary. However due to the limitations of a fixed gun and due to the fact additional indirect fire is often useful, they got used in the artillery role a lot. Not sure on the 704, though. It may well be that since they were using the ISU 152's so often as artillery, that they decided to go in that direction as primary. 

 

However, it does not explain why a vehicle that is primarily indirect fire would need that level of armour.






1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users