Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Tiger II

Tiger II

Now, after improving the article to B and GA, I'd like to progress it further; to A and perhaps even FA. I'd like some advice from more experienced editors on how to achieve this. Hohum (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Abraham, B.S.

Just a few minor MoS points, though the article looks pretty good.

• The lead is meant to be a summary of the contents of the article, so does not require cites.

I'm confused, that entry specifically says "The lead should contain no more than four paragraphs, should be carefully sourced as appropriate..." Hohum (talk)

WP:LEADCITE states that, basically, if everything in the lead is covered and cited in the body (as it should be), than cites in the lead are redundant unless it is a quote or rather contentious point. Also, cites in the lead are generally discourage by most editors. Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 02:47, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

• Emdashes should be unspaced.

I've dealt with these in various ways. some changed to more appropriate en dashes, rewording, semicolons, etc. Hohum (talk)

• Internet-based cites require access dates.

Done. Hohum (talk)

• Words should be in full form and not contractions. For example, "did not" instead of "don't".

Done. Hohum (talk)

Cheers, Abraham, B.S. (talk) 07:47, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine

• A solid effort overall, but the intro needs tweaking as per above comments. Also, I question the following under the section on Reliability and mobility it states: Also, notwithstanding its reliability problems, the Tiger II was remarkably agile for such a heavy vehicle. Contemporary German records indicate that its mobility was as good or better than most German or Allied tanks. This was true for its on road performance, however its performance cross country left a lot to be desired. Over difficult terrain it often slowed to a crawl and its engines overheated under the strain. This is where the majority of its mechanical failures took place. As a result it was frequently used in a defensive role as a moving pill box, instead of the Sturmpanzer it was intended to be.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 17:26, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. Doyle and Jentz specifically take the line given, so I am giving a single sentence reflecting it. The rest of the article has many examples of the reliability problems, so I think the overall balance is correct. Is that OK? Hohum (talk)

That's ok by me...however I am a bit of a gearhead when it comes to tanks. The general reader might get lost in a sea of technical details. Without a clear explanation they will see only a big, evil looking panzer which they will assume must have been world beating, when this was not the case.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) (talk) 21:36, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Nick-D

This is a very solid article. While I know little about tanks, it appears comprehensive and well cited and is well illustrated. My suggestions for further improvements are:

• The lead should cover the tank's combat performance given that this is part of the article
• The rationale for dividing material between the 'Development' and 'design' sections seems unclear. Also, one of these sections should state whether or not this tank was developed from the Tiger I or was a new design. An explanation of why Germany thought the tank was worth developing and its intended role would also be useful.

I've used "Development" to contain the initial, competing projects - while "Design" is what actually got produced. I'm open to suggestions for better section names. Hohum (talk)

• Do we know why 1,500 tanks were ordered or their unit cost?
• The 'Operational history' section is focused almost entirely on tank vs tank battles. How did the Tiger II fare against aircraft and infantry?
• A discussion of the relative cost and benefits of the Tiger II would be useful; Germany's high-tech weapons are often criticised for using resources that could have been used to produce larger numbers of other weapons (eg, would the resources used to develop, build and field the Tiger II have been better used on Panthers, etc?)

I'd prefer just to cite expense (money, man hours, resources) rather than get in to the argument on how it could be better spent - that seems beyond the scope of the article, and is also a sure way to attract a lot of contentious edits. Hohum (talk)

• Some material in the 'Surviving vehicles' section needs to be cited. Nick-D (talk) 07:23, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, useful insights, I will work on each of these. Hohum (talk) 19:33, 30 October 2009 (UTC)

MisterBee1966

• The German abbreviation Ausf. stands for Ausführung (English: variant) and should be explained.

Rather than clutter the lead with explanations, I have added a note. Hohum (talk)

• Something is wrong with the table below "Armor layout: (all angles from horizontal)". The line above the table is cut in half. I can only see see the upper half of that line.

It looks fine to me in FF3.5 and IE8. What browser are you using? Hohum (talk)

Edit. Ok, I see the problem, I think it is now fixed.Hohum (talk)

• You write: Units which used the Tiger II were as follows.

Heer: (S.H.Pz.Abt) 501, 502, 503, 504, 505, 506, 507, 508, 509, 510, 511

SS: (s.SS Pz.Abt) 501, 502, 503

Somewhere else you write "Turret number 121 from SS s.PzAbt. 101", shouldn't the PzAbt. 101 be listed too?

SS s.PzAbt. 101 was renamed SS s.PzAbt. 501 when it got the Tiger II. I'll adjust this for consistency. Hohum (talk)

• S.H.Pz.Abt I think that this should be s.H.Pz.Abt

I have made the abbreviations consistent now. Hohum (talk)

• Pzgr/PzGr stands for Panzergranate and SpGr for Sprenggranate, maybe worth expanding.

Dhatfield

• The article is well done, technically comprehensive and well cited, but it lacks flavour or interest, partly because it is so safe. For example "The design followed the same concept as the Tiger I, but was intended to be even more formidable." It was more formidable. It would also help to be explicit about what that (flawed) design concept was: a heavy tank capable of achieving total battlefield supremacy.
• R.D.H. notes that the general reader may get lost in the details: this is a real problem. To me, a punchy summary is worth a thousand unit designations.
• Nick-D correctly identifies that German tank production was cripplingly expensive and slow. Consider the mobility-firepower-protection trade-offs made on the Tiger II in trying to achieve a design for a flawed and ultimately discarded concept: the heavy tank.
• Please mention the vulnerability of these tanks to close air support figher-bombers like the Hawker Typhoon.
• Consider adding mention of the psychological effect of the Tiger II on allied crews and infantry - not sure if this is documneted, but it certainly was significant.
• Using a report of an engagement as an example can be an excellent way to highlight the combat strenghts and weaknesses of the weapon while injecting some much needed excitement into the article.
• Again, brilliant work, but needs to go 'above and beyond' to get to FA. I love this tank (who doesn't love this ridiculously overpowered beast?): best of luck. Dhatfield (talk) 22:51, 28 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, very helpful. I'm currently gathering additional sources so I can add a bit more flavour - so currently I'm just tinkering rather than making substantive edits - this should change fairly shortly (and since the sources overlap with Tiger I, and heavy tank battalions in general, I'll work on those articles too). Regarding vulnerability to aircraft, I think some recent research has shown it to have been somewhat exaggerated, but I'll need good sources for that too. Breakdowns, immobilisation while withdrawing (making them unrecoverable), and running out of fuel seems to have been the overwhelming causes of loss. Hohum (talk) 03:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)