This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Germany Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Aviation / Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / European / German / World War II This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history Associated task forces: /  Military aviation task force Military land vehicles task force Military science, technology, and theory task force Weaponry task force European military history task force German military history task force World War II task force

I've read articles that state 87 Wirbelwinds were produced and others that state 105. To make things worse Achtung Panzer! states "Overall from May to November of 1944, only 87(105) Wirbelwinds were made", which doesn't really help. Anyone have an explanation? Oberiko 16:38, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Acording to this site (German text), there was some discrepancy between Ostbau Werke's recorded production numbers and the numbers actually being accepted by the Wehrmacht - I haven't found been able to find out if production numbers were higehr or lower than numbers in Wehrmacht service records, but I suppose that's where the two different numbers on Achtung Panzer come from. Shall we follow Achtung Panzer and just put both numbers in the article?

And as a side note, do we really need a separate article for the Ostwind? I think it would contain pretty much the same text as the Wirbelwind article...redirect Ostwind to Wirbelwind and add a little note? Ferkelparade 18:21, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't mind giving each article it's own page (it's not like it'll save space to keep them on one) and then provide a two-way link. It'll also help with external links, as we won't have to specify which vehicle it's referring to. I'm not adamant about that though.

As for the numbers, I agree we should follow their lead and put perhaps (87-105) and then a footnote to explain it. Oberiko 18:59, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've added a short disclaimer on the numbers and created a new article for the Ostwind (pretty much just a copy&paste of the WIrbelwind article, with some minor tweaks) Ferkelparade 21:07, 12 May 2004 (UTC)[reply]

It is entirely likely that 105 were produced and that the German Army accepted only 87 of them. Someone may want to put that into the article. 72.227.230.250 (talk) 17:43, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that is a possible explanation, but it is only a guess. The language as it is now is fine. The fact is we don't know, and may never know. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 20:00, 30 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The wiki article on the 20mm flak 30 and 38 does a good job explaining the notion that the Flak 38 was a gun, mounted in various ways including the 4-gun flakvierling mount. "Vier" being German for "four", I would think it is pretty obvious. The Flakvierling is NOT a four-barrelled gun; each flak 38 had its own full mechanisms and each gun fired on its own. So it is analogous to a US quad fifty caliber MG mount, but not to, say, a true multibarrel gun such as a minigun. The current edit makes sense. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:12, 19 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it is similar to the Maxson Mount, which is also not a "single gun with four barrels." Graff977 (talk) 21:15, 20 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Thereafter, the 2 cm shells proved less effective against aircraft . . . " is messy, IMO, on a couple of counts. "Thereafter", grammatically, presupposes a 'there' for the 'after' to be after, but no date is given or even inferred. And "less effective" grammatically requires something else for it to be less effective then. Now I know that the writer almost certainly meant than the 37mm gun (in the Ostwind) but this isn't stated, and as the Ostwind hadn't been developed at this point the statement wouldn't make sense even if it were so stated.

So I am editing this to "However, the 2cm shells proved ineffective against aircraft . . . ".

Actually I am not too happy with this, as what I really mean is something like 'insufficiently effective". So, cancel the above, I am going to edit the start of the sentence to "However, in combat the 2cm shells were felt to be insufficiently effective against aircraft and so . . . "

I know - a very long justification of a simple edit. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:12, 25 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]