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.
I put this paragraph in because I felt there needed to be something that tempered the perception that this is indeed a "well-designed" tank, or invulnerable. The bigger theme I was trying to approach here was something i pulled from the t-34 article in 2010-1--that the Germans are perceived to be great designers, creators, engineers etc. against the Soviets being socialist savages when the truth is that the germans were left scrambling when their supposedly less-advanced enemies presented them with truly well designed tank on the battlefield. I also held this prodeutch bias, until the wikipedia laid the real truth bare on this point.
I do see in the article where some of the things I bring up here are alluded to, but it would be nice to bring them all together in some fashion
This is not independent research--it is a synthesis of points made in other wikipedia articles, including sloped armor, glacis plate, t-34, panther, panzerfaust/bazooka etc over the last 4 years. The points that were repeated were an attempt to draw several of these sources together.
"The design of the Tiger tank pre-dated the battlefield appearance of the Soviet T-34 with its sloped armor, so, unlike the German Panther Tank, it did not take advantage of this development in the thick, frontal glacis plate or side armor. Because of the boxy rectangular profile of the upper front, sides and turret sides of the Tiger tank, a greater thickness and quality of armor were required to attain the same level of protection as a sloped design. This minimized the presence of shot traps in the Tiger (except in the design of the early turret of the Tiger II), because rounds would not be deflected off the sloped armor into vulnerable areas such as the turret edges or vision ports. One method for compensating for this was to avoid presenting a square or head-on right angle shot or the belly of the tank to the enemy, though this requires that the crew be well trained and act consistently to anticipate an impending attack. The perceived defensive supremacy of the Tiger was largely due to the inability of the Western Allies to rapidly up-gun their tanks and provide advanced ammunition types in quantity in the field, and the low effectiveness of man-portable anti-tank weapons all the way up until the end of the war. Soviet Armored doctrine compensated for its weakness early in the war by fielding types and tactics that utilized much larger caliber and more powerful cannon (up to 152mm vs. the Sherman Tanks 75mm and 76mm guns) that proved to have been more than a match for the Tiger's defenses." 18.104.22.168 (talk) 04:09, 23 January 2015
From "The gun's breech and firing mechanism..." to "...although most World War II engagements were fought at much shorter ranges". Bob Carruthers Tiger I in Combat is given as the source for this section. In looking (google books) for the page number for the cite, I found it more or less word for word as in the book. If the Gun section is taken from the book in its entirety it needs rewritten. On the other hand if the book - and I couldn't access the sources section of the book from google preview - takes from the article, then it's a worthless cite and needs removing. GraemeLeggett (talk) 19:17, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
An all-out rewrite of the section, with wholly new referencing would work. Your thoughts. GraemeLeggett (talk) 20:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. If its a Carruthers' rip-off it needs totally reworking, and your second point is even more alarming. Section rework. Irondome (talk) 20:24, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
That's fine Graeme. Simple is good. The whole article needs simplifying. It's using three words where one will do in some of the more bloated parts. I will be trimming the origins of the design section during the course of the evening. Irondome (talk) 21:07, 17 November 2014 (UTC)
Finished gnoming. Did some extensive cleanups to the overly long design/development section. Hope it reads more smoothly now. One thing. The short design section that follows it was full of duplication from the previous section, so I have stripped it to it's essentials. Afraid I had to strip a couple of sources, but as much of it is in the long design section, I dont think it's a major issue. I have done as much as I feel comfortable with, trying to avoid compromising the underlying architecture of the article. Think it reads better. Cheers for your encouragement Graeme :). Regards Irondome (talk) 02:58, 18 November 2014 (UTC) aka Simon
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Because of the recent arbitrary edit warring of Irondome I'm forced to open the discussion. Could you tell me how the profound ground trials of NIBTPoligona has no relevance in the article?
The Wa Pruef 1 is obviously only an estimated calculus! 22.214.171.124 (talk) 04:47, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You are here because of basic WP etiquitte and because I had to drag you kicking and screaming. So please strike the first sentence.
