Talk:Tiger I
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Tiger I article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article. |
Article policies
|
| Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 3 months  |
 | This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Orgin of name "Tiger"
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)
92 AP and HE rounds
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)
Official designation
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)
Australian Restoration
The Australian Armor and Artillery Museum is planning on restoring their Tiger to running condition with a full interior, and the article should reflect this when they finish. 2600:4040:5AE1:6600:8D5B:A9EB:BC0E:4F9 (talk) 10:58, 17 August 2025 (UTC)