Talk:Tiger I/Archive 3

Extensive gnoming and removal of some piss taking "sources"

Hi all. Been doing some major gnoming and clarifications and grammatical cleanups. Much should be uncontroversial. However, in section "Allied responses" i found some grossly poor "sources", citing world of tanks online game blogsite! The offender evidently had it in for the performance of the firefly and the 17 pdr, and made some bizarre insertions as to the efficiency of the sherman and TD mounted 76mm against the tiger. Apparently according to our unknown colleague it could penetrate the frontal armour of the tiger at 2,500m, while the 17 pdr was an inaccurate, impotent peashooter. The claims in mainspace were just too painful to bear. Removed with dispatch. Happy to discuss with normal eds who may have issues with some of my eds. Cheers Irondome (talk) 03:47, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

There does seem to have been excessive reliance on interpretation of some primary sources, eg WuPreuf calculations affecting this and other tank articles. Most of it is overdetailed for the article anyway. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:29, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Copyvio on Gun section?

From "The gun's breech and firing mechanism..." to "...although most World War II engagements were fought at much shorter ranges". Bob Carruthers Tiger I in Combat is given as the source for this section. In looking (google books) for the page number for the cite, I found it more or less word for word as in the book. If the Gun section is taken from the book in its entirety it needs rewritten. On the other hand if the book - and I couldn't access the sources section of the book from google preview - takes from the article, then it's a worthless cite and needs removing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Good spot. Irondome (talk) 19:26, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

An all-out rewrite of the section, with wholly new referencing would work. Your thoughts. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If its a Carruthers' rip-off it needs totally reworking, and your second point is even more alarming. Section rework. Irondome (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

That's fine Graeme. Simple is good. The whole article needs simplifying. It's using three words where one will do in some of the more bloated parts. I will be trimming the origins of the design section during the course of the evening. Irondome (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Finished cleanup

Finished gnoming. Did some extensive cleanups to the overly long design/development section. Hope it reads more smoothly now. One thing. The short design section that follows it was full of duplication from the previous section, so I have stripped it to it's essentials. Afraid I had to strip a couple of sources, but as much of it is in the long design section, I dont think it's a major issue. I have done as much as I feel comfortable with, trying to avoid compromising the underlying architecture of the article. Think it reads better. Cheers for your encouragement Graeme :). Regards Irondome (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC) aka Simon

Profound Ground Trials

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Because of the recent arbitrary edit warring of Irondome I'm forced to open the discussion. Could you tell me how the profound ground trials of NIBTPoligona has no relevance in the article?

The Wa Pruef 1 is obviously only an estimated calculus! 79.141.163.7 (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You are here because of basic WP etiquitte and because I had to drag you kicking and screaming. So please strike the first sentence.

The edit is far too detailed. previous overly detailed gun performance edits were also removed. The article can only take so much detail. The point is made amply by existing refs anyway. It is just overkill. Now we wait for other opinions. Simple isnt it? Irondome (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I won't strike the first sentence, simply because reported me, thereby it was you that violated the rules at first meet. So tell me, why we should keep the estimated calculus when we can have an authentic and clearly more legitimate substantiations in the article from the NITB? Lets blank the Wa Pruef 1 entries? 79.141.163.7 (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

You were just stubborn. Anyway at least you are here now, so thats progress. It is not the source reliability that is the issue, but the level of detail. You could condense it in a note appearing as N1 in mainspace. I have never had an issue with the source per se, as I have been trying to say. Anyway I will be back after 16.00 tmrw. It may be a good discussion. Irondome (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

There're much other major problems in the section of the article; e.g multiple passages of Wa Pruef 1, which were detached all over the place altogether, or hypothetical assumptions like made from this particular site: ref. According to it, we also could write down on the assumption of 90 degree that the 88mm APCBC ref smashing through the T-34 front hull at 2000m at optimal circumstance. Except that, it just pure hypothetical, I can point multiple russian citations where the Soviet 76mm wasn't able to place that shot between the sponsons and the tracks at 1000 m simply because it was nearly impossible at combat. It also lead me to belive why that praticular sentence is mentioned: "The Tiger's thick side armour allowed a degree of confidence of immunity from attack from flanking threats, unlike the lighter Panzer IV or the Panther tanks, it was also immune from Soviet anti-tank rifle fire to the sides and rear" Which infact, if the T-34 would crossing so close to fire that shot, it would resting a long time within the lethal envelope of the Tiger I's own 88 mm gun. What we have now is clearly and WP:UNDUE since there is simply no contrast to it. Thanks. 79.141.163.7 (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The material introduced looks interesting to me, but as to whether or not that is too much detail for the narrative or if it is all repeated from existing references I cannot say. Nevertheless Irondome is right regarding how we are to go about changing the page. IP 79.141.163.7 made an edit to the page. This was reverted by another editor who is monitoring the page contents. This merely means the reverting editor believes it should be discussed before adding it to the narrative. There is probably a reason that editor reverted and the next step is to find out why. That is when we are supposed to go to the talk page. It is supposed to be Bold Edit, Revert, Discuss. IP 79.141 made a bold edit. Irondome reverted, showing there is a question regarding the added material. Next should follow a discussion. I'll be interested to read what you two have to say. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Yet it still does not change the factum that his revert wasn't done in good faith. See: WP:ROWN and WP:JDL

Same applies now to you, how about to following the rule, instead to revert my edit again? 79.141.163.7 (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I assume Irondome's reversal was done in good faith, just as I assume your addition was done in good faith. Neither party appears to be vandalizing the article. Rather both are attempting to make the article more valuable and readable. As for me regarding ROWN, the edit was reversed after careful consideration, and as to JDL, I believe I made it clear above that I thought the addition appeared valuable. However the edit was reversed and so we now need to discuss it, and we do so with the article as it was before the edit, not after. There is a good chance it will end up being accepted. All you are asked to do is explain why you think it should be added. If you two still cannot agree than we would ask for the input of other editors to try to reach a consensus opinion. It may seem cumbersome, but it is the method we use to resolve conflicts. Gunbirddriver (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I already pointed out to him why it should be added. Irondome violated the WP:3RR with his three recent reverts and reported me, while he clearly WP:SHOT himself. And let us forget those unnecessary WP:NPA on his talkpage. However, it still does not justify another revert made within 24 hours from you. 79.141.163.7 (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

