Talk:Tiger II/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Mobility and reliability

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 95.150.11.216 (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 95.150.18.209 (talk) 14:31, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Recent edits, 31.03.2017.

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 www.battlefield.ru 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

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)

reinsertion of vandalism by User:Denniss

User:Denniss recently reverted without explanation some changes I made to this article. In particular, they reinserted text on the caption of this photo claiming that it shows a Tiger II that was "hit at least eight times by an M36 Jackson's 90 mm gun" without suffering damage. This is dubious considering that there is a fist-sized hole in the tank's front turret. I do not have access to the Pallud reference cited there, but on the image's own page it cites the photo's caption in the Schneider 2005 book (emphasis mine): "The tanks saw only limited action during the final days of August 1944, when they were employed in an effort to eliminate the US bridgeheads over the Seine River in the vicinity of Limay. This tank was knocked out by a hit through the gun mantlet. The hull proved impervious to the preceding hits."

For what it's worth, here is the IP edit that originally inserted that text. Note that no source is given and the Pallud reference is not changed.

User:Denniss also inexplicably reverted some edits I made to remove weasel words. I have restored those as well.

128.223.92.83 (talk) 21:34, 16 July 2018 (UTC)

Königstiger / "Bengal tiger" / King Tiger

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. 68.174.97.122 (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 96.246.172.37 (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 dict.cc 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. 68.174.97.122 (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. 68.174.97.122 (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 2.24.216.123 (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. 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)

With all this heated debate going on about the translation of Königstiger, has it occurred to nobody that the principal designation of the Tiger B is "Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B", and not "Tiger B"? Anyway, in the German article there is some debate going on whether the moniker "Kingtiger" was given by allied troops, making the whole "but Kingtiger in German means Bengal Tiger in English" discussion seem a little pointless... Are there any reliable sources where the moniker came from? Koo Kee (talk) 14:36, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

One of the official names was Tiger Ausf. B, so Tiger B seems like a reasonable shorthand. There are German documents using Königstiger.Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 15:03, 18 December 2018 (UTC)

References

Confusion about the "Porsche" and "Henschel" turrets

There has been this mistaken attribution to "Porsche" and "Henschel" turrets for the Tiger II , although the article specifies in the "Design" section that is often called like that although the designs and productions where carried out by Krupp. The wrongly called "Porsche" turret was designed by Krupp for the earlier Porsche hull design, the VK 45.02 (P). But as this prototype proved to be unreliable it never went into production and the one that did, the VK 45.03 (H) from Henschel was then fitted with these rounded Krupp turrets that were designed originally for the VK 45.02 (P).

The Tank Museum in Bovington solved this common mistake by referring to these turrets as the "pre-production" (rounded) and "production" (flat) design and I recommend that we refer to it in the same way here.

Tsilcher (talk) 15:59, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

References

Thumbox image

Previous image, contemporary battlefield

New image, tank museum

I don't think the lead image needs to be low-resolution historic photograph when much better illustrations of the tank exist. This article's main subject is about an object with multiple surviving examples, not a historical event, regardless of whatever role the tank played in the past. The image taken in Bovington Tank Museum illustrates the tank much better than the current one, which is a low resolution cropped version of a low quality black and white historic photograph with half the tank is obscured by dust. Meeepmep (talk) 00:49, 30 January 2019 (UTC)

Disagree. The article is about a historic weapon, not a preserved one; if no Tiger II tanks were extant, we'd still have this article as-is, but without its history, there'd be no article. The new image of the preserved tank is certainly sharper, but not necessarily clearer about the subject; the background's sharp lines are distracting (ironically, it's only the tank's tinted camouflage color that saves it from completely disappearing into the background). People getting to this article want to be assured they have the right subject, so a "huge German WWII war-machine" image is probably best. I know it's trite and obvious, but that's what makes it the best for a lede image. (Yes, there are a large number of tank "fanboys" enthusiasts that read this article, but they know their beloved tank by name, so don't need to be assured by the lede image. Multiple technically interesting images can go anywhere in the article.)

