Talk:Tiger II/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

plagiarism

The Daily Mail seems (in my opinion) to have plagiarised some of this page http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-1096548/The-ultimate-boys-toy-The-giant-radio-controlled-tank-thats-SO-powerful-pull-car.html?ic (unless they have changed the link) "This was especially true on the Western Front, where the British and US forces had almost no heavy tanks with which to oppose it." Not sure who to pass it on to further investigate it...

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.32.69.197 (talk) 22:20, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

old comment

Unless there are objections, I'd like to merge this with Tiger I Oberiko 13:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Probably too big for a merge, but it might be good to change Panzer VI to a page that briefly mentions both and then links to the articles, rather than redirecting to Tiger I as it does now. — B.Bryant 11:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Don't merge. They are distinct vehicles. Megapixie 09:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)

The Tiger One and the Tiger Two are different tanks. Too different to be merged into one article.

Agreed. The Tiger I is more like a gigantic Panzerkampfwagen Mk. IV while the Tiger II is more like a heavier version of the Panther. 209.221.73.5 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Daddy's got a Porsche

Are any of the Porsche Tiger II's still around, or were they all destroyed, or stripped for parts, converted etc? I imagine a Porsche Tiger would be the crowning jewel of any tank museum. Presumably the modern-day Porsche distances itself from this kind of thing, although the kind of people who buy Porsche cars would probably enjoy the association. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

There were no Porsche hulls produced, or at least none that saw service; I am not sure why the article says there were. The 60 or so "Porsche" turrets were used on standard hulls. DMorpheus 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure about this? I thought the experimental Porsche hulls were used to create the Jadgpanzer Elephant anti-tank vehicles. Maury 20:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

The Tiger I Porsche hulls were used for Ferdinand/Elefant but not the Tiger II Porsche hulls. --Denniss 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Porsche... This is the first time I've seen mentioned that there were 60 Porsche turrets produced, rather than 50. Any idea where this number comes from? --Martin Wisse 07:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It comes from my error, evidently. Looks like 50 is the correct number. The article could use a major edit to clear up the whole "Porsche" design issue that seems wrongly stated in the current version. I don't know the development history well enough to do it. Isn't it correct to say that Krupp designed both turrets; both were built by Wegman; the first type (the so-called "Porsche turret")was used on all the early design studies; and the second turret type was adopted because it was much easier to manufacture? Neither the terms 'porsche' nor 'henschel' turrets make much sense. DMorpheus 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

If my memory is correct from the 80's, and I am positive it is due to the anger I felt at seening it chopped up, there was a Porsche KT at the Patton Museum @ Fort Knox, Kentucky. At some time in the past, they had sliced off the armour of the left side of the turret and left side of the hull to show the interior of the tank. They replaced the armour with glass/plexiglass... That was some time ago (1988?), and I thought I heard rumors that the tank was recently shipped back to Germany for 'rebuilding' and that it was to be returned with a firing of the gun... Again, that was an informal rumor I heard from an ex-military source.

Harry Woods 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:29, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

machine guns

The infobox states 2 or 3 MGs. Weren't these tanks deployed with two machineguns (coax and hull ball mount) only? I may be incorrect but I thought that when they needed an AA weapon mounted on the commander's cupola, they removed the ball mounted gun and moved it up to the cupola. DMorpheus 15:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It probably depends on who did the modification and when. --Carnildo 07:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)

They probably kept the third stored inside the tank itself and took it out when needed. 209.221.73.5 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

I am pretty sure the tanks were issued with two MGs, and the hull gun was mounted on the turret cupola when they were doing road marches or in other situations in which an AA gun was needed. DMorpheus 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Nah. Besides, taking out the MG from the hull and mounting it on the turret cupola would've taken way too much time and by the time they manage to mount it, the tank would have been severely damaged. It would've been much simpler to carry an MG in the hull or making an improvised mounting on the turret itself. 209.221.73.5 15:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Nevertheless that is exactly what they did. The MG was not taken out of the hull mount when they saw an airplane; it was taken out when a road march was planned, so it would be available for AA defense if needed. This can be confirmed by taking a look at an actual AA MG; the MG has the armored sleeve used in the hull mount, not the standard MG-34 perforated barrel sleeve. DMorpheus 15:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

As far as I can see on a specific book about tanks, the Tiger II had a coaxial gun, a front gun, and optionally a top, anti-aircraft, gun. If the latter was installed, there were three, not two, machine guns on the Tiger II. Interfree 17:53, 26 April 2006 (CEST)

Yes, but the means they used to obtain the AA MG was to remove the hull MG. They did the same thing on the Pzkw-IV. I don't doubt that a few enterprising crews stole extra MGs occasionally, but that's not the standard fit. DMorpheus 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Well, so the book must be wrong. Anyway, i'm going to translate the sentence for reference. "Machine gun: this tank mounted three MG34 7.92mm machine guns: one on the right side of the front, another one coaxial to the cannon, and the third for anti aircraft role, that could be mounted on a carriage around the tank's commander dome". Moreover, in the same page, there are four pictures of four different configurations of the tank (Ardennes 1944, Hungary 1945, Danzig 1945 and Kassel 1945), and the third picture (Danzig, March 1945) is the only one that shows the third MG. Maybe there were indeed some configurations (i'm not talking about the enterprising crews of course) that installed the third MG. Interfree 19.15, 26 April 2006 (CEST)

Incorrect translation

Königstiger means Bengal Tiger, not King Tiger. Königs Tiger means King Tiger.

Kurt.

• Whilst I agree that Königstiger translates to Bengal Tiger I think that the current use of Bengal Tiger in the page is confusing. I have never before heard anyone call this a Bengal Tiger and I think it is unhelpful to use a translation to a proper noun. I think that the answer is to provide a small paragraph with references to explain all of the naming issues. There is a good article at http://www.panzerworld.net/facts.html that covers this.--Gaspode the Wonder Dog 10:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

König Tiger means King Tiger. Königs Tiger means that the family König has a Tiger.

And Königstiger means Bengal Tiger.... so what's the point ?--Denniss 21:55, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Even as Königstiger and Bengal Tiger refer to the same animal species, I think the literal translation "King['s] Tiger" helps to explain why this tank got this name in the first place as any word with "King (König)" certainly sounds something powerful... Hookoo (talk) 14:51, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

Number built

This article contradicts itself on how many were built (as well as German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II). —Michael Z.  14:28, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

Comparison With Tiger I

With so many mechanical,logistical and combat problems, would it be right to say that the Tiger II is overall inferior to the older Tiger I??--chubbychicken 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Both were mechanical lemons. The Tiger II, however, had an extraordinarily powerful gun; the 88mm L/71 is quite a bit more powerful than the 88mm L/56. DMorpheus 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of Soviet specialists who tested captured Tiger Is and Tiger IIs was that the Tiger II due to its deficiencies, not only in mechanics, but, surprisingly, in armour as well, concluded that it was decidedly inferiour to the Tiger I. Once we are on the subject, I recently atempted to introduce a section dealing with the Soviet take on the Tiger II as presented in the website The Russian Battlefield, only to be reverted, by a certain partisan German, whose handle is Deniss, on grounds that are laughable without being truely funny that this site may not be quoted when discussing "enemy tanks". Is it realy official policy that articles dealing with the Wehrmacht present nothing but unalloyed and narcissistic German self-perception. If so I am delighted to be the first truth telling heretic. Hopefully I will not be the last. Indeed so many articles dealing with the Wehrmacht tend to be love fests devoid of any critical thinking, especially those concerned with the Nazi-Soviet front. Should we not be rid of this bias. Soz

The problem is that the Russian Battlefield's articles are of suspect neutrality (the T35 article, for example, claims that the T35 was not in any way influenced by the Vickers A1 Indenpendent) and the test carried out on the Tiger II at Kubinka have arguable validity anyway. As such, although their conclusions can be included in the article, to try and elevate them over other, more reputable sources [i]is[/i] laughable. There is a great deal of reliable, non-partisan research material about the Tiger II which contradicts the Russian Battlefield article. Why should we ignore them because one website gives us an alternative view? Getztashida 16:05, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Sagging springs in the lead photo

I notice the Tiger II in the Munster museum seems to have tree stumps holding up its hull. I'm guessing this is so that the springs don't sag, like they appear to have done in the Gleize, Belgium example. Although I like the outdoor setting, perhaps we should swap these two photos, so that the lead is more natural-looking? —Michael Z. 21:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Wehrmacht worshipping bufooneries

The so-called "combat history" section is nothing but the usual megalomaniacal ferrytales about fearless cool-headed German troopers annihilating Soviet tanks and simple-minded soldiers by the hundreds. Eagerly accepted fake anecdotes are not a proper account of a weapon system's combat utilisation. It is generally regrettable that Wikipedia has allowed iself to become a shrine to the glorious Wehrmacht that never was. I propose that , unless someone can produce a less infantile coverage of the subject, that the section be deleted! Soz

100% agree comerade! It`s more like of bufooneries of Otto Carius/Rudel/Hartmann.

