Talk:Tiger I/Archive 1

message: __TOC__
I remember reading somewhere (can't remember where) that Guderian preferred the Panther over the Tiger because the Tiger was too slow. If anyone can confirm this, I think it would provide some balance to the entry on the Tiger. Armor and the main gun aren't the only main variables in a tank's performance. Speed is also a weapon.
Article (1) has Guderian more neutral on the topic, specifying Tigers and Panthers for different types of regiments. 
(1) http://www.warlinks.com/equipment/tank_research/section_a.html
INVESTIGATIONS IN GERMANY
BY
TANK ARMAMENT RESEARCH,
MINISTRY OF SUPPLY
SECTION A POLICY REGARDING THE FIGHTING EQUIPMENT OF TANKS AND SP GUNS
Interrogation of General Guderian
(2) http://www.monarch.net/users/miller/ww2/history/Panther_Lost_the_War.htm
The Tiger, well this got silly. It was like a great grizzly bear fighting off wolves. If it could back into a tree or rock to cover its tail, it was near invulnerable. In open terrain the German guns were far more deadly than ours. The Tiger was an excellent tank to defend with, but like the PzIV, too slow to fight ?maneuvering battles? with the T-34s. The Panther changed all this. Although it wasn?t quite as fast as the T-34, it was fast enough to negate the T-34 advantages. It had a new 75/70 gun that was even more deadly than the old Tiger 88/56. The Panther could not only defend as well as the Tiger, but gave the Germans an offensive tank again.
(3) http://www.spartacus.schoolnet.co.uk/GERmanteuffel.htm
Hasso Manteuffel, commander of the 7th Panzer Division, had strong views on tank design. 
Tanks must be fast. That, I would say, is the most important lesson of the war in regard to tank design. The Panther was on the right lines, as a prototype. We used to call the Tiger a 'furniture van' - though it was a good machine in the initial breakthrough. Its slowness was a worse handicap in Russia than in France, because the distances were greater.
----
Could this be moved, either to the German name for the tank, or to Tiger I Tank?  When I saw the article title, I thought it was an article about some monarch called Tiger the first.  RickK 02:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: "Tiger I" is by far the most familiar name, so I think it's in the best place now. As far as I know, the only "King Tiger" is - wait for it - another German tank :-), aka the Tiger II. Stan 04:38, 24 Nov 2003 (UTC)

message: Please, what is the attachment on the end of the barrel?  Gillean666 5 July 2005 10:53 (UTC)
:That's a muzzle brake, to reduce recoil. --Carnildo 6 July 2005 20:20 (UTC)
:: FYI, most modern tanks have a fume extractor in the middle of, or sometimes on the end of the gun barrel.  You can recognize a muzzle brake because it has one or more set of perforations.  —Michael Z. 2005-07-6 21:12 Z
Thanks guys! Your info is much appreciated. Gillean666 20:42, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Gun Barrel

message: The section on combat history is more of a history of the T-34 and other allied tanks. And I am dumbfounded by the assertion that the Tiger was not a good offensive weapon, that simply isnt true. If you look at its role in many eastern front offensives, including Kursk, you will see it was a very strong offensive machine.
True. Furthermore, it was less than effective at Leningrad due to the terrible weather and intense artillery fire encountered when the Germans tried to unload their new tanks off of the train.
Yeah, I agree. This article makes it seem as if Tigers couldn't do anything without breaking down. While it is true that the Tiger did break down more than other tanks, they could still get the job done(If the weather had let up in Leningrad). Aaron L.
The penetration range of T-34-85 against Pz VI is misleading, since at 1,000 meters 85mm gun's accuracy is very low. A shot's theoretic ability to penetrate does not neatly translate to lethality under field conditions either. More enlightened wiki editors may know this better than I do, but my reading of after action reports from Wehrmacht Heavy Armor Battalions suggest that Tiger's side armor has good resistantance against 85mm at medium to long range.
-Chin, Cheng-chuan
::: Without some actual data on dispersion for all major gun types there is no way to factor that in. I.e., was the dispersion of 85mm ammo much worse that some other type of gun/ammo combination? Until we know that we have to rely on penetration data. DMorpheus 14:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Breakthough vehicles need not be very fast, as the push against enemy positions were usually done at pace with infantry. It would have been silly to advance on enemy contact without infantry covering the tanks. Low speed is problematic in getting the vehicles to battle and in exploitation breaches in enemy lines, but breaktroughs are generally attemted only after careful preparations, in example when the tigers and other stuff were where they would be needed. Note that most vehicles designed to make breakthroughs were fairly slow compared to vehicles that were supposed to exploit them.--UDoWs 17:16, 20 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat History. 