• The addition removed existing sourced content, which always sets bells a ringing. Better to remove the problematic text with an explanatory edit summary and then add the replacement material. An editor might agree with one but not the other but if the two are combined then the instinct is probably to reject both. A couple of comments on the edit. The text is more about the quality of production of T-34 than the Germans' estimation of Tiger performance. The uncaptioned picture of a T-34 with holes in it is not a reference for anything. " employees of NIBTPoligona" lacks context - who are these people and why are they testing? And if a Russian language source is used, it should be indicated in the reference. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

"The text is more about the quality of production of T-34 than the Germans" I've had linked the Report of the Trials with the Authors citations from GBS as ref, those are hard facts. Of course you can just put the Trial in the foreground and denying those defects which lead to several improvments of the T-34 or further development of new breakthrough tanks. So keep your assumptions and assertions out of here, please. The Picture which I added first, I wanted to remove, because I already had the GBS link; Just forget to remove it afterwards, why he reverted it is obscure to me, and does not show any good faith. See: 1 Why he want to keep it without context? Why remove it all over again on his next arbitary revert? See 2 That's some very bad behave ongoing here.

"who are these people and why are they testing?" I try to make it simple for you; those employees are military intelligence front units to obtain data regarding their technical and tactical capabilities, if the circumstance on the combat field allows it, it will be tested, otherwise it will be shipped to Kubinka. Fine, it can be tagged as primary source with the Authors reference.79.141.163.7 (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I believe Irondome reverted the edits by first adding your deletion and then removing the addition in its entirety because he wanted to remove all the material together. That does not make for bad faith edits. He asked you to discuss the issue on the talk page, both here and here. You persisted in making your argument with edit summaries and reverts. I know it is frustrating to be reverted, but the bottom line is at this point you need to make a case for your addition. I would recommend trying to focus your comments on the material you want added. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't know if you have already notice it, but the section (Gun and armour performance) need some serious restructuring/summarizing. For example, the menitoned Wa Pruef 1 is given as ref. nr. 32 is mentioned under different sections and in multiple passages, and could be easily put in the same section as on the started entry. As next, are this praticular ref. nr. 33 which is simply a hypothetical assumption and hardly belong as factual with any weights. On the same manner you could take those values of the site to add assumptions of german guns on which range they could knock out their opponents. And if we do that, the Wa Pruef 1 would be redundant, because both are based on guesswork and not on factuals. My addendum in contrary, is something we should add, without any doubts. I don't comprehend how it should be desputed despite his length or detail. The Report "Отчёта по испытаниям броневой защиты танка Т 34 обстрелом из 88 мм немецкой танковой пушки" just giving the ranges and any damage done to it, and i just add the supplementary citation of the Author. Of course you can just put the Trial in the foreground and denying those defects which lead to several improvments of the T-34 or further development of new breakthrough tanks. But no one here make that proposal to shorten it, or had the initiative to rewrite or to modify it while it was untouched in the article. No, it has to be reverted... Yes, it is very frustrating and annoying 79.141.163.7 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

The reference “Jentz and Doyle 1993, pp. 19–20” is citated seven times through two paragraphs in the section ‘’Gun and armour performance’’. One can reference content in a paragraph with a single citation at the end of the paragraph, or you can place the citation after each sentence being supported. Either way is acceptable, but if there is some contention then citing each sentence is probably best. That the Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 studies are being relied on too heavily in this article and others has been mentioned before (see this comment by GraemeLeggett).

"My addendum in contrary, is something we should add, without any doubts." That may be true, but it is not as evident as you may suppose. Do you have something more that would explain better why you believe that to be the case? The references you link to are in Russian, so it is a little difficult for English speakers to go to them and confirm what you have added. Are the same references available in English? Or is there another we could look to? Thanks for your patience. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

My knowledge in english is certainly or obviously not enough to explain what I meant exactly with restructuring the section. Here Preview of new organized ‘’Gun and armour performance’’ section is the example how I think it would be well placed altogether in same context and not like before, on a disorganised fashion. I put all the relevant Wa Preuf 1 guesswork in one section, and put the real factuals below it, what you think? Since Wa Pruef 1 is just an estimated calculus I allowed myself to change the terminus of "could penetrate" into the possiblity of "would" since that would be more correctly. However, but I removed this ref. nr.33 as other guesswork. Well now to my addendum, I did add it, because the sections lacks some WP:UNDUE because of all those estimates for the Tiger penetration capabilities and the created allied overweight combat performance of IS-2, Sherman with 17pdr, Pershing and HAVP possibilities, so an authentic executed ground trial of the Tiger's 88mm would certainly give some contrast. I don't know if the Report appears in western publications, at least i never heard of, however the Report seems to be displayed here too with a decent translation to read, but with some errors in originally sense and meaning: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=165034 Regards 79.141.163.7 (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I took the liberty of reworking it, but I hope that did not defeat what you were trying to do. The wording is changed slightly to clarify, and the vehicles are grouped together by nationality. It's just a suggestion.

