This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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
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 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)
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)
Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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?
Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The section "Notable 'aces'" uses two non WP:RS sources:
Alanhamby.com for the statement:
Patrick Agte (please see Talk:Joachim_Peiper#Agte) for the statement:
References
I suggest removing these two passages as coming from non WP:RS sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:55, 28 February 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)
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!
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)
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:
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)
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 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.
Reasons as to why an archival photograph should be used in place OVER up-to-date modern photography:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following text in the article is strange:
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)
64.222.108.32 ( talk) 16:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
GraemeLeggett ( talk) 17:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
No one is denying the Tiger could beat some tanks in speed, but no one needs to know that because it's in a paragraph about its 50 ton dead weight not its speed capabilities.
It's a wiki page, it still needs to be professional and sound unbiased.
Add only what's needed, not unwanted filler that serves no purpose or beneficial use but to make the tank seem better than it actually is. Gun Nut perk ( talk) 15:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Gun Nut perk With respect, but I think I have already answered the reason for the correction, and even added an objective research proposal. Szolnok95 ( talk) 16:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
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)
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)
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)
"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)
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
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 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)
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)
Regarding this edit: https://en.wikipedia.org/?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)
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)
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)
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?
Thank you. K.e.coffman ( talk) 19:03, 8 January 2016 (UTC)
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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 22:54, 1 February 2016 (UTC)
The section "Notable 'aces'" uses two non WP:RS sources:
Alanhamby.com for the statement:
Patrick Agte (please see Talk:Joachim_Peiper#Agte) for the statement:
References
I suggest removing these two passages as coming from non WP:RS sources. K.e.coffman ( talk) 17:55, 28 February 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)
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!
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)
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:
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)
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 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.
Reasons as to why an archival photograph should be used in place OVER up-to-date modern photography:
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
The following text in the article is strange:
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)
64.222.108.32 ( talk) 16:28, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
GraemeLeggett ( talk) 17:53, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
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)
"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)
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)
No one is denying the Tiger could beat some tanks in speed, but no one needs to know that because it's in a paragraph about its 50 ton dead weight not its speed capabilities.
It's a wiki page, it still needs to be professional and sound unbiased.
Add only what's needed, not unwanted filler that serves no purpose or beneficial use but to make the tank seem better than it actually is. Gun Nut perk ( talk) 15:05, 20 December 2022 (UTC)
@ Gun Nut perk With respect, but I think I have already answered the reason for the correction, and even added an objective research proposal. Szolnok95 ( talk) 16:30, 20 December 2022 (UTC)