I'm not saying the previous image was perfect, but the dust actually adds contrast to the tank, something this new image lacks. The fact that it's contemporary is a clear benefit, not a fault. Unless a better historic action image is found, I'm for this one as better in all respects as a lede image. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:54, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

Always prefer a contemporary image regardless of artistic merit or clarity Lyndaship (talk) 17:08, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

I have restored the previous/contemporary image. Editors are free to find and improved image, but its agreed this image is an improvement over the proposed museum image. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 16:23, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Update: I have replaced the lede image with a new one that is both contemporary and shows off the tank's impressive size and details, which I believe combines the best of both the above lede image ideas. (The commander has his head out of his hatch, giving a good impression of the tank's massive size.) I moved the previous contemporary image of Tiger IIs roaring through the dust to the "Combat history" section, replacing one that shows a soldier painting cammo on the tank (hardly a good representation of combat action). Feel free to comment or just boldly further improve. Thanks, all. --A D Monroe III^(talk) 19:44, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

Swedish king Tiger

Didn't Sweden get a captured king tiger from France (and a panther for that matter) after the war and tested it? Shouldn't that be mentioned?2601:245:C102:C0B0:A196:B60C:DCCD:8F21 (talk) 23:02, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Apocrypha and Nomenclature

This is a nice article, about which some very solid decisions have been made. Kudos.

I am opposed to apocrypha—"Sea Stories", if you will—being included in encyclopedic materiel. The original tall tale is from a secondary source which cannot be verified—no such after-action report exists. In professional circles, that is an error of the first order. The inclusion of this apocryphal anecdote does not advance the article, and I believe its inclusion undermines what is otherwise a great little general purpose entry on the Tiger II (&c).

Speaking of &c..., the German I know, and the German spoken by Germans I know, use "Konig" as King, not "Royal". The whole point of late 19th and early 20th Century Germans using "Kongistiger" for the Bengal tiger was because they believed it was the "King" "Tiger". So far as I am aware, the correct translation and the proper transliteration within the context of time-and-place are the same—King Tiger. Although we now use Ruler, Monarch, and Royal for abstractions like Konigplatz, it was just plain old sexism when it was coined; I disapprove of altering historical usages because the bother modern sensibilities; not to say we should not alter our usages, just that we ought not to alter historical usages when they are relevant.

Is it asking for trouble to bring in the Sdkfz designation, and discuss the confusion surrounding the Pzkpfw VIE "Tiger"/"Tiger I" and the later Pzkpfw VIB "Tiger B"/"Tiger II"/Kongistiger?

Ranya (talk) 09:11, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

Again, do not cut a word in parts, translate these parts and expect a proper translation. --Denniss (talk) 18:02, 13 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Tiger II Königstiger WW2 Footage. 1.webm

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:20, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

The Validity of the M8 Versus Tiger II Story

Multiple times I have attempted to correct this wikipedia article, which tells of a famous story of how a Tiger II was knocked out by an M8 Greyhound on the 18th of December 1944 in/around the town of St Vith.

I have actually researched this story for months and I am also in the process of writing a paper on the story (or rather stories as fun fact, there are many many version and have come to the conclusion that this story is blatantly false.

Whilst my paper is incomplete, my explanation of the inconsistencies and unreliability of the American accounts of this supposed event as well as German Tiger unit records are fairly complete. The paper is cited properly in MLA 8 (Apologies for those wanting APA). Not sure how I would go about providing the paper.

But for a tl;dr version of why this story is false: There are far too many inconsistencies, contradictions, ambiguity, and lack of supporting documentation when it comes to American accounts of the events, German unit records do not support this story at all, and it is essentially physically improbable, perhaps even impossible, for the 37mm M6 cannon on the M8 Greyhound when firing M51 APCBC to penetrate the rear hull armour of a Tiger II. TheRealSasuri (talk) 01:21, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

The question so far as Wikipedia is concerned is "is there a valid published source that states it is incorrect?" Until then, you can flag the issue as dubious, we can reword to make the incident "according to" which allows the reader to make of it what they will. But so far its WP:Original research to take your various investigations and combine them in order to declare it false. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:51, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

If you are looking for a valid source that explicitly states “the story of an M8 Greyhound from Troop B of the 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron defeating a Tiger II in/around St Vith on the 18th of December, 1944”, you will find none.

