|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.
|Archives: 1, 2|
|WikiProject Tanks||(Rated C-class, High-importance)|
|WikiProject Germany||(Rated C-class, Low-importance)|
|This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, realise, defence), and some terms used in it are different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.|
The section "Notable 'aces'" uses two non WP:RS sources:
Alanhamby.com for the statement:
- Several Tiger tank commanders claimed over 100 vehicle kills each, including Kurt Knispel with 168, Otto Carius with 150+, Johannes Bölter with 139+, and Wittmann with 138.
Patrick Agte (please see Talk:Joachim_Peiper#Agte) for the statement:
- On 7 July 1943, a single Tiger tank commanded by SS-Oberscharführer Franz Staudegger from the 2nd Platoon, 13th Panzer Company, 1st SS Panzer Division Leibstandarte SS Adolf Hitler engaged a group of about 50 T-34s around Psyolknee (the southern sector of the German salient in the Battle of Kursk). Staudegger used all his ammunition and claimed the destruction of 22 Soviet tanks, while the rest retreated. For this, he was awarded the Knight's Cross.
- I see no problem with first source as it's just a list of kill (claims). While the second author may be problematic in this case he's just desribing an action for which the tank commander was awarded a Knight's Cross. --Denniss (talk) 22:43, 28 February 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!
- The article has been using
onlyprimarily British English since at least July 2009, per the archived discussion at Talk:Tiger I/Archive 2#British vs American English, and no one has objected until now. Given that it has been stable that long, you really need a clear consensus to make a change now, as it's really far beyond the scope of BRD at this point. - BilCat (talk) 07:33, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- British English. The morphing IP is a disruptive troll and vandal who began by pushing POV ENGVAR changes at Potato chip (see history there and the edits by their other 2A02:* IPs). Now they're obviously stalking my edits to an eclectic range of other articles, looking for somewhere to behave similarly. It's ANI time. Andy Dingley (talk) 08:48, 24 May 2016 (UTC)
- Any relation to the issue at Talk:Tiger_II#wholesale_changes_to_spelling_on_this_page ? GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:33, 24 May 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:
- 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  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)
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)