I did look at the translation you provided for the Soviet test firing data. Foreign language sources can and are used, it is just harder for English speakers to evaluate them. The study you link to shows what happened to a T-34 tank hull when it was hit by a captured Tiger's 8,8 cm gun. I can see why you would want to use this over calculated data, but does it not reinforce the fact that the Tiger could defeat the T-34's armour, either by penetrating it or causing seams to fail? Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Many Thanks to reworking it aswell, thats exactly how it should be done here. It provides a better reading flow and improving greatly the comprehension/understanding. I did make my supplement to it on my talk page. Since there is another case who does need some attention. It's simple, there's only 1 citation from Zaloga against the IS-2 which isn't based on guesswork, all others are. I think its important to have an authentic trials to confirm that those guesswork based on Wa Pruef 1 are severely restricted and does not reflect the real performance on field. Thanks 79.141.163.7 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

G.B.D,It just makes the section, which had been trimmed before of such useless over-detail, bloated, ponderous to read, and it basically states the obvious. It could be added as a N1 (note) but it should not be stuffed into mainspace. Irondome (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Why as N1 note? Have you bothered to look for the references, there is simply 1 citation from Zaloga which is not based on guesswork, all others are. Of course its overdetailed, I did not add those estimations and hypotheses from third party sites. But at least, i want provide some solid arguments. 79.141.163.7 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

The source is quite well cited as it is. It is within the context of an already detail heavy article of a complex vehicle as you obviously know. I just got through extensively slimming the article down from considerable over-detail. I have always said I have no issue with source, just length to be added. An N1 would suffice. the stuff would still be included, except it would not inpact on article length. You can comment on my talk page again, if it is kept civil b.t.w. I would obviously reciprocate. I consider our argument history. Ok 79? Irondome (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You can contribute on my talk page as Gunbirddriver already provide his rework of it. You will see, that I just add two sentence of the ground trials. I dont think it would change anything since its now much more compact and improved. Thanks 79.141.163.7 (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Ok I will just re-read amended draft. We should also be polite and wait a few hours for others to comment also I think before final consensus. Regards Irondome (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Well I like it. It's definitely a smoother read. Irondome's idea of making a notation could still be used. In it you could explain that the data came from Soviet testing of a captured gun, and say that data was then used to produce the IS II as a countermeasure, increasing the thickness of the armour and putting that huge gun on it, making it a very difficult tank to deal with. The notation would allow you to explain these developments, when it otherwise would be too wordy for the narrative on the Tiger I . Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Agree with final draft. Echo GBD in using notation for reasons of economy of mainspace length. This source appears better than previous one which was excised. I say go ahead, if in note form ideally. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks for the efforts to improve it Gunbirddriver, I'd really appreciate that. Also thanks Irondome to reach the consensus, I will take the opportunity to write a N1 note and will post the progress here to discuss someday. That's all what i wanted. Who want replace it? :) I guess, I'm out of questions, don't want to be reverted again, hehe. Regards 79.141.163.7 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't want to steal your thunder. Go ahead and make the change. Looks good. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Many thanks, kudos to you both. Regards 79.141.163.7 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

• I am sure User:Gunbirddriver would help you in turning it into a notation form in under half an hour. I'm sure you would help if 79 is technically unsure GBD? I have not even attempted one yet :) It would still be read by almost all readers. It would fit nicely into the developmental chronology of the IS-152 as GBD has mentioned. A good source showing what the T-34 crews at the Kursk knowingly had to face. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Certainly. I am looking into how to word and format that. So far so good. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Good job on the N1 note Gunbirddriver, a simple explaination for the obvious. Thanks! May I ask you Irondome what GBD stands for? I'm a bit confused since Wiki leads me to a global study... Regards 79.141.163.7 (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

GBD = Gunbirddriver. Just initials :) I often use GBD for short ;) 13:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Now it make sense, thanks ! :) 79.141.163.7 (talk) 23:46, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Please can somebody dejargonize this article

"The suspension used sixteen torsion bars, with eight suspension arms per side. To save space, the swing arms were leading on one side and trailing on the other". Huh ? Meaningless to the ordinary reader. How does this save space ? Rcbutcher (talk) 02:50, 7 March 2015 (UTC)

"Myth of the Tigre"

I put this paragraph in because I felt there needed to be something that tempered the perception that this is indeed a "well-designed" tank, or invulnerable. The bigger theme I was trying to approach here was something i pulled from the t-34 article in 2010-1--that the Germans are perceived to be great designers, creators, engineers etc. against the Soviets being socialist savages when the truth is that the germans were left scrambling when their supposedly less-advanced enemies presented them with truly well designed tank on the battlefield. I also held this prodeutch bias, until the wikipedia laid the real truth bare on this point.

I do see in the article where some of the things I bring up here are alluded to, but it would be nice to bring them all together in some fashion

This is not independent research--it is a synthesis of points made in other wikipedia articles, including sloped armor, glacis plate, t-34, panther, panzerfaust/bazooka etc over the last 4 years. The points that were repeated were an attempt to draw several of these sources together.

"The design of the Tiger tank pre-dated the battlefield appearance of the Soviet T-34 with its sloped armor, so, unlike the German Panther Tank, it did not take advantage of this development in the thick, frontal glacis plate or side armor. Because of the boxy rectangular profile of the upper front, sides and turret sides of the Tiger tank, a greater thickness and quality of armor were required to attain the same level of protection as a sloped design. This minimized the presence of shot traps in the Tiger (except in the design of the early turret of the Tiger II), because rounds would not be deflected off the sloped armor into vulnerable areas such as the turret edges or vision ports. One method for compensating for this was to avoid presenting a square or head-on right angle shot or the belly of the tank to the enemy, though this requires that the crew be well trained and act consistently to anticipate an impending attack. The perceived defensive supremacy of the Tiger was largely due to the inability of the Western Allies to rapidly up-gun their tanks and provide advanced ammunition types in quantity in the field, and the low effectiveness of man-portable anti-tank weapons all the way up until the end of the war. Soviet Armored doctrine compensated for its weakness early in the war by fielding types and tactics that utilized much larger caliber and more powerful cannon (up to 152mm vs. the Sherman Tanks 75mm and 76mm guns) that proved to have been more than a match for the Tiger's defenses." 75.81.42.65 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2015