Whilst I agree that this section does not represent "combat history" so much as a few unrelated anecdotes involving Tiger II's, as best as I can make out the individual events describe are more or less factually correct. Unless you can prove otherwise I don't see much need to replace them. It may pain you to admit, but the Tiger II was a very powerful weapon system and could do a great deal of damage when positioned correctly. Getztashida 01:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

doesn't account for the fact that the majority of king tigers were total battlefield failures while the combat history implies otherwise. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.24.194 (talk) 09:04, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Can you back up that claim in any way? Getztashida 16:06, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Just read that book that was given in the reference... (Sledgehammers) It seems that the writer did not. (adonaszi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.150.137 (talk) 19:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Alternatively read "German Heavy Tanks" by Chamberlain and Ellis, of the Osprey New Vanguard title on the Tiger II written by Jentz and Doyle - all highly respected authors on the subject of WWII Armour - they do not agree with you. Getztashida 00:12, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

The Combat history section has now changed from a positeve bias to a negative bias, which is no better. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 13:06, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Okay lets face it, if we are to include stories of Tiger IIs defeating dozens of enemy tanks, we also have to include that in certain situations the Tiger II performed poorly. If we are to include combat reports, we need to include both ones that demonstrate the power of the Tiger II and the weakness of the Tiger II. No battle in WWII was (5 kills for every 1 Tiger etc etc), it just did not work out like that. It needs to be shown while the Tiger II was an extrememly powerful tank capable of killing many enemy tanks, it was also used at times poorly suffering losses while inflicting few.

69.157.73.60 (talk) 20:32, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

People sometimes tend to focus too much on certain aspects of a vehicle, and completely overlook others qualities.. In the study of any combat tank, you must consider all aspects: mobilty, speed, armour, gun, combat range, weight, ground pressure, ect... While the KT did have thick armour, and a powerful gun, it lacked in many of the other attributes. A KT that is broke down due to an overloaded drive train is a useless tank. A heavy tank that cannot operate where the enemy is because of a soggy plain, due to high ground pressure, is a useless tank. While the IS-2 does have some limitations reguard ammo storage, and optics, the designers, IMHO, made better choices in balancing all the attributes to arrive at a tank with tremendous power and protection, BUT at 46 tonnes and still capable of easy movement... Also, I have seen video on youtube of some KT commanders commenting on how great thier vehicles where, but I did notice something in common: The commanders all fought in the western front. I have yet to hear from a KT crewman that fought on the eastern front. I wonder why.

Harry 138.162.8.58 (talk) 19:56, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The ground pressure of the King Tiger isn't that high: it's 17.3PSI, which is only a little higher than an Abrams. The mechanical failure rate is exaggerated: KT availability was far better than Panthers towards the end of the war and close to Panzer IVs, it was mainly that the tank had no real testing and so all the early kinks had to be worked out on the battlefield.

The IS-2 is built more like an assault gun than a tank, with tiny ammo storage and a slow reloading main gun; it was designed to fight as a breakthrough tank, and isn't really a valid comparison to the KT. And the lack of Eastern Front commanders commenting is probably something to do with the fact that they all died at Kursk. Herr Gruber (talk) 18:26, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Soviet Analysis

While I think this is an interesting a valid addition to the the article, it seems to based almost entirely on the article from the Russian Battlefield website "Was the King Tiger really King?" [1]

If that is the case, I have doubts about it's accuracy, as some of the articles found on that website are of arguable neutrality. Furthermore, the article in question is directly contradicted by British and American post-war research. whilst I'm happy to accept that late in the war German industry had difficulty manufacturing high quality armour-plate and the TIger II may have suffered as a result, there is plenty of evidence that Tiger II's could shrug off all manner of high velocity shells with little or no damage to the frontal armour.

Additionally, the section made casual reference to the "Mechanical hopelessness" of the Tiger II chassis. I have removed this comment. As some of you may have noted, I a have several times attempted to moderate the traditional myth that the Tiger II could barely move under it's own power with the more modern interpretation that the German heavy tanks far more more mobile than they were given credit for immediately post war. This view is based upon German wartime documents and is supported by many reference works such as "German Heavy Tanks" by Chamberlain and Ellis and the Osprey New Vanguard publication on the Tiger II. Whilst it is undoubted that the Tiger II was nowhere near as reliable as the Sherman or T34, anyone who has visited the Tiger II in La Gleize and taken a moment to appreciate that it got there under it's own power (and on unmetalled roads during the harshest European winter in living memory) will realise that the Tiger II was far from "mechanically hopeless" Getztashida 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Again; why put a book in the references, if you don't read it? The KTs -according to the reference- were unable to leave most of the roads due to their enourmous weight. The bridges were usually off limits, and their speed was so slow that the front usually passed them before they had a chance to catch up. Very effective as a tactical weapon if you ask me. If the Sledgehammer... book is on the reference list, at least refer to it. (Or read other, similar studies. Unfortunately the "acthung, panzer" webpage is far from unbiased.) It's really aggrevating to see this glorification of everything German. (Funny, by the way, that according to wikipedia the KT was almost as fast as the T-55...) (adonaszi) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.171.150.137 (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

One shouldn't take this Soviet analysis too seriously. It contradicts itself, e.g.: "but the welding was also despite "careful workmanship" extremely poor". The welding was carefully done but nevertheless poor? Huh? Well, one picture on battlefield.ru shows hits numbered up 65. No armour can be good enough to withstand. Or to put it the other way round: What would any Soviet tank look like after having been fired at with German 65 AP and HE shell? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.13.8.14 (talk) 12:03, 8 February 2007 (UTC).

I was referring to the Sledgehammers book. The wikipedia article claims it as a reference, yet it goes against everything the book says about the Tiger II (and the Tiger I article does that, also). The book clearly states that the operational range was poor, that the tank was not particularly fit for cross-country trips, the actual speed (and not the official values) were so slow, that many times the tank was swept over by the front... It also mentions that the IS-2 was a very capable opponent (that 200 meters mentioned in the article is a complete fabrication.) For these reasons the book should be removed from the references section; the article uses only one sentence from the book, and it makes it look like that the book confirms it's content. Or the article should be reworked in a more objective manner. (It is, in its present state, a very one-sided one with very little factual information, and lots of worshiping.) adonaszi

the "careful workmanship" refers to the precession and the cleanness of the wields but that they were of poor strength. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.137.24.194 (talk) 09:06, 25 February 2007 (UTC).

Penetration ranges

I removed "The Tiger II performed very well against Allied and Soviet tanks being able to kill the M4 Sherman, M26 Pershing and IS-2 at respectively 2500m, 1800m and 1200m." as the ranges are nonsense, and I could make up anything informative about the Tigers performance, These kill ranges are probably counted against glacis plate of the vehicles in question, and are not very informative as, oddly enough, tanks can be taken out by shooting at other places too. --UDoWs 21:58, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll remove it again, forgot to write an explanation to the explanation summary the last time. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

For example: IS-2 turret front around the gun is ~100mm thick rounded cast steel. If we look at the Tiger II Ausf. B at Achtung Panzer! KwK 43 L/71 penetration values for Pzgr. 39, we can see that at 2000m at 30 degrees from vertical, penetration is still 132mm. So a perpendicular hit at the ~100mm armor (which is cast armor, not rha) could penetrate from 2000m and even from longer distances. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 12:50, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Soviet cast armor (unlike western) was in fact as strong as RHA (if not stronger) due to metal composition and very powerful press machines. 195.218.210.141 (talk) 16:44, 6 May 2008 (UTC)

The validity of the other penetration ranges stated in the article should be checked too. --UltimateDestroyerOfWorlds (talk) 12:54, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

"My tank is all-powerful and all-mighty" antics

Right now the whole tone of the article is "we had this supertank". Wikipedia has those kinds of antics in other armour articles, but it doesn't excuse them in this article. The article tries to degrade and minimise any criticism of the Tiger II and completely avoids the countless reports of mechanical failures in combat conditions. It also avoids the basic design flaws which the Tiger II had, along with many other German tanks. The interlocking wheels made for good flotation but they froze together in the winter on the Eastern front. They also got stuck in the mud, more than any other kind of wheel arrangement, both in the Eastern and Western front. This made the tanks sitting ducks for Soviet artillery in the East and Allied fighter-bombers in the West. Bad design! Terrible consequences! Choosing a gasoline engine instead of waiting for the diesels that German industry could have built meant that when a Tiger II (and its cousins) was hit (usually by Soviet artillery on the Eastern front and by Allied fighter-bombers on the Western front) it blew up or burned up instantly. Diesel oil doesn't burn in those conditions and that's why so many of the later allied tanks had diesel motors. The Tiger II was a death trap for its crews. Bad design! Terrible consequences! --AlainV (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2008 (UTC)

Most of this is wrong. The Tiger I was the one with problems related to interleaved roadwheels and the II has significantly fewer such problems. It was one of the most mechanically reliable German tanks, with a greater availability rate than either Tiger I or Panther and comparable to the Panzer IV. Problems due to airstrikes is a silly point; if your enemy has total air superiority, even the best designed tank in the world is going to get knocked out, regardless of what the engine burns. Herr Gruber (talk) 23:14, 17 May 2008 (UTC)

No, they are not. Just read the Sledgehammers book, upon which this article is supposed to be based on. It was far from reliable (I don't know where you got this comparison to the PnzIV... the Russians had constant problems of driving their captured tanks to the railways, because the ball bearings kept busting (they could not handle the weight), and the transmission burned out in one vehicle), it had poor mobility (both strategic and tactical), and it wasn't as invulnerable against the IS-2 (or the heavy Russian SPGs) as the article says it was. It really was a failure in terms of weapon. It does look impressive, though. You also do not address the point with the gasoline, the underpowered engine, and so on. The article really is an ode to the all-too-powerful and mighty German Armor -it has little to do with actual historical facts. (Again, if you only read one book, read Sledgehammers.) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Adonaszi (talk • contribs) 23:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

Or alternatively, read many books and draw your own conclusions. I have several times referenced German Heavy Tanks by Chamberlain and Ellis and the Osprey New Vanguard book on the Tiger II by Jentz and Doyle, well respected authors all, that simply do not agree with the conclusions you have drawn from the "Sledgehammers" book (which I concede, I have not read). This does not invalidate this "Sledgehammers" book as a reference, but if you are demanding that we grant additional weight to this source over those that contradct it than you are guilty of the very same thing that you are accusing us of!

