Nothing Special   »   [go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Tiger II

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good articleTiger II has been listed as one of the Warfare good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 6, 2009Good article nomineeListed
December 14, 2009WikiProject peer reviewReviewed
Current status: Good article

Post new comments below

[edit]

Post new comments below this section, otherwise you're likely to post them into the transcluded GA review

"...the British...forces [never] brought heavy tanks into service"

[edit]

This very incorrect statement is at the beginning of the "Gun and armor performance" section. Whenever I edit it to note that the British did indeed bring MANY heavy tanks into service, such as various variations of the Matilda, Valentine and Churchill, but that they were outclassed by the Tiger II, it keeps getting removed. Why is that?2601:245:C101:9C70:A59E:5B97:996E:21D2 (talk) 21:02, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Matilda weighed 25 tons, same as the German medium tank, the Panzer IV. Valentine was lighter than Matilda. And Churchill was same weight as the Panther. All three British tanks had guns similar to their contemporaries. They don't meet the definition of a "heavy" by being bigger and carrying a bigger gun. Compare to TOG, Excelsior, Tortoise GraemeLeggett (talk) 22:26, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Weight is irrelevant, they were classified as infantry tanks, which are basically heavy tanks, so they count (I'm the same guy, different device).2601:245:C101:9C70:24F6:7FCC:929D:DD0B (talk) 03:08, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Infantry tanks are not heavy tanks per se. The cruiser/infantry split is a different axis to the light-medium-heavy one. But it boils down to needing sources that say UK put a heavy tank into service. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:46, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Churchill Mk VII (A22F) could be very legitimately be considered a heavy tank, it's frontal armor was thicker than the Tiher I's, and was soetimes called the "heavy Churchill".2601:245:C101:9C70:1052:9B5:3A6C:7E54 (talk) 22:18, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Engine

[edit]

In the penultimate paragraph of the 'Design' section, this statement occurs:

"Like all German tanks, the Tiger II had a petrol engine; in this case the same 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW) V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30 which powered the much lighter Panther and Tiger I tanks."

This is only partly true. The basic HL230 fitted to both tanks was indeed essentially the same engine: but the P45 (fitted only to the Tiger I) has a specific symmetrical arrangement of hot coolant pipes leading to the radiators on both sides. This differentiates it from the siamesed coolant pipes of the P30 leading to the r.h. side rad (fitted in the Panther and all other heavy tanks except the Ferdinand/Elefant). See List of WWII Maybach engines#Development of the HL210 and HL230. Simply removing the 'P30' would be equally misleading, since this was the specific model which the Tiger II used. Some sort of re-phrasing might be in order. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 02:54, 5 December 2021‎

"Like all German tanks, the Tiger II had a petrol engine; in this case the 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW) V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30; a variant of the engine which powered the much lighter Panther and Tiger I tanks."
Sorted. makes relationship to other HL230 clear and retains sense that the engine is underpowered for the job. GraemeLeggett (talk) 09:07, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for your swift reply. This is better, I feel: but it could be read as if the P30 was a different variant from the engines in either the Panther or Tiger I. Sorry to appear picky, but I spent quite a lot of time working this all out, and I am just hoping to present the relevant info as clearly as possible. Although I'm a great fan of conciseness, perhaps trying to cram all the info into a single sentence results in a loss of clarity. How about:
"Like all German tanks, the Tiger II had a petrol engine; in this case the somewhat underpowered 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW) V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30, the same engine which powered the much lighter Panther. The very similar HL 230 P45 was fitted to the Tiger I."
On the other hand, it loses the idea that the Tiger (at nearly 50 tons) was still a lot lighter than the 70 tons of the Tiger II. I'm sure I have a reliable source (eg Jentz & Doyle, Spielberger etc.) to back up the "somewhat underpowered" claim. Or even just remove all reference to the Tiger I. Cheers, MinorProphet (talk) 13:41, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Like all German tanks, the Tiger II had a petrol engine, in this case engine a V-12 Maybach HL 230 P30. At 700 PS (690 hp, 515 kW) it had no more power than the HL230 in the much lighter Panther and Tiger I tanks leaving the Tiger II relatively underpowered." GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
That's a great improvement. I'm very happy with it. As an aside: I don't know technical you are about engines, but in tanks it's not the maximum power that matters so much as the torque to deliver low-end grunt. I mention this in my draft article User:MinorProphet/Draft subpages/WW2 ZF gearboxes which still needs some work. Best wishes, >MinorProphet (talk) 19:51, 5 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Correction: Relying on my over-taxed memory, I mixed up the arrangement of the coolant pipes of the P30 and P45: it's the Panther's P30 which has the symmetrical coolant pipe arrangement. Apologies for my mistake. MinorProphet (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

E-100

[edit]

E-109 188.239.235.147 (talk) 15:19, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

MAUS

[edit]

MAUS 188.239.235.147 (talk) 15:20, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Tiger_II&oldid=1235288972"