Talk:Tiger II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Good article Tiger II has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
Date Process Result
September 6, 2009 Good article nominee Listed
December 14, 2009 WikiProject peer review Reviewed
Current status: Good article
WikiProject Military history (Rated GA-Class)
MILHIST 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.
GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality assessment scale.
WikiProject Germany (Rated GA-class, Mid-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Mid  This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Tanks (Rated GA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Tanks, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Tanks 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.
 GA  This article has been rated as GA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Post new comments below[edit]

Post new comments below this section, otherwise you're likely to post them into the transcluded GA review

Königstiger / "Bengal tiger" / King Tiger[edit]

This is a small point, but I don't agree that it is incorrect to translate Königstiger into "King Tiger". The German name for the "Bengal tiger" is the "King Tiger", and that's not a mistranslation. (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

It is a mistranslation because Königstiger = Bengal Tiger. You can't cut a word in half and translate both parts - the result is often different from translation of the composite word. --Denniss (talk) 05:07, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
if you are a German person speaking German, you call that particular tiger a King Tiger. That's what you call it, as far as you are concerned, that's what it is, and so is the tank. And it comes with all the associations and allusions you would make. You would have no idea that the tiger came from Bengal (if it does). In fact, if you called that tiger a Bengal Tiger, you wouldn't expect a military weapon from your country to be named after it, and in fact, it never would be. King Tiger. Period. If you wish to translate it as meaningfully as possible, you translate it as "King Tiger, what Germans call the Bengal Tiger". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 06:14, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

I am afraid you are in error as Königsalbatros means royal albatross if you put Königstiger in a decent german translator such as you get "(royal) bengal tiger" or "king tiger" For example the Germans also have a unique name Silberlöwe or silver lion to refer to a (mountain lion, puma or cougar) as well as the more literal Berglöwe. By your rules as there is no such thing as a silver lion in the English language we have to call it something else we would understand, but that's not how it works. When translating Silberlöwe as part of a text referring to the cat, you can use any of the English synonyms or the literal silverlion though perhaps with some explanation if you assume your readers are not familiar with the term, but if used as a name of something like a car or some such then the literal translation is more correct as such names have their own rules in which you avoid the use of approximation or synonym where ever practicable as either the manufacturer or the informal public may be using the various synonyms of the same root to distinguish between different items. or two manufacturers or companies may be using the synonyms on their product or the name of the company to avoid trademark infringement and end up with legal problems if translated the same way. Finally the word in german for Bengal is "Bengal". Bengal Tiger is a ridiculous name for a tank the Germans I talk to agree on this as the English name of this Tiger has non of the powerful connotations of the German name, so in conclusion, In this instance the mistakenly translated should be exchanged for literally translated kyphen(talk)