Many people think that the Tiger II is a heavy beast that could not move at all. The capabilities of the Tiger II did, however, match or outclass many other Panzers, such as the Sturmgeschütze and Pz.Kpfw.IV. It was a vehicle the tank crews were glad to drive in, and which performed well in combat. The Tiger II was one of the best, if not the best, tank during World War II. (in my opinion). It combined good mobility with heavy armour and the best German gun of the war - and one of the best of all the countries combined. The design was the same as the Panther and T34. SO if you say the design of the Tiger II was bad, then you say automatically the same about the Panther and T34 tank. "They also got stuck in the mud" the tracks of the Tiger II were very broadly and wide. It had 66mm narrow tracks and wider 88mm combat tracks which impeded to get jammed and stuck. The mechanical failure rate is exaggerated: KT availability was far better than Panthers towards the end of the war and close to Panzer IVs, it was mainly that the tank had no real testing and so all the early kinks had to be worked out on the battlefield. The Tiger II was imperior to the IS-2. The king tiger have a higher rate of fire, very superior optics, and can destroy tanks 3,000 meters away with very favoriable accuracy. Also the king tiger has very fast turret movement, faster then the js-2. the turret can do a 180 in 9 seconds. the IS-2 had to come very close to pentertate the front armour, while the King Tiger was able to knock out a IS-2 far outside the effectice range of the 122mm gun. The IS-2 had to come within 1200-300 meters to penetrate the King Tiger's frontal armor. There are no records or photographs to prove that the Tiger II's frontal armor was ever penetrated in combat. the king tiger wasn't as expensive as you would think. it costed 300,000 reichsmarks. if you compare this to a panzer IV aus J, which cost 100,000 rm, its not that bad of a deal. Karl Körner, a German Hauptscharführer in the Waffen SS and Panzer ace killed 13 IS-2 tanks near Bollersdorf, while he commanded a King Tiger. (if one king tiger knocked out IS-2's several of times, do you really think then the IS-2 was better?) Quote from Wikipedia: "The 503rd SS Heavy Panzer Battalion (sSSPzAbt 503) scored approximately 500 kills in the period from January to April 1945 on the Eastern Front, for the loss of 45 King Tigers (most of which were abandoned and destroyed by their own crews after mechanical breakdown or for lack of fuel)." it's a very effective kill ratio against Russian tanks, although the most of them were T34's. The T34 wasn't the best tank of WW2, (in my opinion), it's just a myth because of the large numbers. in fact, the Tiger II would have changed the War in large numbers, if there were more operating Tiger II's. if 45 King Tigers killed 500 tanks on the eastern front, just imagine what would it be like if there were over 500 operating King Tigers in large numbers with the more powerful Maybach HL230 engine that would have improved power to about 1,000 PS without mechanical failures?.. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.143.241.164 (talk) 12:47, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

incorrect statement?

"The M4 Sherman was unable to penetrate the front even at point blank range and the M26 Pershing and IS-2 had to come within 1300 m and 200 m respectively." As I was reading this article, this statement stood out as incorrect, mainly the part about the m4 being unable to penetrate the frontal armor of a KT at point blank. This infers that the crew is invulnerable is invulnerable to the m4 when taking a frontal hit, which seams untrue. Yes, penetration tables of some guns do show that the round from a 76mm M1A1 APCBC round will not always fully penetrate the frontal armor (specificly the lower front at 100@55°) of the KT at 500m, for the penetration of said round varies from 94-104mm. clearly there is a chance of this round to penetrate the armor at 500m in this area, and even if it does not fully penetrate, the ballistic cap [to my understanding] would create spall (equivalent of shrapnel) from the explosion if it was within a few mm's of the surface. so from my understanding, this would have a good chance of killing either the driver or radio-operator, and maybe even the turret crew. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.162.88.90 (talk) 14:51, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

As Gershwin (I think) said, "It's ain't necessarily so". The penetration tables generally give performance against plate angled at 30 degrees. The Tiger II's glacis isn't 30 degrees, so performance would need to be even better than 100 mm for any gun to punch thru. I am not sure there is a confirmed case of any Tiger II being penetrated by any gun frontally. Not that it matters much since there were so few of them. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 23:41, 17 December 2008 (UTC)

Tiger II vs IS-2

I know that the IS-2 on the whole is a MUCH better vehicle but which had a stronger gun (in terms of armour piercing and HE)?chubbychicken 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IS-2 on the whole better than Tiger II ?!? Highly questionable. For the other part of the question: better HE on the soviet side but better AP as well as far better optics to hit at long ranges on the german side. --Denniss 09:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

It would help to clarify in the article that the gun had a very flat trajectory and so a high hit probability even at long ranges, like the Panther's, but unlike most Soviet tanks. Also, optics and ergonomics were good, again unlike the very cramped IS-2. Soviet tanks always look good on paper (so many millimetres of armour and main gun calibre), but that is not all that significant if you can't see anything, can't hit anything and can't work in the turret. Leibniz 12:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was wrong about IS-2 being MUCH better but think about it: IS-2 isn't as mechanically troubled as the Tiger II, it's logistically easier to manage and it's cheaper.chubbychicken 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The IS-2 is nearly 25 tons lighter also. Each tank could destroy the other and there is really no way to answer this question. But adding 25 tons of weight is bound to create some advantages. I would argue that thick armor and a big gun are significant at any range and are the primary factors. Ergonomics is a secondary factor - unquestionably significant, but not enough to ignore firepower and protection except in extreme cases. DMorpheus 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Adding 25 tonnes of weight may or may not be indirectly related to some advantages, but in and of itself is a serious disadvantage. Heavier tanks require more resources to build, take more trains to transport, use more fuel to move, cannot cross more bridges, require a larger engine and greater track area for the same battlefield mobility, put more wear on their mechanical parts, and may have a larger, easier to hit silhouette. All else being equal, fewer heavier tanks are likely to show up at the fight, and more of them are likely to get stuck while in combat.

Just to abstract the idea to a ridiculous extreme (this would be in the category of damn lies): since a Tiger II was 52% heavier (!) than an IS-2, we might guess that 52% fewer of them would be able to make it to a particular battlefield which was not of the Germans' choosing. To compensate, it would have to be 52% more effective than an IS-2, just to even things up—a very wide margin. Or 52% more of them would have to be built and fielded, but each one is already 52% more costly to build and support. —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 14:35 Z

[Damn lies: the Tiger II was 52% heavier, but of course that means the IS-2 was 34% lighter —MZ]

There you go, bringing up genuine, important issues again ;) . You're right of course, the logisitcal 'footprint' of a tank is too often ignored. I was thinking in much narrower terms - adding 25 tons of armor and firepower, for example. Likewise, one of the ways the IS-2's weight was held down was by keeping it small, which left it with only 28 rounds of ammo. But your point is valid. It's unfortunate there are no good statistics (at least any I'm aware of) regarding reliability, operational vs. under repair states within units, etc to demonstrate the folly of building vehicles like the Tiger II. DMorpheus 14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

I've mostly read about Soviet AFVs, and it doesn't take long to see that their development of MBTs was maniacally aimed at reducing size and weight, the main advantages being in production, logistics, and efficiency of armour layout.

The T-44 had essentially the same weight and mobility as the T-34, but was slightly smaller and significantly better armoured. This was achieved by reducing internal volume: replacement of Christie suspension with torsion bars, removal of the hull machine gunner (who had also been radioman before the T-34-85), and adoption of a novel transverse engine mount. The T-64 replaced another crewman with an autoloader, which, along with efficient turret design, has allowed gun calibre to increase from 85mm to 100, 115 and 125mm, without a significant increase in the tank's size. During the Cold War, there was an upper height limit on Soviet tank crewman (don't know if that's still the case). The T-80U's gas turbine was very space-efficient, but a dead end because it sucked fuel like a sailor on leave—the T-80UD achieved similar power with a conventional diesel. The Soviets also concentrated on reactive armour and active protection systems, which increase protection without a proportional weight increase. This isn't the only approach to tank design, but it certainly has its advantages.

It's still tempting to see the 48-tonne T-84 and 63-tonne M1 Abrams in light of the WWII Soviet and German tanks.

Now the Ukrainians have apparently increased volume by putting a modern turret-bustle ammo compartment and new autoloader on the T-84 Oplot, but the Russians seem to be toying with expanding the Black Eagle tank closer to the size of Western tanks, but possibly increasing gun calibre to 152mm.—Michael Z. 2006-08-11 15:47 Z

Well, T-95 is already out, here is a link with video

http://www.defencetalk.com/pictures/showphoto.php/photo/17088/cat/3071

most of the things about the tank are unknown, but what is known is that it is accepted in service and will be shown during 2007, the calibre is increased compared to usual russian 125 mm, and frontal armor is said to be impenetratable by any modern tank's gun due to thickness, the crew is said to be either 2 or 3, it will be low, wide and longer than usual chassis of T-72 or T-80. Completely new design. It is said to have radar (maybe). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 74.98.218.153 (talk) 21:24, 28 February 2007 (UTC).

Then how about we all agree that the debate of whether the IS-2 or Tiger II is better is a near unanswerable question (as mentioned earlier)?chubbychicken 08:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. They were designed for quite different roles. Leibniz 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

How were their roles different? —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 16:02 Z

IS-2's were mainly for supporting infantry assaults and blasting fortifications (but they could still destroy German panzers if needed). Personally, I'm not sure about the Tiger II but I think it was more of a tank-killing kind of tank - if you know what I mean.chubbychicken 04:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

The IS-2 is even lighter than the Panther...