Apparently, your supplement to the article offers neither contentual nor substantial improvement. As you partly acknowledge, that addendum is original research and implying a conclusion WP: SYNTH which is not in common consensus. If you want to create real value, leave some citations from verifiable and reputable publications. Appreciate the feedback from other colleagues. 95.141.31.6 (talk) 08:51, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Only just stumbled on this. In many ways Germany was technologically backward in WW2. No Penicillin, no Cavity magnetron, no Proximity fuze no effective Heavy bomber, poor Artillery and usage on the battlefield, compared to the Western Allies certainly by 1944, inferior radio equipment, no ASDIC and certainly not the Bomb. Not even an effective anti-louse powder. Hugely agree that German technical "superiority" has been often wildly overstated, especially since the advent of the internet. The net is crawling with fanbois with not the slightly concept of historical context, or indeed history at all. All that being said, your edit is unneeded. By your own admission, this is synthesis. See WP:SYNT. In addition WP cannot be used as a source as of itself. Just taking material from other articles is not sourcing new material. The article does not need this material in any event. A close reading reveals that it is full of criticism, with all of the "new" points you raise already mentioned, scattered throughout the relevant sections of the article. The Tiger was deeply flawed in many ways, and the article pulls no punches in criticising the design, based on the best sources out there. I am therefore removing the material due to it's redundancy. Regards Irondome (talk) 15:32, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing the substance of my post. I am no scholar but I think many wikipedia articles lack critical color to allow the general layperson to understand the full context here as I have come to read it. I am not trying to interject original research so much as I am to synthesize what is already there. As you seem to imply, you do not disagree with me or the truthfulness of what I said, but rather that I have not met wikipedias standards for the inclusion of such information. However, there are many less monitored or mature articles where I can inflict my own approach on other docents. Have fun! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.81.42.65 (talk) 04:08, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

Both of you need to do some serious research. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.234.201 (talk) 13:40, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

• I already have. I suggest you do too. Irondome (talk) 18:47, 10 April 2015 (UTC)

Citation style

I tried to establish a common citation style. Unfortunately I was unable to map some of the citations to books listed in the reference section. MisterBee1966 (talk) 13:36, 31 August 2015 (UTC)

Zaloga 1994

The 1994 book by Zaloga cited in the article is not listed in the bibliography. What book is it talking about?--MaxRavenclaw (talk) 14:44, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Removal of a recently published R/S

A perfectly valid recently published R/S has been replaced with a contemporary range report and an article from Yank magazine published in 1944. Also the usage of lone sentry is questionable here. These reports were written before all the facts were in. I intend to revert in the next 12-15 hrs if the IP does not respond here. I have left a message on their talk page explaining BRD. We are getting a lot of disruptive non communicative IPs affecting article stability at present, esp the lede. Irondome (talk) 15:55, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Re-added Encyclopedia of WW2 ref. The first ref was about the gun, and the yank ref was talking about German half tracks and German equipment in General. Both irrelevant to the substantive point of the overall design of the Tiger I, whose wording was clumsily altered. Irondome (talk) 16:26, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Bob Carruthers work are probably circular, as shown on the Panther article. Also, Bob is not an armor historian and he's work should be taken with caution. Should his quotes be removed too to avoid copyright violation? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kheynom (talk • contribs) 14:12, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Mobility and Reliability

Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Tiger_I&diff=696497941&oldid=696260951

I've checked out pages 202 and 230 of Jentz 1996 and the numbers don't add up. First of all, the tables on those pages don't show any exact percentages. The only place where one can actually calculate some exact numbers is on page 202 based on a small table on top of the big table. And using that table, the numbers don't add up.

My calculations based on the data given there:

Availability on the western front:

tank	15 jan	30 dec	15 dec
Tiger	58.18%	50.00%	64.23%
Panther	45.38%	53.22%	71.34%
Pz IV	55.56%	62.73%	77.73%
Stug	47.49%	49.56%	68.56%

Fletcher's 139th and 140th pages cite Jentz but doesn't tell exactly what book or page. Most of the info in the paragraph is taken from those pages. The data provided by jenz and zaloga appear to be contradictory to what Fletcher said, but I might be interpreting it wrong.

Russian front reliability from Zaloga's Armored Champion: http://i.imgur.com/0myGLRe.jpg

So, all in all, all the sources have numbers that show a completely different average than Fletcher states. The Tiger only reached 70% reliability once in June 1944 in Russia, with an average of 55 percent over most of 1944. For the west, the max seems to peak at 64% in december 1944 given the data.

So what do we do with this paragraph? I'd take a shot at it and try to improve it, but I'd like to discuss it first

--MaxRavenclaw (talk) 11:20, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

You are interpreting it wrong.

Fletcher used Jentz's data, there's even a bibliographic note at p. 161.

The small table on which you get your calculations, accounting to the operational status of the Panzer units, before, during and following the offensive of the Battle of Bulge, on 16 December 1944. However, these numbers are included in the table below it.

The reported status of the Panzer units in that table by Jentz, are all covered in his book, Panzertruppen. Defined by their unit strengths, gains, losses and state of repair (short term and long term), the table is simply a graphical representation to sum it up. If you pick up the numbers given on each page about the Panzer units, you should be able to create your own table for the Eastern and Western Front.

Example Western Front (Tiger, Pz IV) given by Jentz used by Fletcher:

Tank	31 May	15 Sept.	30 Sept.	31 Oct.	15 Nov.	30 Nov.	15 Dec.	30 Dec.	15 Jan.	15 Mar.	Avg.
Tiger	87%	98%	67%	88%	81%	46%	64%	50%	58%	59%	70%
Pz IV	88%	80%	50%	74%	78%	76%	78%	63%	56%	44%	71%

However, Zaloga is using a different method and approach, as he does not include tanks in short term repairs (less than 14 days). That's why the numbers appear to be contradicting, but they are simply not comparable.