Closest thing you will get is finding no mention of any sort of Tiger II lost in/around St. Vith on the 18th of December 1944. These unit records and deliveries/losses/inventory records can be found in Wolfgang Schneider’s 2 volumes of Tigers in Combat.

Quite frankly I am somewhat appalled by the laziness of those defending Beevor, since his mention of the story is rather short and brief, lacking detail. And it doesn’t take particularly much effort to realize this story is false, all one needs at the bare minimum are copies of Schneider’s Tigers in Combat books, which curiously enough are cited as sources in this article.

Once you actually spend some time investigating this story beyond reading a brief mention of it in a single book, you start realizing how many issues there are.

And as for wanting sources (once again), in my first edit I specifically cited Schneider, and yet my edit was undone because “we trust Beevor more” essentially. I find it odd that detailed books specifically devoted to the unit histories of Tiger Is and Tiger IIs are seen as inferior sources to a single book which only but briefly mentions this story. I would think German records and unit histories would be a far far more reliable source on determining whether or not a Tiger II was lost on that day in/around St Vith to a Greyhound as opposed to Beevor’s book, but hey I guess not. TheRealSasuri (talk) 20:09, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

This should be removed from the article. The story is almost certainly a case of mistaken identification and can be disproved by looking at German sources. Further, the orginal source actually claims the M8 Destroyed a TIGER, not a Tiger II. Primary sources stating telling us exactly where the Tiger IIs on any given day during the Battle of the Bulge clearly outweigh secondary sources like Anthony Beevor. I am aware that there has been an edit war over this so in the spirit of compromise I propose leaving the anecdote in the article, but adding some further content explaining that it is probably not true. Getztashida (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

I have gone ahead and made an edit retaining the anecdote but explaining why there is reason to doubt it's veracity. I also trimmed the anecdote slightly in order to keep the tone encyclopedic and prevent the section becoming bloated as it gets edited. Getztashida (talk) 22:44, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

For the record, on the subject of Primary sources WP:Primary says " primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia, but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation". One can use a contemporary log to say "according to the unit records, X was at [place]" but you can't use it to say "Y wasn't at [place]" - you'd need to say the "unit records do not record Y at [place]" because of attribution and possibility of error. You could say "[secondary source] doubts the interpretation because of the [contemporary documentation]" GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:40, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Actrully there are both primary source of this engagement and record of Tiger loss near the st.Vith on 18 December 1944.First one,the primary source of an M8 from Troop B of the 87th Cavalry Reconnaissance Squadron knocking out an Tiger is from The Battle at St. Vith, Belgium, 17–23 December 1944: An Historical Example of Armor in the Defense.Furthermore,the Page 274 of Tigers in Combat Volume I includes a record of a Tiger loss of 506th Heavy Tank Battalion around st.Vith on 18 December that highly match the engagement depicted:

17 December 1944: Instead of this, road march via Hellenthal-Losheimer Graben-Schoenberg to the south. Skirmish in Andler. Schwere Panzer-Abteilung 506 and schwere Panzer-Abteilung 301 (Funklenk)-with a total of 22 operational tanks-are attached to the 6. Panzer-Armee.

18 December 1944: 5 Tigers advance in Lulligen-Lellgen at approximately 1000 hours starting along the Lentzweiler road towards Lullingerkamp. On top of the high ground,the lead tank receives a pointblank hit. The tanks withdraw and try again about three hours later, but they are stopped outside of Hiesdorf. 2 US tanks are knocked out. 2 Tigers attack at the Longsdorf road towards the junction of route 206; 6 antitank guns and 1 tank knocked out.

Total tanks: 40.

The last Total tanks number is in 15 December which is 41,and the loss table of 506th sPzAbt in Page 289 also include a single loss on 18 Dec. 1944,so there was a Tiger loss in that date and around that location(certainly "within 20 miles of St Vith at the time of the alleged incident"). How do you think of this record ?SergeantMitchell (talk) 17:49, 31 October 2020 (UTC)