I'm not sure.....you're probably are right but I always thought the Panther was just that slight bit lighter.chubbychicken 10:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

It should be noted that the Panther carried an L/70 (barrel length is 70 x caliber) gun, which launched its shell at an extreme velocity. The IS-2's gun isn't even L/50. Even though it has a much larger bore, it does not mean better armour penetration; the Panther could fire the shell through more armour than the Tiger I (L/56, 88mm) could. Of course, this does not mean the IS-2 would've been completely hopeless against the Panther, just pointing out. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 62.183.205.213 (talk) 17:15, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

In terms of raw statistics, the IS-2 was actually better than the Panther due to higher production numbers and better general HE/AP rounds, as well as armor protection. But they could be considered on par with each other, if the Panther was equipped with the tungsten-cored rounds. 74.112.49.141 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't know how you draw those conclusions. The IS-2 was produced in smaller numbers than the Panther (about 6,000 or so Panthers vs. about 4,000 IS-2s). The IS HE round was far better, having several times the explosive force of the Panther's "puny" (Zaloga's term) HE shell. I didn't know there were any tungsten-core rounds for the Panther's gun. Certainly its AT capabilities were sufficient to take on IS-2s; each tank could destroy the other. DMorpheus 01:51, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Huh, I must've forgot. Oh well. But it can be said that tactically, the IS-2 was much more useful than the Panther, minus the small ammo-capacity and the semi-fixed shells. The IS-2 also has a smaller silhouette.AllStarZ 04:29, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I don't want to insult anyone here, but I assume that most people here are from western countries, where a lot of engagements of King Tigers against Is-2 are not known, for that reason I would like to give this site for studying:

http://www.battlefield.ru/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=34&Itemid=44

a very usefull site, which shows some inconsistencies in straightforward comparison of armor and armor-piercing shells, for a simple reason that standards of respective countries were different, you will find more information in the link I have given.

Also, somparing IS-2 and King Tiger is not really fair, since King Tiger weighed more than 20 tons than Is-2. I would assume that most people here would be interested in tank duel between the two. In a tank duel, I would say that IS-2 was superior (if not greatly superior). In tank duel tanks have to assume a better position, move, quickly turn, and King Tiger was not that good at those things, for a simple reason of it's weight. As was poited out here allready, IS-2's gun has better HE capability, while Tiger's gun has better Penetration capability. Since for penetration round range is of huge importance, because penetration rods slow down greatly with distance, and with it, the penetration capability of the round. For HE round, it does not have as much of an importance, since HE round depends more on the explosives inside the round and more on the calibre. The significant point about HE rounds is that they are not as good at penetrating the frontal armor, but are very good at damaging vehicle's turret or chassis. For example, SU-152's HE round was capable of ripping turrets off the hull of any tank of WW2, because the round was 152 mm in calibre, and for a tank to take that hit between turret and hull and to keep it's turret was almost impossible. Same holds for 122 mm HE round that IS-2 were using, but in smaller degree of course, because of the smaller calibre. Tiger had better penetration capability, but with range it deteriorated, and IS-2's HE rounds suffered less penalty with range, so, although KT could shoot penetration round at longer ranges, IS-2 could counter it with HE rounds. For close range combat KT was not as effective as IS-2 because of smaller degrees of manueverability, and although it's gun had a lot of penetration at close ranges, catching IS-2 would be a big problem because of speed and manueverability of the latter and slowness and unreliability of the former. Finally, IS-2 was simpler design, which meant less breakdowns, a thing for which KT is noted is it's breakdowns, because of huge weight of the tank, and bad reliability of transmission. In general, in defensive position KT was a marvelous tank, however, whne it came to attacking, King Tigers were a disaster, because of breakdowns. King Tigers were definitely a very powerful tanks, with whom not too many vehicles could go in to head on engagement (only maybe self-propelled howitzers, no tanks definitely), but in terms of manuevering and tactics, it was worse than IS-2 and Tiger I tanks, because of lack of speed and reliability. Anyway, this is only my opinion, coupled with some facts.

I hardly know where to begin. Most of your conclusions are simply not valid.DMorpheus 17:23, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

The effect of HE against tanks probably isn't all that great (I don't know, never got hit by one myself). The "ripping the turret off" thing is most likely true, but it is not stated against which tank (=could be a Panzer III which has quite a small turret) and it was done by an SU-152. The gun of the IS-2 is 122mm and it's now facing the King Tiger instead of any German tank of the time. I remember reading about an engagement of an M-26 Pershing and a King Tiger (can't remember where, so I understand if you don't believe me) where the pershing fired a high explosive shell at the Tiger with no results. Of course, the Pershing's gun is smaller than the IS's.

So, considering that HE shells, far as I know in the least, have little effect against tanks (apart from tearing their tracks etc.) and the King Tiger could knock out the IS with a single shot, the Tiger would emerge as the winner for me. But, of course, imagining things has little to do with reality and luck greatly affects tank combats. Both tanks could destroy each other, and I'm satisfied with that. 62.183.205.191 16:39, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

You guys don't seem to understand the difference in effect between a penetrating round and a HE round. Penetrating rounds attempt to put pieces of shell into the crew by punching a hole in the armour. What is interesting is that during WW2 they were not always used when engaging armoured targets as against certain designs it was found HE was more effective. High Explosive shells would destroy any poorly protected parts of an AFV as well as cause spalling (turning the opposite side of the armour into shrapnel). Spall liners came as a result of experience in WW2 but certain design advantages could reduce this effect and the Soviet designs often incorporated these features ... some argue by chance. Meanwhile the Germans tendency to over complicate their designs and then not be able to come up with the right kinds of metals meant that their tanks spalled a lot. So Russian tanks would regularly have a large amount of success using HE. The problem though is that you rarely see the effect this has internally. There is no visible hole in the armour and until you inspect the tank you can't tell if the crew have been killed by the spalling. However on some tanks there were more visible effects. The early Panthers for example would often come to a halt with small fires coming out of the armour as a result of poorly protected oil pipes and the like. The Tiger 2 was reputed as VERY bad for spalling and therefore VERY good to shoot big HE rounds at. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.110.253.10 (talk) 04:22, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

That "ripping of turret thing" is stated in many russian sources as happened with Tiger-1 specifically. Also i read in Katukov's memoirs about 152mm HE fired by SU-152 shells immobilising a whole platoon of Panthers caught on the road on one occasion (some tanks were even burned down, others abandoned). Germans also mention SU-152s as a major threat to their Tiger-1 (until introduction of IS-2 and T-34-85), with both its HE and AP shells. Also russian firing tests on captured Tigers suggested it's ammo may sometimes detonate after non-penetrating side hits with large HE shells. 195.218.211.12 (talk) 00:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

There's no question that large caliber HE rounds can disable or destroy tanks (though I've never heard that any of the German armored vehicles had a particular spalling problem - this sounds more like battlefield.ru mythmaking than anything verifiable or legitimately sourced). In any event HE rounds are typically much more destructive to tanks in an indirect fire context - where the shells are likely to strike a vehicle's thinly armored top - than when used as a direct fire weapon.

Overall, the IS-2 was more mechanically reliable, had a marginally larger combat radius, a better HE round and was certainly produced in larger numbers (although I question how much of this production disparity really reflects the "complexity" of the Tiger and how much reflects the limited capacity of late war German industry). On the other hand, the Tiger II was far better protected, had a much more effective gun for anti-tank work (both in terms of armor penetration and accuracy), had more combat endurance (due to the fact that it carried THREE TIMES the ammunition load out of the IS-2), and, despite the extra weight, was a faster and more agile tank than the IS-2. In tank vs. tank engagements, I don't think there's any question that the Tiger II was the better vehicle (for that matter, there's a strong argument to be made that the Panther was more than a match for the IS-2, despite somewhat lighter armor).71.75.4.252 (talk) 00:47, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Lead section, unsourced, contradictory, doesn't reflect main article.

The lead section has some contradictory statements. It says no Western anti-tank gun could penetrate, then says the 17pdr could, but that no tank could, yet Sherman Fireflys used 17pdrs. Also, it's too much detail for the lead section, which should be a summary of the rest of the article, not nuts and bolts details. Hohum (talk) 19:48, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. I've changed it back. Clarityfiend (talk) 20:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

..and it's been added again. Still badly referenced, and still shouldn't be in the lead section. Hohum (talk) 22:50, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps the editor could tell us where we can get a copy of "U.S. Army Firing Tests conducted August 1944 by 12th U.S. Army Group at Isigny, France.", and what page(s) of Sturmartillerie and Panzerjager 1939-45 he's referring to? Hohum (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Please reread the article. What it says is that no Allied gun could penetrate the frontal hull of the Tiger II, which is quite true. The frontal turret could however be penetrated by the British 17 pdr.

There's a difference between hull & turret. So please read the article properly before writing down any critique.

As for the source listed;

Here is a link to the U.S. Army firing tests conducted in August 1944 by the 12th US Arm Group at Isigny France: [2]

Here's what is said under findings: 5. Findings a. The 17pdr SABOT fired in this test has penetrating power equal or slightly better than that of the 17pdr APCBC and the 76mm HVAP, T4. It is, however, definitely inferior to these ammunitions because of its inaccuracy.