185.93.181.104 (talk) 20:21, 28 December 2015 (UTC)

Wait, I am at a loss. So Zaloga doesn't count short time repair. Then, why is his average availability number lower than Jentz's? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 09:32, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

No, that's the reason why they are lower than Jentz's.

The operational availability of Tiger tanks in the Panzer units from May 1944 on the Eastern Front, are given by Jentz as of 243 out of 307 tanks or 79 percent, while Zaloga appointing to about 64 percent or 197 tanks.

A likely reason not to include short term repairs, (under 14 days) would be that the field repair units might not be able to fulfil further requests, due to supply shortage in spare parts, retreat or encirclement etc. So they would rather shift those tanks for the long term repair, (over 14 days) maybe even sending them back to Germany, or using it to cannibalize parts. Unfortunately, in contrary to Jentz, Zaloga does not explain how he determined the numbers, which why they raise questions. 185.93.181.104 (talk) 11:53, 29 December 2015 (UTC)

So Jentz specifically states that he counted short term modifications that would have normally been reparied in the field as available despite them being canibalized or whatnot? Isn't that a bad idea? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 13:58, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Not specifically stated, but it's transparent, how he accumulated the availability rates. To illustrate that it was possible to repair the tanks within a given time, the month was simply split into an interval of 15 days. And no, only tanks which were not worthy to be repaired, would be considered for cannibalization.

However, not every month was recorded in such a convincingly detail, that you could speak of a successful repair within a given time. It is easier for an overall statistical record, to strike such uncertainties, that's what Zaloga probably did.

So we have the lower and the higher end of the record. 185.93.181.104 (talk) 12:54, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

External links

Per WP:EXT, the external link should provide accurate information that for some reason cannot be included in the article.

Could the editors please explain how these links match the criteria in WP:EXT?

• Tiger I at the Armorsite - lonesentry.com

• Tiger I Information Center - alanhamby.com

• Bovington Tank Museum Tiger and Restoration - tiger-tank.com

• Article, "New German Heavy Tank" from U.S. Intelligence Bulletin, June 1943 - lonesentry.com

• Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger (P) and Ausf. E - Achtung Panzer

Thank you. K.e.coffman (talk) 19:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

Some, if not all provide interesting additional information about the Tiger I. I don't see a reason to doubt the accuracy, as I think each site provides it's own sources. The main reason not to include all of the information on them is the size limitation of this article. (Hohum ^@) 20:37, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Tiger I. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100117182005/http://gva.freeweb.hu:80/weapons/usa_guns7.html to http://gva.freeweb.hu/weapons/usa_guns7.html
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.battlefield.ru/is2_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Sources

The section "Notable 'aces'" uses two non WP:RS sources:

Alanhamby.com for the statement:

• Several Tiger tank commanders claimed over 100 vehicle kills each, including Kurt Knispel with 168, Otto Carius with 150+, Johannes Bölter with 139+, and Wittmann with 138.

Patrick Agte (please see Talk:Joachim_Peiper#Agte) for the statement:

• On 7 July 1943, a single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharführer Franz Staudegger from the 2nd Platoon, 13th Panzer Company, 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler engaged a group of about 50 T-34s around Psyolknee (the southern sector of the German salient in the Battle of Kursk). Staudegger used all his ammunition and claimed the destruction of 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For this, he was awarded the Knight's Cross.

References

I suggest removing these two passages as coming from non WP:RS sources. K.e.coffman (talk) 17:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I see no problem with first source as it's just a list of kill (claims). While the second author may be problematic in this case he's just desribing an action for which the tank commander was awarded a Knight's Cross. --Denniss (talk) 22:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This content (actions of a tank commander) belongs in the article about the soldier, no? Even there, it would still be a non WP:RS source. K.e.coffman (talk) 02:02, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Pinging @Denniss: to close on this discussion. K.e.coffman (talk) 15:53, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I have never really seen the point of the entire section, having worked in improving this article for some time. Irondome (talk) 16:04, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree. "Panzer ace" is pretty much a myth and/or romanticism. Pls see List of World War II Panzer aces from Germany. K.e.coffman (talk) 16:07, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

It's been a couple of days; I will go ahead and remove the rest of the section. K.e.coffman (talk) 06:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

English Variant

Hi there all, This article was obviously started in American English, and even had a holdover example in the article someone forgot to switch over to British when they moved the article to british english, 10 years after inception. Anyways, I moved it back, as obviously this article has no significant ties to British English (pretty sure the Americans fought in ww2 as well...) and it started in American English. If you disagree, please leave your rationale here. Someone was Bold, I Reverted, so let's go ahead and discuss!

By the by, that edit for Bold moving was in one of the previous archives. They boldly moved it, as I said. No problem. I reverted. :-) Have an Awesome day! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:CA0D:8C00:297D:A4E2:3407:434F (talk) 06:56, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

The article has been using onlyprimarily British English since at least July 2009, per the archived discussion at Talk:Tiger I/Archive 2#British vs American English, and no one has objected until now. Given that it has been stable that long, you really need a clear consensus to make a change now, as it's really far beyond the scope of BRD at this point. - BilCat (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

• British English. The morphing IP is a disruptive troll and vandal who began by pushing POV ENGVAR changes at Potato chip (see history there and the edits by their other 2A02:* IPs). Now they're obviously stalking my edits to an eclectic range of other articles, looking for somewhere to behave similarly. It's ANI time. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

Any relation to the issue at Talk:Tiger_II#wholesale_changes_to_spelling_on_this_page ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)

It has more to do with their edits at Doughnut and Potato chip. Tiger II is going in the opposite direction and I think you'd have to ask Weslam123 about that. Andy Dingley (talk) 10:36, 26 May 2016 (UTC)

