Talk:Jagdtiger

message: Has anybody else heard of Jagdtigers with 88mm guns installed due to shortage of the 128mm?
Peabody11 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.156.42.129 (talk • contribs) 
:I half remember hearing something like that. If you can find a source, by all means mention it. --DanielCD 18:17, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

message: Quote" Not every Jagdtiger, however, enjoyed the luxury of mounting this formidable weapon. By the start of 1945, the 12.8 cm gun was in such short supply that Steyr-Daimler-Puch was forced to mount the 8.8cm L/71 KwK 43 gun...in the last 26 Jagdtigers completed"
German Tanks of World War 2  
Dr. S. Hart and Dr. R. Hart
ISBN1-897884-37-0
which quotes as it's source: National Records Archieves Administration, Washington D.C
(captured German records, records of the Inspector General of Armed Forces)
 
I do however admit, and thus refrain from including this info..that I have never seen it anywhere else. If other references are available, I'd be curious as well.
Motorfix 02:54, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I heard of only 4 to 5 to be equipped with the 88L/71, there was no lack of 128 mm guns but the carriage/internal mountings to hold the weapon. AFAIR it was no production Jagdtiger but the prototypes to be rearmed. --Denniss 16:38, 19 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, it is the standard 128 mm. DMorpheus (talk) 17:29, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Did it, or didn't it??''' 

message: What's got the stronger gun in terms of AP - Jagdtiger or ISU-122?chubbychicken 03:39, 9 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jagdtiger vs ISU-122 

message: What's with this designation as a super-heavy AFV or tank? Seems completely arbitrary to me and should be omitted if there is no source other than another wiki article. DMorpheus 14:55, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well it's not a tank, for one. A tank has a rotating turret. It's a tank destroyer. Whether it's super-heavy or not is another matter.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.75.110.235 (talk) 00:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have re-added the fact tag to this statement and would appreciate it if no one removes it unless/until a published source can be found. DMorpheus 13:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: look there is no other tank heavier than this Fact! ok. User:Lord_viruscide  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 18:57, 11 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Three things: One, the Jagdtiger was not a tank, but a self-propelled gun. Two, the category "super-heavy tank" appears to be arbitrarily defined here on wikipedia so as to include the Jagdtiger; thus it is circular reasoning to so label it in this article. Three, there have been other, heavier AFVs. Probably none that saw combat but you'd need to cite that. Regardless, kindly do not remove fact tags from the article again. Thank you. DMorpheus 19:25, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  What exactly makes the Jagdtiger super-heavy? At 71.7 tons it is just 5% heavier than the Tiger II (at 69 tons). I suggest this sentence be removed as OR unless someone can provide a citation that isn't an unsourced wikipedia article. DMorpheus 16:15, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: well mr DMorpheus i have proof of the Jagdtiger super heavyness ,Tank of World war 2 by Chris ellis page:137 says that the Jagdtiger was the heaviest AFV in ww2, theres the citation The Lord_viruscide 02:33, 21 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  Can you quote your source? No one has claimed the Jagdtiger isn't the heaviest AFV of WW2. That's not the dispute. The issue is: is it a "super-heavy" AFV by any published standard? Your source doesn't even claim that. I will revert to the fact tag until you can  show a published source defining super-heavy AFVs in a way that includes the jagdtiger and excludes every other WW2 AFV used in combat - because *that* is what your edit says.  DMorpheus 12:26, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur with Dmorpheus, the onus is to define the "super-heavy" status without including the Tiger II which is but a couple of tonnes lighter.GraemeLeggett 14:16, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text: I note also that the super-heavy tank article contradicts saying that no super-heavy vehicle saw combat.GraemeLeggett 14:38, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

text:  You're quite right. Currently most of the super-heavy AFV article is OR. Certainly the one source cited in that article, Zaloga, cannot back up most of the article. His book, cited in the super-heavy article, is concerned solely with Soviet AFVs. Most of the article is about German designs. Unless I am mistaken the Ellis book also makes no claim about a 'super heavy' designation that must kick in around 70 tons or so. DMorpheus 15:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Super-heavy? 