PS: I'm new to this, hence why I earlier removed the fact tags, I thought I somehow myself had added them, didn't realize someone else did. I only just figured out today how to add references to the source list and I'm still learning the rest, such as adding pictures etc etc.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Wulf Jaeger (talk • contribs) 23:45, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid a wargaming page isn't a trusted reference site. I'm sorry to seem confrontational, it's not my intention. Adding information is welcome, as are new editors. If you have any questions about how to edit pages I'd be happy to answer them on my talk page. In the meantime I'll put some useful information about wiki editing, and the Wikipedia Military History project on yours.

do you have the page info for the Osprey book? Hohum (talk) 00:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Also, I'm slightly confused, the article on the wargames site appears to be about testing Panther tanks, not Tiger IIs. Hohum (talk) 00:19, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wulf Jaeger (talk) 00:57, 13 July 2009 (UTC):That the document is listed on a wargaming site is of no importance Hohum, it's the content which is important, not the place. It is also of no importance that the tests were against a Panther as the subject was about the accuracy of the 17 pdr's PADS projectile, which is covered in the document.

But thank you for the welcome. I ofcourse only write here in an effort to help those who visit here to learn about history, having myself read countless books on the subject of tank warfare and participated in various modern researches on the subject.

The reliability and verifiability of references is of utmost importance to Wikipedia. A wargames site is not a reliable place for a citation. We will still need sources for the claimed invulnerability of the Tiger II's armour, and the page number for the claims from the Osprey book. Unverifiable information is likely to be deleted. Even if you are a bone fide expert on tank ballistics and armour protection in WWII, it's no good unless you can provide sources which meet the criteria given in WP:V. Hohum (talk) 01:33, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wulf Jaeger (talk) 02:43, 13 July 2009 (UTC) :Again the document is real enough Hohum, so the fact that it is posted on a wargamers site is of no importance. Would be rather strange if the whole thing was made up seeing the report numbers, dates & where'abouts are listed. As for sources on the invulnerability of the Tiger IIs armour, one only has to take a peek at the performance of the guns fielded at the time to figure that one out. Not one is capable of defeating 150mm of rolled homogeneous armour inclined 50 degrees from the vertical, and fact is that there are absolutely no instances of the frontal hull of the Tiger ever being penetrated in combat. You can search all you want but you will find none, I guarantee it.

One needs to consider that the penetration of projectiles varies greatly with different impact angles, hence the effectiveness of sloped armour.

The site that information is sourced from IS of importance. Please read WP:V. Information needs to be verifiable at a reliable source. We also cannot do Original Research, see WP:OR. Everything needs to be sourced and verifiable in its own right. Additionally, absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. Hohum (talk) 14:08, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

The paragraph should be rewritten or moved anyway. It drills down to a level of fine detail that is inappropriate for the introduction. It cites the tactical advantages of gun and armor power without also mentioning the disadvantages of extreme weight, cost and unreliability. There are some complex issues handled in an oversimplified manner here. For example, it is indeed true that no record exists of a Tiger II glacis penetration (which, as Hohum points out, doesn't mean it never happened - only that it has never been documented). It is also true that lots of them were indeed knocked out by flanking fire and that fire from the flank is the standard, preferred method of engagement anyway for most weapons systems. The fact that the first three tiger IIs lost on the eastern front were taken out by a single T-34-85 in a single engagement suggests rather strongly that they were far from invulnerable.

My suggestion is we incorporate this content, but later in the article and in a more balanced, better-cited manner. DMorpheus (talk) 14:17, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wulf Jaeger (talk) 19:32, 13 July 2009 (UTC) Well you are welcome to move it around all you want so as it fits into context, that is fine by me.

But regarding the absence of evidence not equaling the evidence of absence, well ofcourse not, but one also needs to apply logic in certain situations as-well. You see if you look at the actual capabilities of the guns fielded during the period then you'll soon discover why infact there are no documented instances of the Tiger II's glacis ever having been penetrated in combat = No Allied gun was capable of it. That's all there is to it really.

Also when talking about invulnerability please remember that I specifically was talking about frontal engagements, from the sides it is quite obvious that the Tiger II, like any other tank, was vulnerable.

The Tiger II was a big, very complex & advanced machine which had its' fair share of problems, but its' strong sides were its unrivalled firepower & protection.

You're straying pretty far into original research there. That's not "all there is to it" - it's not a case of simple logic. The 17 pounder firing APDS and the US 90 mm HVAP could have theoretically done the job if the circumstances were right. I have no idea if it ever happened. But that's not for us to figure out or deduce.

So I really think the thing to do is pull the paragraph, break it up into what chunks can be cited, and put those pieces where they best fit. DMorpheus (talk) 19:50, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Wulf Jaeger (talk) 20:48, 13 July 2009 (UTC) The penetration performance of HVAP rounds falls off sharply with any slope over 35 degrees from the vertical, so no the 90mm US HVAP round was not capable of it. And the same goes for early APDS rounds such as that fired by the British 6 & 17 pdr. They simply weren't capable of it, not even at point blank range.

Remember that slope not only works by increasing the directional thickness of the armour, it also introduces the ricochet effect.

I've moved the paragraph in question from the lead section into the main article and reworded a portion of it. It could still do with some work, and references, which I have tagged. I now have access to (Jentz, Thomas; Doyle, Hilary (1993). Kingtiger Heavy Tank, 1942-45. London: Osprey. ISBN 1-85532-282-X.), so I may try and do some more work as time and enthusiasm permits Hohum (talk) 00:12, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I never mentioned the 6 pounder. Penetration by 17 pounder APDS or 90 mm HVAP would depend on terrain, in part, which you are ignoring. Penetration is unlikely but not impossible. It doesn't matter very much because (another point being ignored here) there were so few of these Tiger II lemons that they could not control much terrain, so the easy way to deal with them was to bypass. The second-easiest would be to flank them. This notion that tanks spend much time in one-on-one or straight-ahead duels is a misconception. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 02:32, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I've benn following these comments, so I thought it worth my while to see what the Isigny tests said. One transcript online [3] includes the caveats that the APDS ammo lot used was not necessarily good quality (it hadn't been proof fired) and therefor the findings only apply to what they had used not APDS rounds in general. More troublesome with the tests is that they were against Panther tanks (of noted variable armour quality) so we need a source that can relate the Allied gun quality to actual King Tigers. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:04, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone disagree with the citations and wording I've used regarding Tiger II armour / theoretical penetration? I'm using Jentz' opinion based on his encyclopaedic knowledge.

Morpheus, at risk of going off on a side issue: Tiger II's were intended to be operated in battalion sized units, as part of larger formations as often as possible. According to the claimed number of enemy vehicles destroyed at German heavy tank battalion, it seems unlikely that they were always bypassed, or ineffective. The main reason to call them "lemons" might be because of their expense (although the shortage of veteran tank crews might blend well with using fewer, better tanks), and possibly their reliability or mobility (although Jentz seems to think that criticism while partly true, is often overplayed). As a combat tank, they were extremely dangerous, and it's not really their fault that their fuel ran out, or that the allies either had air superiority - verging on supremacy in the west, and a vast supply of tanks to send against them - especially in the east. Hohum (talk) 19:10, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

edit: Oops, I notice Graeme has made some edits. "from head on" seems a bit clumsy, but it's a minor niggle of taste I think. Regarding your clarification request "APSV in British use usually refers to a squeezebore round, is APDS meant here?" I'm using the designation that is in the Jentz reference I've given. He says that his source is an "R.A.C. 3.d. secret document dated February 1945". Google books has the excerpt available to see here - Hohum (talk) 19:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Jentz is virtually always reliable on technical matters; in fact I think its fair to say he's pretty much the leading researcher on the engineering aspects of German tanks. However, I wouldn't rely on him for tactical or operational content - that's no criticism of the man, it's just not his background and he doesn't always get it.

I am aware Tiger IIs were intended to operate as battalion-sized units but they almost never did. If you look at typical Bn strength reports (and I admit I do not have a source handy at the moment) they often were battalions in name only and were really large companies. Likewise of course the allied units operated as large units whenever possible. But a battalion of Shermans or T-34s really did stay at strength far more often because they had the reliability, production numbers and logistic backing to do so. This is a good example of where Jentz doesn't quite get it right WRT tactics. A one-on-one tank 'duel' is a very rare thing. Tanks spend almost all their time shooting up non-tank targets. Therefore, it is foolish for authors to evaluate tanks solely on their ability to fight other tanks in such a mythical situation.

They were called lemons by the US Army ordnance corps because they were so unreliable automotively.

It's not a question of 'fault' WRT running out of gas. If you make the strategic choices to field a very small number of very expensive, complex, fuel-guzzling vehicles, while simultaneously making choices that cause you to lose air superiority, then you can predict that your tanks will run out of fuel. If, on the other hand, you decide to field very large numbers of 'good enough' tanks (that are, automotively, greatly superior) and support them with a lavish logistic tail and a very strong combined-arms team, you can predict that you will have the ability to bypass many defended points and not bother to engage ever single enemy super-tank. In this context, the few heavy tanks will indeed be bypassed frequently and, precisely because of their small numbers and poor mobility, cannot control big pieces of terrain. The 'kill numbers' do not directly measure this and I don't know how reliable the figures are anyway. This is a complex subject.

The book indeed is referring to 17-pounder APDS.

Hope this is helpful. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 13:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Although I'm almost certain personally that he means APDS, can we make that leap in the article? - the citation doesn't say it, is doing so synthesis/OR? - which we aren't free to do.

I won't go further in a discussion about lemons etc. here, it's beyond the scope of the article and while interesting, the point and counterpoint can get lengthy. Hohum (talk) 18:29, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The citation uses the term "(DS)" in parentheses after the term, presumably meaning discarding sabot. We also know from other sources that the WW2 17 pounder had only two types of AT ammo - APCBC and APDS. I think we're perfectly safe using the more usual term 'APDS' when using this source.