you are suggesting that pain perdu cannot be translated into English as "lost bread", that it must always be translated as "French toast", that it's an error to even mention lost bread. I think you're wrong, that's not how words work in any language, and not between languages either. For instance, perhaps the guy who developed the tank was named Konig, or perhaps he was named Bengali and they thought it would be really clever... you don't know, and the definitive assertion made in the article is no doubt made without any basis in fact. (talk) 01:23, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
The german word Königstiger means Bengal Tiger in english. "King Tiger" is "König Tiger" in german and not Königstiger. --Denniss (talk) 02:35, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
You are clearly not fluent in the German language. Nouns are not used in series, unless a series of things is being described; a king, and then a tiger. To describe a tiger alone (associated in any way with a king or royalty), the noun is compounded into a single word: Koenigstiger. Translating this compound word into English is simple: king tiger. INTERPRETING it into English is significantly more complex, and depends on the context of its particular use in German. If you think that a German person looks at this tank, reads its name, and understands that it is somehow a large cat from Bangladesh, then you would interpret Koenigstiger as "Bengal tiger". Otherwise, you would translate it either "king tiger" or "royal tiger". The test is that a native German reading a reversed translation of "king tiger" in this context would immediately understand that the English words refer to an armored fighting vehicle (Panzerkampfwagen) - not to a cat (Panthera tigris tigris). Therefore, the English usage of "king tiger" either historically OR in this article is NOT an error. BTW To put my stated opinions in perspective: I was trained both as a military linguist in German, and as an anti-armor mechanized infantry missile gunner. Steve8394 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
We have a german name for the tank and we have two commonly used english names for it. But the cu english names are improper translations of the german name, that's a fact. It was created by someone wanting to express this tank is bigger/heavier than the known Tiger without knowing the proper translation of the german name. So the translator cut the german name down into two known parts and translated these. Doesn't change the fact that these wrong translations refer to the same vehicle.--Denniss (talk) 21:43, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
your phraseology biases the outcome and is not technically correct with respect to linguistic morphology or phonology. That-which-we-refer-to-as-the-Bengal-Tiger, the Germans refer to as the Konigstiger. Our word in poesy suggests Bengal, a foreign place to us; their word does not, it suggests Kings and royalty to them. If they referred to that type of tiger by a name suggesting an Aryan geography populated by brown skinned people, who knows what they would have called the tank. But they don't, they call it the King Tiger. I just don't see why the article can't say "the word is often translated as 'King Tiger', what the Germans call the Bengal Tiger." why is it so important to you that the article say IT IS AN ERROR. (talk) 15:55, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
IIRC, the vehicle was usually referred to in Allied documents of the time as the 'Royal Tiger' and I suspect the 'King Tiger' current English name may be a post-war literal translation of 'Konigstiger', but that's just a guess.
BTW, IIARC, the Bengal tiger is a larger and more powerful animal than other tigers, so the naming of the Tiger II as-such is definitely appropriate.— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 20:31, 3 July 2014 (UTC)
Just a nit to pick, I think the Siberian Tiger is Larger. Jokem (talk) 23:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
We go by sources, not our own opinions, however well-reasoned. If the majority of WP:RSs state that calling the Königstiger a "King Tiger" is a "mistake", then we must say it's a mistake. If not, then we cannot say it's a mistake. --A D Monroe III (talk) 22:30, 26 November 2014 (UTC)
I am german, too and the german language features and !demands! combined nouns. Projected onto the english language you would have to write king'stiger. For the purpose of translation into the english language the word was obviously split, which is fine from a grammatical point of view, but you have to put it back together to get the right outcome when translating it back. While both words "royal tiger" and "king tiger" are both valid in the fitting historical context, the literally translations would be "king's tiger". This is because the original naming of the animal "Königstiger" was a mistranslation[1]. Hunters named especially great tigers "royal tigers", irrespective of the actual subspecies. This word was mistranslated into the german language, as "royal" does not translate to "Königs"(in context "des Königs" which translates literally to "of the king"), but to "königlich" which means literally "kingly". In german the wrongly translated combined noun "Königstiger" established as the name for the bengal tiger. So the literally translation means actually "king's tiger", wich is somewhere between both options. However that means that displaying one of the options as mistranslation, while stating the other one would be a literal translation is wrong. The problem is that every german who speaks his/her language fluently instantly spots this actual mistake at the beginning of the article, which is supposed to be a "good article".2003:40:E74E:9B5:1905:A4B5:C78:9611 (talk) 03:39, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

On a somewhat-related topic... The photo captions beside the Surviving vehicles section are inconsistent. Some describe the photo as "Tiger II"; others as "King Tiger". But I couldn't find a way to edit those captions. Steve8394 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)

Mobility and reliability[edit]

I have serious doubts about how well the tank is described here. In particular, this part: "Contemporary German records and testing results indicate that its tactical mobility was as good as or better than most German or Allied tanks." doesn't seem true, despite the citation. I've recently read Zaloga's Armored Champion, and he states quite the opposite. Here are some things said in the book.

"Some idea of the combat potential of the Tiger II can be gathered by the tactics employed by Kampfgruppe Peiper, the spearhead of the 1.SS-Panzer-Division in the Ardennes offensive. This battlegroup was allotted a battalion of new King Tiger tanks for the attack. Peiper stuck them in the rear, following up the Panther and PzKpfw IV spearheads, realizing that these clumsy monsters were not well suited to offensive operations."