message: Contrary to what the article claims, the Tiger I was hardly related to the Tiger II at all. Aside from a few shared parts and the same caliber cannon (not the same cannon, though) they were two very different tank. In truth, the Tiger II is much closer in overall design philosophy to the Panzer V Panther.
::: The Tiger II only superficially resembles the Panther. The Panther was a balanced design with good firepower, armor and mobility. Both Tiger designs deliberately favored firepower and armor with much less mobility. The Tiger I and II shared the same engine and road wheels, but most importantly they shared the same doctrine and role. DMorpheus 20:27, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  King Tiger 

message: The article now says the Tiger was faster than an M4 Sherman, which is hard to believe and contradicts the Sherman page. DMorpheus 18:54, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've read many sources showing that Tiger units had maintenance problems. It seems rather rare for any Tiger unit to have its full strength actually operational for any length of time. OTOH I don't recall reading much about low speed being an issue. We should get it right but we needn't belabor the point. DMorpheus 18:59, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text: Perhaps you should pay a little closer attention; it's not 45 mph, it's 45 Kph, which is significantly slower. Parsecboy 10:36, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  In addition, tank loss ratios favor the Germans more in 1941-42 than in 1944-45. They always maintained a positive ratio against the Red Army, but the data are less skewed in 1944-45 than in 1941-42. Love the 13-year-old comment however. Very true. DMorpheus 13:13, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Speed?

message: I've heard that if Hitler had kept on producing Panzer IVs and Panthers, he might have had a better shot at winning the war. Maybe because these tanks were lighter? More versatile? What do you guys think? Aaron L.
::: Thankfully Hitler and his cronies made many, many poor decisions. You are correct that some of the dumbest were in the area of industrial management. Still, it seems to me a nazi victory scanrio is not only difficult to imagine, it is well outside the scope of any article on any one weapon system. By the way, the Germans never stopped producing Panthers and Pzkw-IVs until they collapsed. DMorpheus 22:45, 19 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Once the United States entered the European land war, Hitler didn't have a chance.  Better strategy, better industrial management, and better treatment of counquered populations could have countered the Soviet Union's production advantage, but couldn't have matched the combined industrial and manpower capacity of the United States and the Soviet Union.  Remember, US tank forces weren't able to defeat the German tank forces through any superiority of design or tactics: it was because the United States was able to produce three Shermans and the Soviet Union was able to produce four T-34s for every Tiger, Panther, Panzer IV, or Stug III. --Carnildo 00:28, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  We're sort of straying far afield from the Tiger tank, but I think the notion that the only real reason the USA and USSR won the war was simply by out-producing the Germans is a distortion at best. Better industrial management was a necessary but hardly sufficient condition for victory. If I recall, we outproduced the Vietnamese too, but we didn't beat them. In fact I think a good argument can be made (elsewhere) that Allied & Soviet strategy was far superior; allied & soviet operational-level command was generally superior in the second half of the war; and even on the tactical level there were plenty of allied units that were the equal or better than any German unit they faced. But none of that is really relevant to the Tiger page. DMorpheus 00:48, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

text:  Nonsense. DMorpheus 01:20, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

text:  Carnildo you really are full of it. Tiger was not the uber machine you make it out to be, and by 1944 50% of the British ATG force could knock it out from over 2000m away (ie 17 pounder) and the other half with specialty ammo could do the same at 1000m (ie 6 pounder with APDS, unlike other specilty ammo, the 6 pounder APDS was actually in good supply for Normandy). Not to mention 25% of all British and Canadian and Polish tanks had the 17 pounder. Do some research, 69 of the 163 Tiger tanks in Normandy were lost to enemy action, thats 42%, and that is NOT including those lost to fuel shortages or sabotage by their own crews. God some people have become totally illusioned by the myth of German Uberness. A few tigers get some really good kill ratio and people start to think it was the norm. God knows how many tigers were lost before they even got a single kill but I bet it was not a small minority. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Wokelly (talk • contribs) 04:12, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  And how many of those kills were by aircraft?  The #1 cause of Tiger losses was lack of fuel, the #2 was mechanical breakdown, and #3 was airstrikes. --Carnildo 08:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tiger vs. Panther and Panzer IV 