I agree the 'lemons' discussion is only tangentially on-topic, but then we need to use caution when making any sweeping statements about this tank. For example, I think it is OK to cite the great power of its gun, but to make a sweeping judgment about the tactical value of the vehicle should be off-limits *unless* we also discuss its automotive weaknesses, cost, the problems of measuring tank kills, etc. regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:38, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tracks

"The "slack-track" system used on the Tiger II chassis was a unique one, which used alternating "contact shoe" and "connector" links—the contact shoe link had a pair of transverse metal bars that contacted the ground, while the connector links had no contact with the ground."

I edited this out. It is not quite correct. First, whether the alternating links have ground contact depends on how firm the ground is. If the ground is soft enough, the tank sinks in; how far it sinks depends on the firmness of the ground and the pressure exerted by the tracks. Second, many tanks had similar alternating-link track designs, so there is nothing 'unique' about this. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

And I have now deleted it for the third time. Tanks of the 1930s had this track design. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:39, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

Russian testing

Wulf Jaeger (talk) 00:00, 28 July 2009 (UTC) Hohum, armour gets weakened by repeated hits, simple metallurgic science. Also Battlefield.ru can NOT be considered a reliable source, the site is pure propoganda right through to its' core. I've read it through and it many times deliberately leaves out crucial information as-well as very often changing original picture descriptions to better fit the website's propagandic views. This is not acceptable.

The Tiger Ausf.B wasn't the most reliable tank of the war, and neither did it pocess the highest qaulity armour, but battlefield.ru is deliberately trying to make it seem much worse than it in reality was. You can check in Jentz' book for that as-well. Reliability wasn't the best, but many things can be attributed to that: Lack of regular maintenance, lack of spare parts, lack of trained drivers etc etc.. When all of this wasn't lacking the Tiger operated reliably, unfortunately for the Germans however these three things were rarely not lacking.

You still need to find sources for the criticism of the Soviet testing.GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:31, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Wulf Jaeger, "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth", please read the Wikipedia policy WP:V. You have added the same information before and not provided verifiable references despite it being tagged for weeks. I am removing it again, but you are welcome to include the information if you include verifiable sources. I am happy to entirely remove the entire Russian testing section if consensus is that the sources aren't considered reliable.Hohum (talk) 12:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The section does need a rewrite but without using battlefield.ru as source, as Wulf stated this site has a very heroistic view of their equipment and a very shoddy view of the others. The short summary at Achtungpanzer is a more neutral view and better suited for inclusion here. --Denniss (talk) 13:06, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've had a look at the tank testing article at battlefield.ru - in its defence the article states what they did and what their conclusions were and gives a source (Tankomaster" #6 1999 - which is also one of those used for the Achtungpanzer piece). That the Soviet methodology was faulty and conclusions wrongly inferred is not for us to say. It might be better to include in this article that the Soviets did test the Tiger armour which is not contested and in their opinion x, y and z..... I would inlude all wartime evaluation together - I assume there were studies by both German and the other Allies. I don't find that "posed a lesser challenge than the much lighter and cheaper Tiger I, and were puzzled at the German decision to produce " is borne out by the battlefield.ru text. GraemeLeggett (talk) 13:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Since the source provided does say that the armour was subjected to multiple hits, perhaps that could be highlighted without comment - so that the reader can form their own conclusion about its weakening effects. I also agree with the in their opinion caveat. Hohum (talk) 18:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I've reworded the soviet testing section, making it clearer that it's their opinion, and mentioning many hits on the same target. I also removed the "posed a lesser challenge" phrase. I don't currently have access to more than a short reference to Western Allied testing of Tiger II armour, which I have already included. Hohum (talk) 21:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Some conclusion on the battlefield.ru (seems the only place you can actually get those testing docs) article are right, but most are dubious. At example: A) " 3-4 made large spalling and fractures" - well, they actually using 100+mm guns and no info about range / firing procedure (500m, 600m, 2km? 100mm, 122mm, 152mm firing first or all at same time, or one at different targets?), also forgetting to mention that all soviet tanks would probably not sustain even one hit of such kind of gun at the same distances - thats why we get a obvious statement that the IS-2 122mm could destroy it at 600mm (as any other tank); B)"76mm US/ 85 SV could open side turret plate at 2,000m" - hmmm, sorry if i dont believe that one, since wikipedia states that the 76mm could open 127mm (30º?) at 1,000m. Well, the turret side plate of a T2 was 80mm (69º) and it is common base that the longer the distance the weaker the 76mm gun gets (so i consider that a dubious statement); C) The entire "heading to Testing grounds" history of the article can be debated that, different of the panther / pz.III-IV series, the tiger series required a trained crew to be used, so i doubt the soviets had at time tiger trained crew to do avoid that "moving problems"; and D) "for the king tiger fans" the 122 mm blablabla - just forgetting to mention that the 122mm gun had slow fire rate, artilhery design (bunker destroyer HE oriented gun) and the IS-2 had WAY less AMMO that the Tigers (not to mention inferior optics too). Those are only examples of why those battlefield.ru articles should be read with a "grain of salt", not to mention that most articles are contaminated with POV writer comments about the reports, data which are dissolved into the article. But that article is right on saying that the Tiger II was expensive, complex and unreliable on not trained crews (obvious statements btw). So, trash the article? No, but dont use it as primary or reliable source on anything. - PHWeberbauer —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.79.11.202 (talk) 00:29, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

turret traverse

I've seen mention that the turret was not powered but hand-cranked - how was the turret trained? GraemeLeggett (talk) 14:12, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Not correct, the turret had power traverse. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps that could be added along with training rate. Other information on subjects such as the transmission are covered in better detail on the Panther and Tiger I articles than here.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Feel free! DMorpheus (talk) 15:32, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've added traverse motor and rate information. Actually, I'll add some more, I just noticed that fine traverse and elevation adjustments were by hand. I'll look into adding transmission details too. Hohum (talk) 18:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

B class yet?

I've previously entered a "yes" for the remaining WPMILHIST criteria of "References" for the B class check list, but I haven't changed the class field to B yet - it seems inappropriate for me to do it since I've been working on the article a lot recently and I might be too close. Are we there yet? Hohum (talk) 21:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I've set it to B class. Hohum (talk) 17:42, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

There are still some citations to be provided, and section tagged as needing expansion. GraemeLeggett (talk) 17:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, does "Combat history" need expanding any more? I'll look for citations, or remove passages I can't find them for. Ultimately I'd like to see this article get above B. Hohum (talk) 17:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think it need 'expansion' per se; after all there were only 500 or so Tiger IIs built, and all saw action in a space of less than a year, so we should not expect to see a huge section on their employment. Being a rare vehicle, however, it might be helpful to have a list of units that used it (it will only be a subset of the heavy tank battalions, right?) and perhaps some notable actions. The ref to the first combat use on each front should stay.

overall I think the article has shaped up very nicely. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 18:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've mentioned all of the units that used it - those specific heavy tank battalions in the "organisation" section, I've clarified it slightly. Hohum (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I've rewritten the passages tagged with "Citation needed" and provided a reference, and moved and expanded a passage about future plans to its own section, with references. Hohum (talk) 19:08, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Tiger II/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

• I'm a little confused by the description of the track link design. What virtue did that have over normal track links? You'll need a citation for this paragraph before I can promote this article.
• Provide a link to the Jagdtiger article.
• Provide a link to explain APDS
• What was the ground pressure?
• Conversions are need to English units everywhere they're not already provided.
• You need a page number for the Wilbeck reference. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 02:58, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, I only just noticed that you've started the review. (thanks).

The track link addition has only just been added by another editor, and I'm seeking references for it from them. Once I have them I'll copy edit it for relevance.

I'll look into your other points immediately. Hohum (talk) 12:32, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• There is already a link to the Jagdtiger article in the lead and twice in the main body.
• APDS is now linked.
• Ground pressure added.

Can you point to any particular conversions I've missed?

Just the one for armor in the infobox.

• Conversion supplied.

• Changed Wilbeck reference to Schneider.

Hohum (talk) 13:01, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

The track link design stuff is off base/useless. While it is not wrong to write that the Tiger II had connector and contact links, that design is not unique to the Tiger II and was not even novel when it was used then. Might as well say the tank had armor. I've deleted it for the (I think) third time. Regards, DMorpheus (talk) 16:42, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

• Need a couple of cites and watch your hyphens vs. n-dashes. I think you mostly used the former for your page numbers in your cites, when it should be the latter. See WP:HYPHEN and WP:DASH. Just to clarify you needn't make these changes now, but you will if you want to go for A-class. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:56, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

Probably best if I work on them now ;). Could you cross out the issues in your list if I have addressed them please? I also note you've added a couple of fact tags, I'll attend to them immediately. Hohum (talk) 20:11, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

• Added citations, removed one uncited passage, fixed all the hyphen/en-dashes that I could find. Hohum (talk) 21:46, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

---

• I've never heard this term before: series-hybrid power system. You explain it well, but I've always seen that sort of system referred to as gasoline-electric.

It's the term used in the reference material. Also, I notice wikipedia redirects Gasoline-electric hybrid to Hybrid electric, and since the Porsche proposal was of two engines in series, series-hybrid seems appropriate. I can change it to include a link to Hybrid electric if required. Hohum (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm not concerned about a link since it's explained in the text, but I've honestly never heard Porsche's over-complicated system referred to as "series-hybrid". It just grates on me because it's nonsensical if I try and parse it. What kind of series? Hybrid with what? I'm wondering where Jentz came up with it. Gasoline-electric hybrid or petrol-electric hybrid if you hail from that world would be find, but not series-hybrid.

