Talk:Tiger I

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tiger I article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3: 90 days

This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Military history: Land vehicles / Technology / Weaponry / European / German / World War II

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military land vehicles task force
	Military science, technology, and theory task force
	Weaponry task force
	European military history task force
	German military history task force
	World War II task force

Germany Low‑importance

	Germany portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

The Tiger did have mud and other soft material get stuck in the wheels

The 2nd to last wheel has mud caked in the lining that would hold the teeth of the tread. Granted, it might not hinder the vehicle fully but it proved as a problem on the field.

Visual source Gun Nut perk (talk) 14:32, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I reread the detail that the person deleted, and I think your review was justified. It can remain as it was. Szolnok95 (talk) 20:11, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The amount of mud in the picture can incapacitate any other tank.

See Russian tanks in the fighting in Ukraine. Szolnok95 (talk) 20:14, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I am aware mud can hinder a tank inoperable.

Glad we came to resolution Gun Nut perk (talk) 19:38, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"PzKpfw. VI Ausf. H"

Never heard of this before, and is very unusual.

"Ausf." is the same as the British "Mark"; "Pz. IV Ausf. D" would be the fourth major version (whether actually produced or not).

Manufacturers are denoted by a letter in parens, eg. "Tiger (P)" or "VK 30.01 (H)".

Is there a source for this? --91.5.107.77 (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

That "H" is even explained in the Intro. Nobody forces a manufacturer or Wehrmacht officials to start with A then use B,C,D etc. That letter in brackets was typically used for development vehicles. --Denniss (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, an explanation is not a source, as you very well know.

Second, I may be obtuse, but I don't see an explanation, could you please be more specific?

Third, Ausführung is not pointing to a manufacturer, at least not with any other tank I know of, both before (Pz. I, II, III, IV) and after (Panther).

From Tiger II: "The final official German designation was Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B" - So was this manufactured by Blohm & Voss, or did they go back from H to B?

Alltogether more than enough reason to ask for a reliable source. --91.5.107.77 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

You may want to ask the Waffenamt why they chose this designation or why they switched to "E" afterwards instead of A. Why do you think we have a designation subsection in the article?--Denniss (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No I can't, the Waffenamt closed some years ago. It would however be a good source, just like the one I'm asking for.

Why are you pointing to another part of the article? Can we find a good source there?

I don't get your reaction at all, why are you working so hard to avoid a WP:RS? --91.5.107.77 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sourcing for items in the lead would normally be within the main body of the article, as the lead is a summary. For this article, the "Designations" section would be the appropriate place. However, the sourcing there isn't as clear as it should be. this is used in text after the table, and it shows the table.. apparently originally taken from Thomas L. Jentz, in "Germany's Tiger Tanks: Vol.1 - D.W. to Tiger I" (Schiffer, 2000).

However, none of those are exactly "Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung H"

I don't think a whole paragraph on the designation belongs in the lead anyway. It isn't a core topic imo. (Hohum ^@) 01:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

So there is a source already! Sorry I missed that, thanks for pointing it out.

Frankly I'm surprised that a website would be an acceptable source, but I'm not familar with this one, might have a high quality. In any case, out of personal curiosity, I would really love to see Jentz' source, it's really a mismatch with the other tanks.

I agree with your last point, details beyond the basic name seem to be out of place in the lede. --91.5.107.77 (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Orgin of name "Tiger"

This article claims it came from Porsche, yet there is no sourcing for this anywhere on the internet. The earliest reference comes from Wa Pruf 6, in a Feb 1942 document where it is referred too as Tiger. This should be deleted entirely and rewritten to support this. MarkusDorazio (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

92 AP and HE rounds

In the infobox it says the armament is 92 AP and HE rounds. I'm guessing that that number is the maximum load? Most of the times a tank would not and would not want to roll around with the maximum load though either because not enough available ammunition, weight, and higher risk of blowing up when hit. NamelessLameless (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]