The edit is far too detailed. previous overly detailed gun performance edits were also removed. The article can only take so much detail. The point is made amply by existing refs anyway. It is just overkill. Now we wait for other opinions. Simple isnt it? Irondome (talk) 04:59, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I won't strike the first sentence, simply because reported me, thereby it was you that violated the rules at first meet. So tell me, why we should keep the estimated calculus when we can have an authentic and clearly more legitimate substantiations in the article from the NITB? Lets blank the Wa Pruef 1 entries? 126.96.36.199 (talk) 05:07, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
You were just stubborn. Anyway at least you are here now, so thats progress. It is not the source reliability that is the issue, but the level of detail. You could condense it in a note appearing as N1 in mainspace. I have never had an issue with the source per se, as I have been trying to say. Anyway I will be back after 16.00 tmrw. It may be a good discussion. Irondome (talk) 05:21, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
There're much other major problems in the section of the article; e.g multiple passages of Wa Pruef 1, which were detached all over the place altogether, or hypothetical assumptions like made from this particular site: ref. According to it, we also could write down on the assumption of 90 degree that the 88mm APCBC ref smashing through the T-34 front hull at 2000m at optimal circumstance. Except that, it just pure hypothetical, I can point multiple russian citations where the Soviet 76mm wasn't able to place that shot between the sponsons and the tracks at 1000 m simply because it was nearly impossible at combat. It also lead me to belive why that praticular sentence is mentioned: "The Tiger's thick side armour allowed a degree of confidence of immunity from attack from flanking threats, unlike the lighter Panzer IV or the Panther tanks, it was also immune from Soviet anti-tank rifle fire to the sides and rear" Which infact, if the T-34 would crossing so close to fire that shot, it would resting a long time within the lethal envelope of the Tiger I's own 88 mm gun. What we have now is clearly and WP:UNDUE since there is simply no contrast to it. Thanks. 188.8.131.52 (talk) 07:16, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The material introduced looks interesting to me, but as to whether or not that is too much detail for the narrative or if it is all repeated from existing references I cannot say. Nevertheless Irondome is right regarding how we are to go about changing the page. IP 184.108.40.206 made an edit to the page. This was reverted by another editor who is monitoring the page contents. This merely means the reverting editor believes it should be discussed before adding it to the narrative. There is probably a reason that editor reverted and the next step is to find out why. That is when we are supposed to go to the talk page. It is supposed to be Bold Edit, Revert, Discuss. IP 79.141 made a bold edit. Irondome reverted, showing there is a question regarding the added material. Next should follow a discussion. I'll be interested to read what you two have to say. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:11, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
Yet it still does not change the factum that his revert wasn't done in good faith. See: WP:ROWN and WP:JDL
Same applies now to you, how about to following the rule, instead to revert my edit again? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 06:43, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I assume Irondome's reversal was done in good faith, just as I assume your addition was done in good faith. Neither party appears to be vandalizing the article. Rather both are attempting to make the article more valuable and readable. As for me regarding ROWN, the edit was reversed after careful consideration, and as to JDL, I believe I made it clear above that I thought the addition appeared valuable. However the edit was reversed and so we now need to discuss it, and we do so with the article as it was before the edit, not after. There is a good chance it will end up being accepted. All you are asked to do is explain why you think it should be added. If you two still cannot agree than we would ask for the input of other editors to try to reach a consensus opinion. It may seem cumbersome, but it is the method we use to resolve conflicts. Gunbirddriver (talk) 10:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I already pointed out to him why it should be added. Irondome violated the WP:3RR with his three recent reverts and reported me, while he clearly WP:SHOT himself. And let us forget those unnecessary WP:NPA on his talkpage. However, it still does not justify another revert made within 24 hours from you. 18.104.22.168 (talk) 14:23, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The addition removed existing sourced content, which always sets bells a ringing. Better to remove the problematic text with an explanatory edit summary and then add the replacement material. An editor might agree with one but not the other but if the two are combined then the instinct is probably to reject both. A couple of comments on the edit. The text is more about the quality of production of T-34 than the Germans' estimation of Tiger performance. The uncaptioned picture of a T-34 with holes in it is not a reference for anything. " employees of NIBTPoligona" lacks context - who are these people and why are they testing? And if a Russian language source is used, it should be indicated in the reference. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
"The text is more about the quality of production of T-34 than the Germans" I've had linked the Report of the Trials with the Authors citations from GBS as ref, those are hard facts. Of course you can just put the Trial in the foreground and denying those defects which lead to several improvments of the T-34 or further development of new breakthrough tanks. So keep your assumptions and assertions out of here, please. The Picture which I added first, I wanted to remove, because I already had the GBS link; Just forget to remove it afterwards, why he reverted it is obscure to me, and does not show any good faith. See: 1 Why he want to keep it without context? Why remove it all over again on his next arbitary revert? See 2 That's some very bad behave ongoing here.
