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

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 rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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.

Archives

1, 2, 3

This page has archives. Sections older than 90 days may be automatically archived by when more than 4 sections are present.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]