• Used "gasoline-electric hybrid" and linked it for clarity. Hohum (talk) 14:21, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I'd suggest combining these two sentences: Another proposal was to use hydraulic drives. Dr. Porsche's unorthodox designs gathered little favor.

Since the final sentence relates to all of Porsche's preceding unorthodox designs, I don't see that combining them makes much sense, unless I'm missing your point. Hohum (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

That can't entirely be true since some of the suspension designs were used on Jagdtigers, but you're right about the powerplant/transmission stuff. So I won't insist on the point.

• Convert the 100 m figure when talking about the gun's penetration. And the range figures in the 17-pdr's penetration section.

• Done

• You imply it, but never actually say that the early Tiger IIs were maintenance nightmares, but that later production vehicles were far less troublesome. It might fill out the paragraph on much better the figures were for 1945.

In my sources, I don't remember one that says maintenance was itself difficult, rather that it was often required. Also, I can't quite understand your last sentence. Hohum (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

You're right about my second sentence; that didn't come out the way that I meant it at all. What I meant was that your paragraph with the serviceability numbers for 1945 is very short and that you could maybe beef that up with a comment about how serviceability was initially low, but improved over time.

• I have slightly expaned the passage and modified the reference accordingly. My sources don;t say much more. Hohum (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• I've deleted a bunch of your redundant cites; you only need to cite once per paragraph if everything in that paragraph came from the same source and if nothing is particularly controversial. Otherwise it's distracting to the reader.

Although I agree, I did that because of the tendency of people to question the source of sentences early in a paragraph - which has even happened in this article in the last week or so. Hohum (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it all depends on your definition of "controversial". Personally, if somebody questioned it, I might add in a cite for that one point, but only if I agreed that it was a little controversial. Problem is that the Tiger II is so famous that a lot of BS has been put out where innocents can read it and think that it's the gospel truth. And then you have the guys who want to duel with your sources over every little difference with their favorite source. Both types are a pain, but something you gotta deal with if you want to defend the integrity of your article.

• I only found one more needed cite, but I'd actually delete it or fold it into the lead where it could talk about it being used on the Eastern and Western Fronts for the rest of the war, or some such.

Gah, that one's a pain to cite properly, because it's such a wide ranging paragraph - Can I just point to entire books, or should I pick out the relevant page(s) for each theatre? Hohum (talk) 01:02, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that one's a pain; that's why I was suggesting that you fold it into the lead, because you do need page numbers. The other approach is to go whole hog and list which battalions fought in which battles, with page numbers. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 04:46, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

• Citations added in situ. Hohum (talk) 14:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

• All earlier issues have been fixed. Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:38, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

---

I think I've got everything. Is there anything I've missed, or something else to be done? Hohum (talk) 15:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Tiger II, frontal penetration.

Hi, I added in the photo from Schneider's book which may be the one and only photo showing a Tiger II punctured in its frontal armor. Also deleted the sentence in the text about there not being any record of such an occurence - there is one now, and it's posted on Wikipedia! DarthRad (talk) 23:04, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Previous comment reinserted into main talk page.

Good find DarthRad, I have that book but hadn't noticed that picture. Hohum (talk) 00:09, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi that's actually untrue the accounts of the Tiger II's armor never being penetrated in battle is making reference to the frontal hull armor not to the turret in fact the whole design of the turret was to present the smallest surface area to the enemy minimzing the risk of getting hit which could damage the gun ,optics ,etc.Anyway it looks more like a scoop to me than a penetrating shot however I will not dispute your claim as it is unnecessary like I stated earilier its all about the hull front armor not the turret. I put the line back in with a slight revision " here are no records of any Allied anti-tank gun penetrating the hull front armor of the Tiger II" Any info on the distance at which the Kt was hit I would assume it was close range shot if it indeed was a 17pdr using APDS was pretty inaccurate and really not shot past ~400 or so meters. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tt33 (talk • contribs) 02:50, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The source that you have reinstated (which I initially included) doesn't specify hull armour only - I just checked it. It just says frontal armour. This has been disproved, so it was removed. Hohum (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

The one of the statements about the KT's armor (exact quote) is the following:

"The frontal armor of the Tiger II provided the best protection possible the front turret was 180 mm inclined at 10 degrees from the vertical, compounded with a special designed mantlet, which was immune to penetration and being jammed. The glacis plate was a 150 mm thick plate inclined at 50 degrees from vertical. There is no proof that this frontal armor was ever penetrated in combat, even though the British 17 Pounder, when using a special APDS ammunition, could theoretically penetrate the Tiger II front armor (front turret and lower front hull, only the 17 Pounder could not penetrate the Tiger II glacis plate"..

"This frontal armor" from its context this is speaking of course of the 150mm inclined at 50 degrees which is the glacis plate or hull frontal armor I believe I may have another quote from a different source on this as well

The citation included was Jentz and Doyle 1993, p 36. It doesn't say what you have just posted. What is does say has been disproved:

"The authors have been unable to find any photographs or other proof of the frontal armour of Tiger IIs being penetrated during combat."

Your reference appears to be taken from the fprado armorsite, which appears to be a synthesis from a set of sources cited lower on the page (including the Jentz and Doyle book). The preference for this Good Article is to use reliable secondary sources, not tertiary interpretations by enthusiasts on a website, where possible.

Hohum (talk) 12:18, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

List of transient names

[moved from my talk page]

Did i get this right!? The correct name of the subject of our article is "unsuitable for a general encyclopaedia"!? What else is "unsuitable", the variants, the specifications...? 87.252.167.250 (talk) 16:29, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

The name, and the most commonly used variants are already in the article. The complex list of prototype names used by Porsche, Henschel, war departments, etc, is pointless, and just not needed in a encyclopaedia article. The information being added is from a web page which says it uses a book by Jentz. I have this book, and the web page author is making a mangled synthesis of a bunch of dates and numbers which is misleading. Putting in the full details correctly is far beyond the scope of the article, which is why I removed the information, but the IP editor is insistent.

Opinions from other editors please (Hohum ^@) 20:49, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Having attempted to tweak the table it is still confusing and really doesn't need a seperate section; if a particular need is felt to have such a table the information should come directly from the book cited by the website and not from the website itself. The rest of the information is already in the text and can be incorporated into the notes. Minorhistorian (talk) 21:23, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

"The name, and the most commonly used variants are already in the article". No, they weren't. But now they are! Now at least is specified that Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B is the real name, that Tiger B is the correct short name, and that Tiger II is just a name tagged on that tank by the post war world, not by those who have the right to tell what the name would be! Gentlemen. 87.252.167.250 (talk) 13:19, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B sounds somewhat questionable, I remember to have seen Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausf. B "Tiger II" in at least one of my books and Tiger II (VK 4503) Ausf. B at an official document with some tank data and production descriptipon. MAybe soem different naming was used by the manufacturer and OKW/OKH/Wapruef. --Denniss (talk) 18:22, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

The tank was given separate designations by Wa Pruef 6, Reichsministerium fuer Bewaffnung und Munition, Henschel, Porsche, Krupp, and some others... and they also re-designated over time, through planning, prototype and production. I have all of the details, but it's ridiculously complicated and of very little benefit to our users. In Germany's Tiger Tanks VK45.02 to TIGER II Design, production & Modifications Jentz gives many details, but in Kingtiger Heavy Tank he distils it down to what is reflected in the lead of this article. Tiger II was definitely used officially by some bodies after 16 March 1943 - it is not a post war invention. Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B was used by Wa Pruf 6 after 2 June 1943. However, the VI was also occasionally used (and is also in current publications). I had provided a slightly bastardised Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf. B in the lead so that people referring to the article can make that link without confusing it with the other "Panzer VI" - "Panzer VI Ausf H (Tiger I)". (Hohum ^@) 01:36, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

footnote 45 - alternate and/or opposing source?

The source is claiming a 10 to 1 kill ratio; I think the Tiger was a deadly weapon to be reckoned with, but this sounds like extreme data-sifting or skewing. Are there other contesting opinions out there? HammerFilmFan (talk) 14:10, 18 June 2010 (UTC)HammerFilmFan

Not that I know of. Schneider is a well respected source of information. He uses available war records - which aren't perfect. German ones may overcount kills, Soviet ones probably don't accurately itemize what sort of enemy tanks inflicted their losses. Do you have any basis to doubt the figure other than your opinion? Bear in mind that Germany only produced about 28,000 Pz IV, StuG, Jagdpanzers, Panthers and Tigers, while the USA made over 60,000 comparable tanks, the UK about 10,000 and the Soviets around 70,000. Although not all allied tank losses were from afv-afv combat (and both sides didn't lose all their tanks), it doesn't seem particularly unlikely. Also bear in mind that the ratio is probably based on the number of AFV's (not only tanks) which Tiger IIs killed. (Hohum ^@) 17:12, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

A number of Panzerabteilung(or heavy tank battalions) had high kill-death ratios, the GroßDeutschland divison fielding King Tigers had a 16:1 ratio for example. I believe the ratio stated is easily plausible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.148.193.156 (talk) 17:25, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Fixing the note

"The full titles Panzerkampfwagen Tiger (8.8 cm) (Sd.Kfz.182) Ausf. B and Panzerbefehlswagen Tiger (Sd.Kfz. 267 und 268) Ausf. B (for the command version) were used in..."

