Talk:Tiger I

"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)

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)

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)