Talk:Tiger I

Never heard of this before, and is very unusual.

"Ausf." is the same as the British "Mark"; "Pz. IV Ausf. D" would be the fourth major version (whether actually produced or not).

Manufacturers are denoted by a letter in parens, eg. "Tiger (P)" or "VK 30.01 (H)".

Is there a source for this? --91.5.107.77 (talk) 08:09, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

:That "H" is even explained in the Intro. Nobody forces a manufacturer or Wehrmacht officials to start with A then use B,C,D etc. That letter in brackets was typically used for development vehicles. --Denniss (talk) 11:30, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

:: First of all, an explanation is not a source, as you very well know.

:: Second, I may be obtuse, but I don't see an explanation, could you please be more specific?

:: Third, Ausführung is not pointing to a manufacturer, at least not with any other tank I know of, both before (Pz. I, II, III, IV) and after (Panther).

:: From Tiger II: "The final official German designation was Panzerkampfwagen Tiger Ausf. B" - So was this manufactured by Blohm & Voss, or did they go back from H to B?

:: Alltogether more than enough reason to ask for a reliable source. --91.5.107.77 (talk) 19:03, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

:::You may want to ask the Waffenamt why they chose this designation or why they switched to "E" afterwards instead of A. Why do you think we have a designation subsection in the article?--Denniss (talk) 20:19, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

:::: No I can't, the Waffenamt closed some years ago. It would however be a good source, just like the one I'm asking for.

:::: Why are you pointing to another part of the article? Can we find a good source there?

:::: I don't get your reaction at all, why are you working so hard to avoid a WP:RS? --91.5.107.77 (talk) 21:12, 27 March 2024 (UTC)

::::: The sourcing for items in the lead would normally be within the main body of the article, as the lead is a summary. For this article, the "Designations" section would be the appropriate place. However, the sourcing there isn't as clear as it should be. [https://id3486.securedata.net/fprado/armorsite/tiger1.htm this] is used in text after the table, and it shows the table.. apparently originally taken from Thomas L. Jentz, in "Germany's Tiger Tanks: Vol.1 - D.W. to Tiger I" (Schiffer, 2000).

:::::However, none of those are exactly "Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung H"

:::::I don't think a whole paragraph on the designation belongs in the lead anyway. It isn't a core topic imo. (Hohum ^@) 01:20, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

:::::: So there is a source already! Sorry I missed that, thanks for pointing it out.

:::::: Frankly I'm surprised that a website would be an acceptable source, but I'm not familar with this one, might have a high quality. In any case, out of personal curiosity, I would really love to see Jentz' source, it's really a mismatch with the other tanks.

:::::: I agree with your last point, details beyond the basic name seem to be out of place in the lede. --91.5.107.77 (talk) 10:26, 28 March 2024 (UTC)

This article claims it came from Porsche, yet there is no sourcing for this anywhere on the internet. The earliest reference comes from Wa Pruf 6, in a Feb 1942 document where it is referred too as Tiger. This should be deleted entirely and rewritten to support this. MarkusDorazio (talk) 19:10, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

In the infobox it says the armament is 92 AP and HE rounds. I'm guessing that that number is the maximum load? Most of the times a tank would not and would not want to roll around with the maximum load though either because not enough available ammunition, weight, and higher risk of blowing up when hit. NamelessLameless (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2024 (UTC)

Should something like "officially Panzerkampfwagen VI Ausführung E (abbreviated as Pz.Kpfw. VI Ausf. E) with ordanance designations 182 and later 181" be added to the first paragraph of the article to make it more in line with other articles about the German big cats? Or is this unnecessary? Bean guy2 (talk) 11:51, 16 May 2025 (UTC)

:It wasn't ever officially called that. By the time it was referred to as Ausf. E rather than Ausf. H1 it was referred to as Panzerkampfwagen Tiger, not Panzerkampfwagen VI. The way that the Sd Kfz numbers are referred to also strike me as odd - they were part of the name later in the war, and as it is written right now, it would seem to me to raise more questions than it answers as to what it means. Christian Ankerstjerne (talk) 19:23, 22 May 2025 (UTC)