Unit cost

There is a small problem which seeks a citation. It can be found at the end of the "Tactical Organisation" section where there is a claim that each Tiger cost as much as four StuG IIIs. The Tiger page lists the cost of a Tiger at 250,800 RM for the base unit and 399,800 combat ready. The StuG III page lists its cost at 82,000 RM, with no determination as to whether or not it refers to a combat ready vehicle. So, the Tiger either cost 3.06 times as much as a StuG III or 4.87 times as much. Anyone want to try to qualify this? Flanker235 (talk) 02:27, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

"Disc brakes"

There are repeated claims going in here, and at disc brake, that the first vehicle with disc brakes was the Tiger I. There are several problems with this:

• It's unsourced. There is no sourcing here to indicate that the Tiger I was the first to have disc brakes, or what the scope of "vehicle" is meant to be. Yes, it's shown that the Tiger had disc brakes, but not that nothing else had beforehand. This is a big claim, it needs a specific source.
• It's not clear that the patent cited refers to the brakes fitted to the Tiger. The most we know is that Argus-Werke were involved in both, but engineering varies a lot between aircraft practice and tanks.
• The type of brakes described in the patent are ring brakes, not disc brakes as they're generally thought of today. They pre-date disc brakes. The difference is that the pad for these is a large ring the same size and area as the disc they are applied to, rather than one small pad. They developed first because they demand less from the brake pad material - the larger area allows more braking from more pad area, thus lower forces and temperatures.
• Klaue's patent [1] is not novel for the concept of ring brakes. These ring brakes were in use for aircraft in the 1930s, made by British firms. They may have been used by others, or earlier too, but I've only read British sources. If you read the patent, it acknowledges this itself, by referring to the earlier forms and specifically to the inflatable doughnut tube they used as an actuator. So Klaue's patent is an improved form, and maybe much more appropriate for tanks, but it's definitely not the first ring brake. Andy Dingley (talk) 23:39, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

The Daimler Armoured Car of 1939 had disc brakes made by Girling: [2] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.145.115.106 (talk) 13:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

EL stripping.

Would those engaged in the unexplained EL stripping care to explain themselves? Or is it simply established editors beating up an IP editor again? Here or ANI will do, your choice. Andy Dingley (talk) 17:21, 8 July 2017 (UTC)

Looking at it from the outside I'd say it's neither. It's the reflexive response to what was seen as inappropriate edit (wrongly seen in this case) leading to automatic reverts. Everything naturally goes downhill from there, usually. Anmccaff (talk) 17:56, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Inofobx template Image standardization

In regards to the use of archival instead of up to date imagery please inspect the following following pages:
M4 Sherman
T-34
M1 Abrams
KV Tank
IS tank family
Each of which use up=to=date photography, with archival imagery placed in the respective relevant positions in the main space article, This has been the standard for these pages for some time with no issues, so I fail to understand why archival imagery is somehow preferred for this page in particular?

If disagreed upon, should that mean the existing other example pages provided above also have their infobox imagery reverted to archival ones? NotLessOrEqual(talk) 10:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

I don't see how picking out several articles of the hundreds we have on tanks to "standardize" just those with each other is reasonable. For the most part, every article on Wikipedia uses images which are best suited to each article, and depends on many factors, including what images are available. Images in each article should be dealt with on a case by case basis, and that's how it's generally done. Aside from individual editors choosing pics across a range of articles, which several have done, there hasn't been any attempt to standardize infobox images, nor should there be, as every article is different. Sometimes the best available image will be an older one, and sometimes it will be newer. It may be a image of something in a museum, or may be in the field, or somewhere else. Again, it's best decided on a case by case basis, in each individual article. - BilCat (talk) 07:22, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

Well put. Circumstances will vary with each. More so as quality archival images of long lost vehicles may be in short supply. I'd also say that the M4 Sherman has a poor choice of infobox image (relatively uncommon variant, facing out of page) GraemeLeggett (talk) 10:46, 30 October 2017 (UTC)

And what factors or case-by-case basis determines whether an article's infobox image should prefer an older historical archival one over an up-to-date and accurate one, may I ask? Do enlighten me.

I am not saying your reasoning for infobox image choice is wrong - only inconsistent. This does not only apply to Wikipedia articles in regards to armored vehicles, but also applies to articles such as historical aircraft, monuments, architecture and buildings.

For example, take your time to inspect the infobox images of the United States White House or the Parisian Eiffel Tower in France: These two pages in regards to architecture and locations also contain archival imagery of what the buildings looked like during say, the 1940's or 1800's in black-and-white format in their respective main-space articles, but somehow, for whatever reason, a modern day colorized up-to-date photograph is preferred and used in its place. Why?

Here are some objective reasons (but not limited to) I can come up with off the top off my head of why a modern day up-to-date photograph used the Infobox image is preferred over archival ones.

• Higher-quality colorized photograph are more accurate and authentic than archival ones as it provides the latest depiction of what the subject looks like, whilst an archival imagery may not be best suited as it will be photograph and depicted in black-and-white - not truly authentic.
• Modern-day colorized photograph may commonly be of higher quality - minute and/or important details of the article subject may otherwise be missed or unidentifiable with older archival photographs which are commonly of inferior quality.

Reasons as to why an archival photograph should be used in place OVER up-to-date modern photography:

• Archival imagery should be used as the Infobox image only if no existing modern-day high quality image of the article subject is available for public use.

In regards to the Tiger tank article, archival imagery similar to the one used currently in the infobox are already present, such as this one in the in the 'First Actions' section which more or less fulfills the role of the archival imagery already present in the infobox (and vice versa), rendering one of the two redundant.

Alternatively, the archival imagery have at least been properly placed in their respective sections in regards to the history of deployment etc.

I am still waiting for both GraemeLeggett and BilCat to put forward some sort of objective and rationally justifiable reason as to why archival imagery is preferable over more accurate, higher quality up-to-date image of the exact same subject while some other articles do not, outside of arbitrary, subjective and trivial reasons.