message: Why does the Tiger I have this massive weight for only 100mm of armour (pretty light for its size) when IS-2's, Churchills and Pershings are somewhat lighter with similar or even heavier armour?? I still don't get what's with the weight, can someone explain?chubbychicken 10:53, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Right. Compare the volume of the turret on a Tiger I with, say, a Churchill is revealing. The Churchill turret, while thicker, is *much* smaller (and can only carry a much smaller gun). The Tiger also uses huge flat slabs of armor while the IS-2 and M-26 use large castings with compound curves that also cut weight. This is not without cost; the IS-2 stowed only 28 rounds of main gun ammo while the Tiger had more than twice that amount. The IS-2 had only four crew and carried some fuel externally; the Tiger had a five-man crew and no external fuel. The M-26 had a five-man crew and comperable gun power but is a lot smaller.   DMorpheus 17:45, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, much of the weight can be attributed to the gun and turret, both of which were much heavier than the equipment on the Churchill. Getztashida 12:09, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weight of Tiger I 

message: Why did engine governors get installed? And why do they reduce the Tiger I's speed?chubbychicken 10:55, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a guess, but I'd bet that the higher speeds (and resulting higher engine loads) likely caused mechanical issues. — ceejayoz talk 02:27, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's right, revving any engine at high RPM a lot wears it out a lot quicker, and obviously governing it back reduces the output, which directly reduces speed. DMorpheus 17:38, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Engine Governors 

message: There's little mention of Porsche's VK 4501(P) [aka Tiger (P)], should a subarticle be added under Tiger I, or should Tiger (P) be written as a brand new article (as there isn't one yet).
:Should belong to design history where it's already mentioned (very small at the moment but it's there). --Denniss 22:14, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am not sure the Porsche turret issue is correctly stated in the article. Currently it says the first 50 Tiger Is were fitted with 'Porsche turrets'. Sounds so much like the Tiger II I wonder if it is an error? My understanding is the turrets on the Porsche and Henschel Tiger I prototypes were very similar, if not identical. Could this be a minor mistake in the article? DMorpheus 20:32, 20 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Browsed a copy of "German Tanks of World War II", published by Arms and Armour Press, 2000. On p120 it states that Henschel where the only producer of T1 and mentions no outside supplier of turrets (a significant omission to make). On p137, however, it records the cancellation of the Porsche competitor to the T2, "although some 50 turrets which had been produced were subsequently fitted to the early production Tiger IIs". Is this of use? BTW, the failed Porsche design for the T1 (known as the Leopard) was modified to provide chassis for the Ferdinand SP gun. Folks at 137 19:58, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Exactly, I think this is a mixup between the (mis-named) Porsche Tiger II turrets and the Porsche Tiger I turret. Even the single failed Porsche-designed hull that was used in combat as a turreted tank had what looks to me like the very same early-style turret. I'll put a fact tag on it and if no one comes up with anything we'll pull it. And if someone *does* come up with something - well, we will have learned something. Thanks DMorpheus 20:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

text: This 50 turrets must be wrong and mixed up with Königstiger. Achtungpanzer has the design history of both Henschel and Porsche Tiger and tells nothing about 50 separately designed turrets. They do talk about the turret being very similar for those two, it was originally designed for the Porsche Tiger and somewhat adapted for the Henschel design. --Denniss 22:55, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As I understand the situation, the turret designed by Henschel for the VK3601 (upon the hull of which the Tiger I was based) ended up being used in modifed on form the Panther and all Tiger I prototypes used the turret designed by Porshe for the VK4501(P) - although in slightly modified form in the production versions.  Incidentally, IMHO the VK4501(P) probably deserves a short article of it's own if anyone fancies writing one (might give it a go myself) but it is most certainly only a foot note in the development of the Tiger I proper...  Getztashida 13:13, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Porsche's VK 4501(P) 