message: Tiger ace Otto Carius commanded several Jagdtigers.  
He wrote that Jagdtiger's 128mm gun needed to be re-calibrated even after a short run on off-road.  I have no reason to doubt about his combat experience.  Even most modern tanks like American M1, British Challenger 2, French Leclerc, Italian Ariete, Japanese type 90 & Type 10, South Korean K1 & K2, have a calibration mirror housing permanently attached to the top of the muzzle (Japanese have it on the left side).  Modern computerized firing system would shoot a laser to the mirror, and see how the angle had changed.  It then calibrate automatically to compensate for the gun droop which might have been caused by intense heat from sun, continuous firing or other factors.  Such system was not available for Jagdtigers.  I can only assume that Jagdtiger required a bit more calibration than Tiger.  Carius would not have complained about Jagdtiger's need for re-calibration, if it was about the same as Tiger's need for re-calibration.  Since he made a point about it as a commanding officer of several Jagdtigers, I thought it was a point worth noting to broaden our knowledge of Jagdtiger's combat effectiveness.  
He was a bit critical of Jagdtiger on several points, even though he was clearly impressed by its firepower.  
He did mention human factors that prevented effective use of Jagdtiger.  Lack of training and moral was a big factor that prevented full utilization of Jagdtiger's potential.  Also general attitude of German soldiers and German people that the real enemy is not Americans, but Russians seems to have prevented a few jagdtiger engagements from occurring at all.
:I believe my copy edits have kept the essential information. Could you provide page numbers for each of the various points please?
:Carius is a primary source, and while it might be worthwhile including his opinion on the Jagdtiger itself because of his expertise, his political opinions aren't reliable enough for wikipedia, and are of less value to the article in any case. (Hohum @) 21:43, 7 February 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Combat History by Otto Carius 

message: I did some copy edits and addition/changes/correction after checking my copy of the cited book by Chamberlain and Doyle (1999). They state clearly the variant mounting the 8.8 cm (or 88 mm) L/71, designated Sd Kfz 185 "never" went into production. Does anyone have a different source which states differently; I know there has been some discussion as to that. 
Secondly, I noted in the upper part of the article it has the U.S. M/D/Y and later the European D/M/Y; usually the article uses and stays with the style it was started with. I did not change it; awaiting reply. Kierzek (talk) 00:24, 1 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Unified the date style, since both have been used in additions to the article and no other opinions have been voiced herein. Kierzek (talk) 05:32, 5 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent edits 

message: I removed the word "tank" from the sentence  on the grounds that it's not a tank.  reverted this and is invited to make his case here as to why we should call this beast a tank. Herostratus (talk) 18:07, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: if you want to change it to a better designation then go but don't remove it, destroying the sentence it was used in. --Denniss (talk) 20:39, 6 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It isn't a tank and I can find plenty of sources supporting that. QuiteUnusual (talk) 07:56, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem was the resulting sentence was "...the heaviest armored fighting vehicle used operationally during World War II and is the heaviest ever to achieve series production" which isn't quite a sentence. How about "heaviest self-propelled gun to achieve series production", not that series production is a phrase most readers would understand. GraemeLeggett (talk) 11:18, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It certainly is a sentence. You left out the "It is" at the start of the sentence. It scans fine is actually elegant IMO. "They are the best-selling band in history and are also the the prettiest". The subject is assumed. It's not necessary to thrown in extra useless verbiage: "It is the heaviest armored fighting vehicle used operationally during World War II and is the heaviest armored fighting vehicle ever to achieve series production." Herostratus (talk) 12:36, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I thought the original edit was fine, and understand your point Herostratus (it scanned to me the way you obviously meant it to scan). However, in an attempt to compromise I tried a different version. I'm unconcerned with how the sentence is structured as long as it makes sense - you are all free to change my attempt as you feel appropriate. QuiteUnusual (talk) 13:28, 7 April 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes that's fine, problem solved. --Herostratus (talk) 01:45, 8 April 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is it a tank? 

message: Hi guys,
I just wanted to suggest changing the tags on the miniature models in the production section.  They currently read: "Model of the X road wheel variant", but I think this is somewhat confusing as 'model' is a term used in vehicles, and in miniature hobby.  I thought that these were live tanks based on the tag, but when I looked closer I saw that this was not the case.  
In brief: I recommend adding 'miniature/scale/whatever' to clarify.
50.64.53.86 (talk) 09:28, 30 July 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Production: photo tags 

message: In the "Design" section an editor added "Also, because the calibre of the gun was so high, the noise, smoke, and light generated would often give its position away to enemy observers" and this was reverted with a summary of "pure nonsense". Is it?  
I can't find a ref for this right off but common sense tells me there might be something to this? This beast had a 5-inch gun, which is the caliber of a naval destroyer's main guns and an inch less than that of light cruisers. It's hard to hide when you're direct-firing naval-caliber artillery in the middle of Poland I would guess. And 128mm is half again 88mm so the cross-section is double so the flash noise and smoke is maybe double or more of an 88... wouldn't that make a difference re concealment? Herostratus (talk) 22:01, 11 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoever called it nonsense was right. Tanks have guns. Guns have firing signatures. Some are worse than others....so what? It's not a uniquely bad problem on this vehicle. Watch a video of a modern tank firing.  DMorpheus2 (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: OK. Herostratus (talk) 16:03, 14 September 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  concealment after firing a problem? 

message: if someone with the appropriate knowledge could have a look at the two model pictures?  the one marked Porsche version clearly shows a sign in front of the model "Ausführung B Henschel/Steyr" ?? 84.215.194.30 (talk) 84.215.194.30 (talk) 21:47, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  wrong pics?