"who are these people and why are they testing?" I try to make it simple for you; those employees are military intelligence front units to obtain data regarding their technical and tactical capabilities, if the circumstance on the combat field allows it, it will be tested, otherwise it will be shipped to Kubinka. Fine, it can be tagged as primary source with the Authors reference.22.214.171.124 (talk) 13:31, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I believe Irondome reverted the edits by first adding your deletion and then removing the addition in its entirety because he wanted to remove all the material together. That does not make for bad faith edits. He asked you to discuss the issue on the talk page, both here and here. You persisted in making your argument with edit summaries and reverts. I know it is frustrating to be reverted, but the bottom line is at this point you need to make a case for your addition. I would recommend trying to focus your comments on the material you want added. Gunbirddriver (talk) 18:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't know if you have already notice it, but the section (Gun and armour performance) need some serious restructuring/summarizing. For example, the menitoned Wa Pruef 1 is given as ref. nr. 32 is mentioned under different sections and in multiple passages, and could be easily put in the same section as on the started entry. As next, are this praticular ref. nr. 33 which is simply a hypothetical assumption and hardly belong as factual with any weights. On the same manner you could take those values of the site to add assumptions of german guns on which range they could knock out their opponents. And if we do that, the Wa Pruef 1 would be redundant, because both are based on guesswork and not on factuals. My addendum in contrary, is something we should add, without any doubts. I don't comprehend how it should be desputed despite his length or detail. The Report "Отчёта по испытаниям броневой защиты танка Т 34 обстрелом из 88 мм немецкой танковой пушки" just giving the ranges and any damage done to it, and i just add the supplementary citation of the Author. Of course you can just put the Trial in the foreground and denying those defects which lead to several improvments of the T-34 or further development of new breakthrough tanks. But no one here make that proposal to shorten it, or had the initiative to rewrite or to modify it while it was untouched in the article. No, it has to be reverted... Yes, it is very frustrating and annoying 126.96.36.199 (talk) 21:13, 12 January 2015 (UTC)
The reference “Jentz and Doyle 1993, pp. 19–20” is citated seven times through two paragraphs in the section ‘’Gun and armour performance’’. One can reference content in a paragraph with a single citation at the end of the paragraph, or you can place the citation after each sentence being supported. Either way is acceptable, but if there is some contention then citing each sentence is probably best. That the Waffenamt-Prüfwesen 1 studies are being relied on too heavily in this article and others has been mentioned before (see this comment by GraemeLeggett).
"My addendum in contrary, is something we should add, without any doubts." That may be true, but it is not as evident as you may suppose. Do you have something more that would explain better why you believe that to be the case? The references you link to are in Russian, so it is a little difficult for English speakers to go to them and confirm what you have added. Are the same references available in English? Or is there another we could look to? Thanks for your patience. Gunbirddriver (talk) 02:28, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
My knowledge in english is certainly or obviously not enough to explain what I meant exactly with restructuring the section. Here Preview of new organized ‘’Gun and armour performance’’ section is the example how I think it would be well placed altogether in same context and not like before, on a disorganised fashion. I put all the relevant Wa Preuf 1 guesswork in one section, and put the real factuals below it, what you think? Since Wa Pruef 1 is just an estimated calculus I allowed myself to change the terminus of "could penetrate" into the possiblity of "would" since that would be more correctly. However, but I removed this ref. nr.33 as other guesswork. Well now to my addendum, I did add it, because the sections lacks some WP:UNDUE because of all those estimates for the Tiger penetration capabilities and the created allied overweight combat performance of IS-2, Sherman with 17pdr, Pershing and HAVP possibilities, so an authentic executed ground trial of the Tiger's 88mm would certainly give some contrast. I don't know if the Report appears in western publications, at least i never heard of, however the Report seems to be displayed here too with a decent translation to read, but with some errors in originally sense and meaning: http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=36&t=165034 Regards 188.8.131.52 (talk) 12:08, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I took the liberty of reworking it, but I hope that did not defeat what you were trying to do. The wording is changed slightly to clarify, and the vehicles are grouped together by nationality. It's just a suggestion.