message: The article includes this claim:
>>and an understrength regiment of guns was sent to the battlefield at Kursk in May, where 12 SU-152 howitzers destroyed 12 Tigers and 7 Ferdinands  during battle<<
this is quite correctly noted as needing some sort of citation, as given the total numbers of Tigers in action at Kursk and their loss rates its claiming quite an extraordinary kill rate.  There has been a tendancy in the past to accept Soviet wartime claims of Tiger kill rates ("hundreds") at Kursk at face value, however more modern research shows that such claims were considerably exaggerated because, among other reasons, there weren't hundreds of Tigers in the battle to start with.
This claim seems dubious to me for that reason and because it exceeds the loss rates noted by the relevant German units in their unit loss records, so I noted:
>>[this wartime Soviet claim is prima facie doubtful, the German loss records only note one Ferdinand lost to an SU-152 (source: The Combat History of schwere Panzer Abteilung 654, by Karlheinz Munch, pages 67-69) while the Tiger unit deployed with the Elefants, sPzAbt 505, only suffered five total losses to all causes in the entire battle (source: Tigers in Combat I by Wolfgang Schneider, page 263)].<<
that note was deleted on the basis that Germans always understated their own losses.  While its true that German propaganda consistently understated their own losses for public consumption, the works I have cited are based on the actual loss records of the German units in question, which were produced for internal German Army purposes.  In any event, the onus of proof is on the party making the claim, and to date no proof has been provided
'Loss/Kill Ratio issues'Bold text:
I think this topic actually is very much related to a general issue (that no one seems to/or cares to) address. The 1:13 and other kill ratios listed for Tigers and other "uber-tanks" do not make sense. The German losses only consist of the total losses, i.e. the tanks that were damaged beyond repair. The Russian losses, however, are taken from German archives, and consist of EVERY tank hit (and reported knocked out). By type. There are only two things wrong with that: the first is that most of the time during the war the Germans had no way of knowing if the damaged enemy vehicle was recovered or not. (Unless they had a hotline to the Russian High Command.) Usually the front moved Westwards, and every damaged/destroyed vehicle was behind the enemy front. The other problem with this is that a tank can get hit multiple times -and you can't really tell, if it was destroyed by your Tiger, or some other Tiger, or an AT gun, or a Teller mine. An airplane "kill" in a dogfight is pretty straightforward (and there are still debates). But a tank (or a wreckage of a tank, because people usually don't wait around to see if a tank is operational before hitting it) can be hit multiple times, and everybody can claim that hit to be theirs. So up until comparison can be made with Russian records (which are mostly dismissed as propaganda, while the German reports usually taken at face value), the kill ratios do not mean anything. 
Also, the reported "types" destroyed have to be taken with a grain of salt. Especially during battle, people do not linger around to determine if they see a T-34 or a T-70. Watching a few interviews with veterans also made me realize that they might have not been able to actually tell the difference between a Panther or a Tiger... (And the Germans, for their part, had the "T-34 fever". Even armored cars were reported as T-34 by German soldiers.)
Some people say here that Soviet claims were probably exaggerated, and cites german sources right away. Looks funny to me. Why should we believe German claims and not believe soviet? Especially considering that SU-152 was easily capable of ripping a turret off Tiger with a single shot, there are even photos of that. 
"which were produced for internal German Army purposes"
After battle of Stalingrad, german officers were told to lie to their soldiers that Sixth army won the  battle. So, I do not think that germans were that honest with themselves.
The German soldier had no incentive to lie about their own unit's losses. If they under-report replacements would not arrive. This is generally reliable information, even if all combatants exaggerate and inflate their kills. Thus the necessity of matching one side's kill records with the other's written-off losses. Another factor to consider: vehicle type identification is a difficult skill. Badly trained soldiers are likely to fail in this task. Both the Red Army and the US Army were guilty of this, as well as late war Germans. As one US TD gunner said; he didn't pay any heed to what type of panzers he was shooting at. If it had a Swaztika, he shot at it.
-Chin, Cheng-chuan
:Matching kill records to written-off records is WP:OR. If there's a source that does that for us, then we can include that type of analysis. But as it is, we cannot do that ourselves. Parsecboy 22:06, 2 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tigers and SU-152

message: where did it giet its name(Esskater11 18:52, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  name of tiger