We specified in the beginning of the article that the official designation was : Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B, and yet a note is saying to us that this was the official name : Panzerkampfwagen Tiger (8.8 cm) (Sd.Kfz.182) Ausf. B

Inventory designations and what not are not the real name of a certain fighting vehicle. Try telling Hitler that his mighty tanks are called Sd.Kfz.182, Sd.Kfz. 267 and so on! (The Sturmtiger though was officially designated : "Panzersturmmörser Tiger Ausf. E mit 38cm RW 61" something like that, if it wasn't changed later!) Oblivion Lost (talk) 10:48, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make changes which contradict the sources that are already in use, especially if you are not providing any of your own. The Tiger had many designations from various official bodies. (Hohum ^@) 14:40, 19 June 2010 (UTC)

What contradicts here is this : "The full titles Panzerkampfwagen Tiger (8.8 cm) (Sd.Kfz.182) Ausf. B and Panzerbefehlswagen Tiger (Sd.Kfz. 267 und 268) Ausf. B (for the command version) were used in..."

In the beginning of the article it is said what the correct official name is : Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B !!!!!!!!

This exactly is the contradiction here! I'll apply a source for reference, again! Oblivion Lost (talk) 13:53, 21 June 2010 (UTC)

Lead lacking

The lead omits to mention its combat use. A point brought up in the peer review last year but not apparently addressed.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

Ferdinand Porsche

Why is he not mentioned anywhere? 81.68.255.36 (talk) 21:50, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

He is mentioned and linked in the first paragraph of the development section. There is no further mention since his prototype was rejected. (Hohum ^@) 22:02, 23 February 2011 (UTC)

How did I miss that? :/ Sorry! 81.68.255.36 (talk) 10:16, 1 March 2011 (UTC)

Overlapping and interleaved

From the pictures it has more than two rows of wheels. Most pictures I see show it without its full set of wheels, often with transit wheels and combat tread. In these, a large unsupported strip of tread extends to the side beyond the wheels, and bare hubs stick out past the outer installed wheels.

I don't see any definition of "interleaved", but I would call the designs with more than one wheel per axle (excluding paired wheels) interleaved, in which case the Tiger II was clearly interleaved. David R. Ingham (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

No, Tiger II had an overlapping set of wheels (4 inner and 5 outer wheels), Tiger I and Panther had interleaved wheels (AFAIR three rows of wheels) but in 1944 they were adapted to the overlapping steel wheels from the Tiger II as that proved to be easier to handle (especially for maintenance). --Denniss (talk) 12:45, 8 February 2013 (UTC)

Pantiger, A Redesigned Tiger (U.S. intelligence report, 1944), listed in External links, says they were interleaved. It shows a picture that might be a Tiger 2 with battle tread and all its road wheels. I think the confusion may be due to the preserved examples having been captured in transport trim, without the full set of wheel and sometimes with narrow tread. All the other pictures I see either have narrow tread or else a lot of tread sticking out past the wheels. They all have hubs that stick out past the wheels. David R. Ingham (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)

No, these 9 wheels per side is all they ever got as there was no need for more. Commons has lots of wartime image to prove this. --Denniss (talk) 04:42, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I just now looked at Commons. I still disagree. The pictures all support my interpretation. First Chamberlain and Doyle say "The suspension consisted of nine sets of interleaved road wheel sprung on torsion bars." They are right about almost everything else. Second, and I guess this may be their source, the pictures of the Tiger II suspension look exactly like those of the tiger I when it had its outer two rows of wheels off for transport. Some show the narrow track, and some show the wide track with its outer part unsupported. I will believe that the outer wheels were often neglected in the rush to get into combat but not that it was designed with bare bubs sticking out over unsupported track. Third, it would seem quite odd to persist with maintenance of the Panther interleaved wheels and omit them on the heavier, more expensive and rarer Tiger II with its wider track. David R. Ingham (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

My suggestion is to delete the sentence in the Development section, which should be historical rather than descriptive. The Design section fortunately does not say. However, as written the history and design are mixed, and it would be a change in content. In case we can't resolve it, what is the proper tag for a statement that has conflicting sources? David R. Ingham (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

Please do not interpret anything, it's a fact that all Tiger-II based vehicles only had 9 road wheels (Jagdtiger with Porsche suspension just eight). --Denniss (talk) 09:56, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

This is probably the clearest image you'll get of Tiger II wheels and axles. This image is also in [Jentz; Doyle, Germany's Tiger Tanks:Vk45.02 to Tiger II Design, Production & Modifications, ISBN 9780764302244]. Which also says "The overlapping suspension consisted of eight inner and ten outer pairs of roadwheels. They were arranged as five outer and four inner pairs of roadwheels on each side." It also has a very clear diagram of the wheel layout. (Hohum ^@) 21:46, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

That is a clear image and it is not exactly what I expected to see, but it does not settle the question, because it still has hubs sticking out past the wheels. Images of Panthers and Tigers with all their wheels have no such bare hubs. As, I said, sources differ on this question. David R. Ingham (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)

All of the axles are the same length. The inner axles do go beyond the inner wheels, but they aren't any longer than the outer axles. There is no room to put another wheel on them. I don't know why they are that long - perhaps they considered interleaving with thinner road wheels, and changed their minds, or it's to make them more accessible to adjust their tension. (Hohum ^@) 17:37, 27 February 2013 (UTC)

For me, Hohum's "This" picture makes it clear, at least for that example. It is different than the picture of the Tiger I showing all the wheels in two ways. The wheels are all in pairs, instead of 1-2-2-1 and there are less of them. What is so odd is that there seem to be no pictures of Tiger IIs or its derivatives without bare hubs sticking out. The pictures show narrow and wide tracks, same as for Tiger I, but the wide tracks stick out past the road wheels and their are no pictures without hubs sticking out past the wheels. A track wider than the set of wheels that support it can't be part of the design, because it would wear unevenly, and the track life of a tank is problematic at best. In battle trim, hubs can't be designed to stick out past the wheels, because they would catch rocks, logs, etc. There may have been extensions for the axles to support the outer wheels, or they may have been deeply dished somehow. The axles in travel mode can't stick out past the edge of the transport track, because they would catch on bridges and things in transit. So the design must have been three double rows of road wheels per side, the least to keep the load centered on the track. I don't know whether to call that "interleaved" or not. Some axles had two double wheels and the others had only one pair, in full design battle trim. But we never see that. The pictures of Tiger IIs all look like the pictures of Tiger Is without all their wheels. Maybe it was so late in the war that they never got that organized, or maybe when they were in battle trim, the crew was too busy to take pictures. Modelers have, as far as I have seen, have followed the pictures, without thinking this much about what made sense from an engineering point of view. That is fine for some models, as they agree with the pictures, but there should be some models of what it was designed to be, the best tank in the war. David R. Ingham (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

You won't find any image with the setup you claim to exist because this did not exist. --Denniss (talk) 10:32, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

The axles do not protrude beyond the mudguards of the Tiger II. This is the minimum width for transport. The tracks did protrude, which is why they were removed for transport. The end. David, I don't know where you get your ideas from, but it's not from documented inspection of the tank, per the book I already quoted. (Hohum ^@) 14:57, 3 March 2013 (UTC)

Soviet wartime testing

There have been a controversial statement regards to the penetration of the 180mm thick turret front.

It's been virtually impossible for the A-19 and BS-3 guns to penetrate the turret front out of 1000m and 1500m within single shots, even when consider best available ammunition. There's either some literal translation errors or a faulty and sloppy accomplished test. Either way, this have to be discussed. (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Directly from the article "During lab tests of the "Tiger-B" tanks armor, conducted at TsNII-48, it was noted that there had been an "evident gradual decline in the quantity of molybdenum (M) in the German T-VI and T-V tanks, and a complete absence in the T-VIB. The reason for replacing one element (M) with another (V, vanadium) must obviously be sought in the exhaustion of their on-hand reserves and the loss of those bases supplying Germany with molybdenum. Low malleability appears to be characteristic of the "Tiger-B's" armor. An advantage of domestic armor, as is well-known, is its high malleability; German armor has fewer alloys and is therefore significantly less malleable." The turret armour is not equivalent to target test plates for penetration tests. (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

The laboratory test does simply not justify why the BR-471B shell (145mm @1000m / 135mm @1500m) of the A-19 gun could penetrate the turret front. It's very implausible that due the absence of molybdenum the previously rated 180 mm thickness, have decreases about 20%, respectively 25% in strength. (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

Agree, according to ADA 954952 Report, Metallurgical examination of the Panther Tank, which have exactly the same alloy composition in armor as the Tiger B (0.5% carbon, 2% Chromium, 0.14% Vanadium) the decreases in strength to the rated thickness was maximal of 3%. (talk) 16:48, 25 October 2014 (UTC)

This is the problem when working with WP:Primary sources. You can include what they say but not interpret them. GraemeLeggett (talk) 06:25, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

I tried to improve the reverted article by more objectivity and in regards of its contradictions. Hopefully it matches anyone minds, thanks ! (talk) 10:03, 26 October 2014 (UTC)

Amateur Hour Photos

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm a bit peeved that every photo of an AFV on this site has a coloured tank over a doctored black and white background. It's senseless and looks like someone found photoshop as a new toy and decided to update every AFV article on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.154.159.127 (talk) 13:27, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

"Debate about the test at Kubinka" section

An IP has repeatedly added a section "Debate about the test at Kubinka", it is un-encyclopedic in tone, and just seems to be WP:SOAPBOXING. They don't use edit comments, and aren't taking the discussion here per WP:BRD at my request. Unless they engage here I think it is fair to assume it should be removed again. (Hohum ^@) 16:12, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

wholesale changes to spelling on this page

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 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Tiger_I but restoring it threw the Brits into a tizzy. I assume same will happen here.