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 C‑class

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

C

This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale.

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 C‑class 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
C	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Refrain from adding unrelated wording[edit]

@Szolnok95

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)[reply]

IF you'd like to keep how it could best its opponents, put it in its appropriate or topic related section of the wiki Gun Nut perk (talk) 15:09, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please stop edit warring. You have been blocked for this before. Please gain consensus in talk via collegiate discussion before making an edit which multiple editors have disagreed with. (Hohum ^@) 15:10, 20 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@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)[reply]

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

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]

Stuck in the mud[edit]

@Szolnok95 We are both agreeing on the same thing, he deleted a portion of the wiki talking about how tanks get stuck saying, There is no evidence that tanks go stuck in the mud, just for you to tell me and not the other guy that they did and proceeded to undo my edit undoing the guys edit that said the Tiger never had issues with mud clogging the suspension?? Gun Nut perk (talk) 19:45, 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) 20:12, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

"PzKpfw. VI Ausf. H"[edit]

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]