I did look at the translation you provided for the Soviet test firing data. Foreign language sources can and are used, it is just harder for English speakers to evaluate them. The study you link to shows what happened to a T-34 tank hull when it was hit by a captured Tiger's 8,8 cm gun. I can see why you would want to use this over calculated data, but does it not reinforce the fact that the Tiger could defeat the T-34's armour, either by penetrating it or causing seams to fail? Thanks. Gunbirddriver (talk) 19:02, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Many Thanks to reworking it aswell, thats exactly how it should be done here. It provides a better reading flow and improving greatly the comprehension/understanding. I did make my supplement to it on my talk page. Since there is another case who does need some attention. It's simple, there's only 1 citation from Zaloga against the IS-2 which isn't based on guesswork, all others are. I think its important to have an authentic trials to confirm that those guesswork based on Wa Pruef 1 are severely restricted and does not reflect the real performance on field. Thanks 184.108.40.206 (talk) 19:39, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
G.B.D,It just makes the section, which had been trimmed before of such useless over-detail, bloated, ponderous to read, and it basically states the obvious. It could be added as a N1 (note) but it should not be stuffed into mainspace. Irondome (talk) 19:52, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Why as N1 note? Have you bothered to look for the references, there is simply 1 citation from Zaloga which is not based on guesswork, all others are. Of course its overdetailed, I did not add those estimations and hypotheses from third party sites. But at least, i want provide some solid arguments. 220.127.116.11 (talk) 19:59, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
The source is quite well cited as it is. It is within the context of an already detail heavy article of a complex vehicle as you obviously know. I just got through extensively slimming the article down from considerable over-detail. I have always said I have no issue with source, just length to be added. An N1 would suffice. the stuff would still be included, except it would not inpact on article length. You can comment on my talk page again, if it is kept civil b.t.w. I would obviously reciprocate. I consider our argument history. Ok 79? Irondome (talk) 20:07, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
You can contribute on my talk page as Gunbirddriver already provide his rework of it. You will see, that I just add two sentence of the ground trials. I dont think it would change anything since its now much more compact and improved. Thanks 18.104.22.168 (talk) 20:16, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Ok I will just re-read amended draft. We should also be polite and wait a few hours for others to comment also I think before final consensus. Regards Irondome (talk) 20:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Well I like it. It's definitely a smoother read. Irondome's idea of making a notation could still be used. In it you could explain that the data came from Soviet testing of a captured gun, and say that data was then used to produce the IS II as a countermeasure, increasing the thickness of the armour and putting that huge gun on it, making it a very difficult tank to deal with. The notation would allow you to explain these developments, when it otherwise would be too wordy for the narrative on the Tiger I . Gunbirddriver (talk) 20:53, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Agree with final draft. Echo GBD in using notation for reasons of economy of mainspace length. This source appears better than previous one which was excised. I say go ahead, if in note form ideally. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 22:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks for the efforts to improve it Gunbirddriver, I'd really appreciate that. Also thanks Irondome to reach the consensus, I will take the opportunity to write a N1 note and will post the progress here to discuss someday. That's all what i wanted. Who want replace it? :) I guess, I'm out of questions, don't want to be reverted again, hehe. Regards 22.214.171.124 (talk) 22:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
I don't want to steal your thunder. Go ahead and make the change. Looks good. Gunbirddriver (talk) 01:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Many thanks, kudos to you both. Regards 126.96.36.199 (talk) 01:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I am sure User:Gunbirddriver would help you in turning it into a notation form in under half an hour. I'm sure you would help if 79 is technically unsure GBD? I have not even attempted one yet :) It would still be read by almost all readers. It would fit nicely into the developmental chronology of the IS-152 as GBD has mentioned. A good source showing what the T-34 crews at the Kursk knowingly had to face. Cheers all Irondome (talk) 02:08, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Certainly. I am looking into how to word and format that. So far so good. Gunbirddriver (talk) 06:29, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Good job on the N1 note Gunbirddriver, a simple explaination for the obvious. Thanks! May I ask you Irondome what GBD stands for? I'm a bit confused since Wiki leads me to a global study... Regards 188.8.131.52 (talk) 11:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
GBD = Gunbirddriver. Just initials :) I often use GBD for short ;) 13:53, 14 January 2015 (UTC)