"The Tiger II weighed 68 tons, 11 more than the Tiger I, and had the same 700hp engine, so the problems that plagued the Tiger I were amplified. Abysmal power to weight ratio and an extremely inadequate engine were its chief problems. Of the 45 King Tigers that were delivered by train to Kielce in occupied Poland, only 8 finished a 45 km drive to the battlefield. The rest had mechanical breakdowns, mainly due to reduction gear failures. By the following day, four more tanks limped to the front lines, bringing the strength to 12."

For as far as I understand, it has horrible power to weight ration and therefore mobility. I'm not sure how Jentz reached the conclusion that it has better "tactical mobility" than most Allied or German tanks... it's absurd to say it had better tactical mobility than the StuG or the Sherman. Any thoughts on this? --MaxRavenclaw (talk) 12:51, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

If they managed to break the reduction gears the drivers must have done something terribly wrong - these were not supposed to be issues in the Tiger II. Both Tiger I and II were supposed to be more reliable than Panther although the Tiger II reached this by later 44 as several problems had to be ironed out earlier. Power-to-weight ratio was not great but the tanks was surprisingly fast and maneuverable for a vehicle of its weight. Suspension was good so no real problems driving in terrain. Remember the Jentz claim is about tactical mobility, not strategical mobility. --Denniss (talk) 14:18, 8 October 2015 (UTC)
Reasonable mobility especially over rough ground may still be achieved with a low power-to-weight ratio provided the overall gearing and gear ratios are wisely selected. The vehicle will not be capable of high speed or acceleration but will nevertheless be able to climb and manoeuvre, albeit more slowly compared to other vehicles. The other disadvantage is that the engine will always need to be run at near its maximum power, so reliability will not be the best. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
1945 post-war British testing of a Tiger II here: [1] for anyone who thinks the Tiger II was unwieldy and unmaneuverable. The two smaller British vehicles are a Valentine XI and a Self Propelled 17pdr, Valentine, Mk I, Archer. The Tiger II has had its gun destroyed before it was captured. More here: [2] and Jagdtiger here: [3] and the uncompleted E-100 here: [4]— Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

wholesale changes to spelling on this page[edit]

Rather than a back and forth between editors talkpages, I'll set out the issue here.

The spelling of "armor" has been changed to "armour" throughout the article.
the relevant part of the Manual of Style sets out that once a particular spelling variant (whether American English, British English, or other flavour/flavor) has been settled then "When an English variety's consistent usage has been established in an article, maintain it in the absence of consensus to the contrary. With few exceptions (e.g., when a topic has strong national ties or a term/spelling carries less ambiguity), there is no valid reason for such a change."
This has reached Good Article status and the spelling was settled long ago (on AE). National ties is not an appropriate consideration as MOS:TIES says "An article on a topic that has strong ties to a particular English-speaking nation [my emphasis] should use the English of that nation"
To that extent, I believe the spelling of armour, and certain -ise endings should be returned to the previous state. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:31, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Changed back. Similar thing happened at but restoring it threw the Brits into a tizzy. I assume same will happen here.

Recent edits, 31.03.2017.[edit]

Hello, I have some concerns regarding recent edits of Wotvietnam, such as diff, diff and others.

The presented picture of a knocked out Tiger II tank, is claimed by the editor to have been destroyed by two hits through the upper front plate. Though, a clearer photograph reveal that the tank had mounted its Bosch headlights and was not penetrated frontally. Other edits, like cited to "Walter Spielberger 1993 p. 82" appear to be questionable, as the book "Tiger & King Tiger Tanks and Their Variants", has only mapped pictures at that page. One source "Merriam Pres, Soviet Heavy Tanks: World War 2" used for reference, mirror entire wikipedia articles and should not be used per WP:CIRC. I would also consider as unreliable, mainly because of its presented original research.

However, I believe the addition to a good class article should be discussed first. Cheers! PrivateParker (talk) 13:07, 31 March 2017 (UTC)

possible vandalism[edit]

can anyone check whether this edit was sneaky vandalism or probably just a correction of a former vandalism? --Avoided (talk) 21:53, 8 December 2017 (UTC)