_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: Axis - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Axis forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Wikiedia Wrong Again?
long_tom
Visit this Community
Illinois, United States
Joined: March 18, 2006
KitMaker: 2,362 posts
Armorama: 2,005 posts
Posted: Monday, December 12, 2016 - 08:40 PM UTC
The article on the Sd Kfz 251 halftrack series said that the Type C came out in mid-1942 while the Type D came out in early 1943. I could have sworn I saw books saying that these two versions came out beforehand. So what's the story?
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Monday, December 12, 2016 - 08:57 PM UTC
According to this article :

http://www.panzernet.net/panzernet/stranky/polopasy/251.php

The "C" variant appeared in early 1941, and the "D" one production began in August 1943...

According to that article :

http://www.kfzderwehrmacht.de/Homepage_english/Motor_Vehicles/Germany/Hanomag/m__SPW/m__spw.html

the "D" entered production in July 1943...

H.P.
RLlockie
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 1,112 posts
Armorama: 938 posts
Posted: Monday, December 12, 2016 - 11:18 PM UTC
According to Jentz (PT 15-3-2), D production started in May 1943. In PT 15-2-1, he gives early 1941 for the first deliveries of production Cs.
joepanzer
Visit this Community
North Carolina, United States
Joined: January 21, 2004
KitMaker: 803 posts
Armorama: 740 posts
Posted: Monday, December 12, 2016 - 11:39 PM UTC
Wikipedia is a open source platform. i.e., anyone with a PC can edit it. If I were you, to verify facts I would use other resources. False misinformation can be a curse and the results will be far from what you expected and what you wanted.
Just look at Nov 8th, and you'll see what I mean.
justsendit
Visit this Community
Colorado, United States
Joined: February 24, 2014
KitMaker: 3,033 posts
Armorama: 2,492 posts
Posted: Monday, December 12, 2016 - 11:58 PM UTC

Quoted Text

Wikipedia is a open source platform. i.e., anyone with a PC can edit it. If I were you, to verify facts I would use other resources. False misinformation can be a curse and the results will be far from what you expected and what you wanted.
Just look at Nov 8th, and you'll see what I mean.


Just don’t tell me there is no real Frenchy! 😠

Excuuuuuse me while I go hack some changes 😈 … just kidding! Hehe!
Frenchy
Visit this Community
Rhone, France
Joined: December 02, 2002
KitMaker: 12,719 posts
Armorama: 12,507 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - 12:21 AM UTC

Quoted Text


Just don’t tell me there is no real Frenchy!



Last time I've checked it looked like I was real Mike

H.P.
MikeyBugs95
Visit this Community
New York, United States
Joined: May 27, 2013
KitMaker: 2,210 posts
Armorama: 1,712 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - 01:07 AM UTC
For most part, Wikipedia has slowly been getting better. I think there is now more oversight of the changes being made and if, for example, someone were to edit an article with false information or delete the information within the article, the change will be reversed or the previous version restored. I still wouldn't use Wikipedia as the definitive source for information but it isn't too too bad to use as one of many sources. The good thing (which has is also a bad thing) about Wikipedia is that anyone can edit a page. So that also means that we, being the sticklers for absolute historical accuracy that we are, can go in and correct inaccurate information if we find it (and have a reputable original source for the information). I've gone into a few articles and corrected grammar on occasion.
TrifonDK
Visit this Community
Attica, Greece / Ελλάδα
Joined: February 17, 2009
KitMaker: 286 posts
Armorama: 285 posts
Posted: Tuesday, December 13, 2016 - 02:14 AM UTC
Indeed, it seems Wikipedia has been getting better, still I can say that I have only once contributed some info (on the M113 APC in Greek service) and its been stuck as "verification needed" for 2 years...
 _GOTOTOP