Also in addition, I do agree with GraemeLeggett on the Sherman Page, it should be either an M4 with 75mm or M4 with 76mm gun, them being more common. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:54B5:FF00:BD7E:8D1:350F:43FB (talk) 09:24, 1 November 2017 (UTC) NotLessOrEqual(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:54B5:FF00:BD7E:8D1:350F:43FB (talk) 09:15, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

An image contemporary with the subject's use provides context for the viewer. We have these articles about tanks not because they are "preserved" as curiosities, but because they did something significant in their time. We don't use pics of modern wax-figure replicas of people just because the contemporary pictures were black-and-white. Modern images may be fine for filling in technical details in the depth of the article, but not for the lede, as they have very little to do with what the tank is actually famous for. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 17:29, 1 November 2017 (UTC)

No Wikipedia article in regards to people both living or deceased ever used wax figure reconstructions as the lead infobox image, I am confused as to why you use this as an example when there are plenty of better ones you could have used. There is also many things both either incorrect or inconsistent with your statement, reason provided above in my previous statement says that that black and white archival imagery are commonly always only used if no accurate or high quality contemporary image or photograph of a Wikipedia article is freely available.

"Modern images may be fine for filling in technical details in the depth of the article, but not for the lead" The following sample articles, as well as thousands of other existing articles seem to to contradict or disagree with your statement:
M4 Sherman
Supermarine Spitfire
Eiffel Tower
KV Tank
IS tank family

All the above pages' respective infobox use modern day accurate colorized photographs, even though archival black-and-white photographs exists in the mainspace articles. Context is not too much of an importance so long as the subject's depiction is accurate and of quality, due to archival photograph "of what the subject [tank] is actually famous for, is already present in their appropriate mainspace article sections eg 'Combat History'. Article listed above have never had any this contextual issue and have had contemporary colorized photograph over available archival ones for some time.

still waiting for both GraemeLeggett and BilCat opinion on this matter, I am most curious as to their reasoning. NotLessOrEqual(talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:8003:54B5:FF00:442F:490C:8147:F03D (talk) 15:00, 5 November 2017 (UTC)

Photo adding

I am trying to get a photo in section armor, but it is not showing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.60.116.143 (talk) 21:57, 3 September 2018 (UTC)

Split VK3001(H) Question

There isn't sufficient material in this article on the VK30 to warrant splitting off. Splitting is to reduce article size by hiving off detail to a secondary article and retaining a summary in the parent. That's different to writing a related article on some detailed point using in part or whole material from the parent as a starting point. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:28, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

True, that's a fair point. So I'll remove the tag, but I still believe that prototype deserves its own article. PrussianOwl (talk) 07:59, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

Assistance required please...

User:GraemeLeggett, I am translating this article to Afrikaans and come accros these wording that I am unsure off: ... could pierce the T-34/76 frontal beam nose from 1500 m, and the front hull from 1500 m. What is frontal beam nose? The turret? Could you please shed some light here please! Regards! Oesjaar (talk) 13:48, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

I think what it's mean was the frontal hull and the mantlet Kalashnikov413 (talk) 03:02, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Tiger arrived too late to participate in Winter Storm

The paragraph on it's first use on the eastern front says it did not participate in Operation Winter Storm (relief of Stalingrad) because it arrived too late. However on the Operation Winter Storm Wiki page, there are numerous pictures of the Tiger in action. Therefore one of these articles is wrong as they contradict. — Preceding unsigned comment added by BlueMax14 (talk • contribs) 14:32, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

The believe the Operation Winter Storm page says that they arrived but did not contribute. Those pictures were also probably taken by the tank battalion itself, nearby soldiers, or WCs. No matter who it was, we don't know if they took those pictures at the location of Operation Winter Storm, which they probably didn't.Blamazon (talk) 19:20, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Gearbox? Brake? Steering - not even used? Who cares who "sort of" patented it, maybe?

The following text in the article is strange:

Another new feature was the Maybach-Olvar hydraulically controlled semi-automatic pre-selector gearbox. The extreme weight of the tank also required a new steering system. Germany's Argus Motoren, where Hermann Klaue had invented a ring brake in 1940, supplied them for the Arado Ar 96 and also supplied the 55 cm disc. Klaue acknowledged in the patent application that he had merely improved on existing technology, that can be traced back to British designs dating to 1904. It is unclear whether Klaue's patent ring brake was utilised in the Tiger brake design.

References

It starts off talking about the gearbox, then says it needed a new type of steering, then brings up a company where someone patented a "ring brake", mentions a "55cm" disc out of nowhere, then notes that he only impvoved an existing design, and finishes up by saying it might not have even been used in the Tiger.

I propose deleting the entire paragraph. It conveys no useful knowledge. (Hohum ^@) 16:55, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree, or at least clarify it. How can it be "unclear" if the patented device was used, we have schematics and several operating Tigers still in existence. It either uses the device or it doesn't.

64.222.108.32 (talk) 16:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

Introduction, trailing arms

Is the introduction really the appropriate place for debating the mechanical reliability and performance of the Tiger? I know people love debating these things, but it doesn't seem like it of primary importance to what the machine IS, which is what the introduction should be about.

As for trailing and leading arms being employed "to save space", that doesn't seem to make much sense to me. The point in having the arms trailing and leading on either side is to allow the hubs of the roadwheels to line up on both sides, in spite of the torsion bar pivots being side by side. For example, all of the starboard torsion beams are mounted in the forward position for each respective pair of torsion beams, a trailing arm moves the hub to the rear. All the port torsion beams are in the rearmost position, and a leading arm moves the hub forward, so the actual roadwheel hubs are roughly adjacent to each other on each side. Otherwise you would have all of the starboard roadwheels several inches further forward than all of the port wheels, with attendant difficulty in creating a nice smooth ride. I don't see where saving space comes into it. 64.222.108.32 (talk) 16:40, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

The lead summarises the article. The question of reliability of the design is in the article and is part of the mythos of German tanks during WWII. You can't write about Tigers and Panthers without covering reliability (and ease of production) because that's how Germany was beaten.

GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)

impact

The article says that the Tiger 1 did not have a "real impact" during the war. This is not correct. The impact it had was important, but it was not one of weapons which tipped the balance of power. The word "real" should be replaced with the word "significant". 98.118.62.140 (talk) 02:32, 18 December 2017 (UTC)

I agree, the Tiger I does have a significant impact of how modern warfare will changed. Tiger I (alongside the Panther) had a thick armor and a powerfull 88 mm gun, which at the time, can penetrated every allied tank while it was virtually immune to basic allied AT gun. Because of this, allied countries decided to create a tank that can defeat the Tiger, and most of them will be developed into the first MBT. For example: the evolution of Soviet Tanks, from T-34, T-34-85, T-44, T-44-100, and finally, the T-54 and T-55. Same goes to the American, with the first one is the M3 Lee, M4 Sherman, M4 Sherman 76, M26 Pershing, M46 Patton, and finally, the M47 Patton. Kalashnikov413 (talk) 03:00, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think the statement that it had no real impact is solely based on the fact that only 1,347 tigers were built(to me, this is insufficient to prove that statement). Also if the statement is correct, what would have had to happen for there to be a real impact? What would have happened without Tigers?Blamazon (talk) 07:08, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

The article actually says Tiger tanks had a large impact in the war. You are replying to an old comment. (Hohum ^@) 13:59, 20 March 2021 (UTC)

I know, but I still disagree with Kalashnikov413. The Tiger 1 may have been an incredibly powerful break-through tank, but it did not influence the MBT design in this way. Shermans were designed for many purposes, but not for fighting Tigers. It is important not to perpetuate the Tiger/Sherman myth because it makes it hard to understand both of the tanks.

But that's not my point. The MBT is a completely different idea than that of WWII tanks. MBTs are fast, heavily armored, and have an extremely powerful gun. Obviously, WWII tanks had to make tradeoffs and sacrifice attributes in favor of others. Hence, the different light, medium, and heavy tanks(and many more). MBTs became more possible as technology developed more effective armor, guns, and engines. The Tiger 1 is a heavy breakthrough tank. It has very thick front armor and an excessively powerful gun. But it was slow and had other internal issues. The panther was a medium tank destroyer. It had thick armor mostly just on the front, had the same gun as the Panther, and was especially fast. But the final drive often would break, and it was unreliable in other areas as well.

The important thing to understand here is that tank designers are not trying to make a tank that can do everything, they just want it to be slightly better than the enemies tanks. Therefore, the Tiger 1 and Panther are not very responsible for the creation of the MBT. They were designed as the best option for a country with limited resources that was launching offensives rather than defensive operations. The Soviets countered this with tanks that were faster and cost-effective by using sloped armor to save on weight, and metal. The Americans didn't counter. Because they rarely ran into Tigers and Panthers. Instead, they invested in mass-produceable infantry support tanks that were capable of a wide variety of roles. The Sherman tank was fast and reliable and its armor was sufficient for its jobs. It could be converted into a flame tank, amphibious tank, tank destroyer, or simply remain a support tank.

The fact that America did not deem it necessary to direct their tank production towards the destruction of Tigers and Panthers means that Tigers had an impact on the war, but not one that I would consider large.Blamazon (talk) 19:13, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

The impact of the tiger was limited. The armour was mediocre, being penetrated by American 76.2mm guns, soviet 85mm and 122mm guns, british 17-pounder and 6-pounder guns. The severely inexperienced crews worsened this issue. Believing that they were invincible, they would carelessly charge straight at the enemy, often to unfortunate results. Gunners that didn't know how to aim, commanders that didn't know how to keep cool under pressure. The low number produced was worsened by the fact that the engine was about as reliable as a toaster under running water. KommanderChicken (talk) 18:51, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Ausf. H

"Ausf. H" in relation to "Tiger" seems to be an English invention! In German there is and never was a "Tiger Ausf. H" (not to be confused with the designation VK 4501 H). Especially when "H" is supposed to designate a "Henschel" version of Tiger (I), as there was never a Tiger (I) P (for Porsche) in service! The "Tiger I" was "Tiger Ausf. E" or "VK 4501 H", but nothing else! Peterachim64 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:28, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

The Tiger went through multiple designations, Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. H was one of them. The March 1943 manual was even printed with Panzerkampfwagen VI H Ausf. H1 although it got a new cover which corrected the name to Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. E. There was one Porsche Tiger in service in 1944. --Denniss (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

As I found out through Fb now, yes there was the designation "Panzerkampfwagen VI H Ausf. H1" on this above mentioned (repair) manual as "Panzerkampfwagen VI H" in "K St N 1150 d from June 1942". Curious though is that experts in the field (Spielberger as an example) don´t mention this designation at all! Further more the designation "Panzerkampfwagen VI H Ausf. H1" was only short lived, as it was replaced by the designation (aufgrund einer Führeranweisung) only "Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausführung E“ from February 1944 onwards. So that it went through multiple designations is not quite correct - it had two: 1/ "Panzerkampfwagen VI H Ausf. H1" from introduction to February 1944 2/ from then on only "Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausführung E“ as to differentiate it from the Tiger II designated "Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausführung B“. Peterachim64 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 14:59, 22 December 2021 (UTC)

A huge dissection and correction if unneeded "Lingo"

Ive fixed a lot of the over exaggerated details like: "Only the finest metal were used in production." And "The tiger was proven unbeatable due to -[reason with no resource to back it up.]- If you see people put In phrases as if they’re being a "Suck Up." Remove them asap. Sorry if I freaked anyone out for the copious amounts of reverts and rephrases. -G.N.P Gun Nut perk (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2022 (UTC)