Talk:Tiger II

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Weaponry task force

Unless there are objections, I'd like to merge this with Tiger I Oberiko 13:11, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Probably too big for a merge, but it might be good to change Panzer VI to a page that briefly mentions both and then links to the articles, rather than redirecting to Tiger I as it does now. — B.Bryant 11:48, 8 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Don't merge. They are distinct vehicles. Megapixie 09:35, 27 July 2005 (UTC)
The Tiger One and the Tiger Two are different tanks. Too different to be merged into one article.
Agreed. The Tiger I is more like a gigantic Panzerkampfwagen Mk. IV while the Tiger II is more like a heavier version of the Panther. 209.221.73.5 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Daddy's got a Porsche

Are any of the Porsche Tiger II's still around, or were they all destroyed, or stripped for parts, converted etc? I imagine a Porsche Tiger would be the crowning jewel of any tank museum. Presumably the moder-day Porsche distances itself from this kind of thing, although the kind of people who buy Porsche cars would probably enjoy the association. -Ashley Pomeroy 13:14, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

There were no Porsche hulls produced, or at least none that saw service; I am not sure why the article says there were. The 60 or so "Porsche" turrets were used on standard hulls. DMorpheus 16:13, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
Are you sure about this? I thought the experimental Porsche hulls were used to create the Jadgpanzer Elephant anti-tank vehicles. Maury 20:01, 25 August 2006 (UTC)
The Tiger I Porsche hulls were used for Ferdinand/Elefant but not the Tiger II Porsche hulls. --Denniss 21:20, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

Speaking of Porsche... This is the first time I've seen mentioned that there were 60 Porsche turrets produced, rather than 50. Any idea where this number comes from? --Martin Wisse 07:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

It comes from my error, evidently. Looks like 50 is the correct number. The article could use a major edit to clear up the whole "Porsche" design issue that seems wrongly stated in the current version. I don't know the development history well enough to do it. Isn't it correct to say that Krupp designed both turrets; both were built by Wegman; the first type (the so-called "Porsche turret")was used on all the early design studies; and the second turret type was adopted because it was much easier to manufacture? Neither the terms 'porsche' nor 'henschel' turrets make much sense. DMorpheus 12:01, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

The infobox states 2 or 3 MGs. Weren't these tanks deployed with two machineguns (coax and hull ball mount) only? I may be incorrect but I thought that when they needed an AA weapon mounted on the commander's cupola, they removed the ball mounted gun and moved it up to the cupola. DMorpheus 15:57, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

It probably depends on who did the modification and when. --Carnildo 07:39, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
They probably kept the third stored inside the tank itself and took it out when needed. 209.221.73.5 15:15, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
I am pretty sure the tanks were issued with two MGs, and the hull gun was mounted on the turret cupola when they were doing road marches or in other situations in which an AA gun was needed. DMorpheus 18:27, 20 February 2006 (UTC)
Nah. Besides, taking out the MG from the hull and mounting it on the turret cupola would've taken way too much time and by the time they manage to mount it, the tank would have been severely damaged. It would've been much simpler to carry an MG in the hull or making an improvised mounting on the turret itself. 209.221.73.5 15:16, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
Nevertheless that is exactly what they did. The MG was not taken out of the hull mount when they saw an airplane; it was taken out when a road march was planned, so it would be available for AA defense if needed. This can be confirmed by taking a look at an actual AA MG; the MG has the armored sleeve used in the hull mount, not the standard MG-34 perforated barrel sleeve. DMorpheus 15:54, 20 March 2006 (UTC)
As far as I can see on a specific book about tanks, the Tiger II had a coaxial gun, a front gun, and optionally a top, anti-aircraft, gun. If the latter was installed, there were three, not two, machine guns on the Tiger II. Interfree 17:53, 26 April 2006 (CEST)
Yes, but the means they used to obtain the AA MG was to remove the hull MG. They did the same thing on the Pzkw-IV. I don't doubt that a few enterprising crews stole extra MGs occasionally, but that's not the standard fit. DMorpheus 16:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)
Well, so the book must be wrong. Anyway, i'm going to translate the sentence for reference. "Machine gun: this tank mounted three MG34 7.92mm machine guns: one on the right side of the front, another one coaxial to the cannon, and the third for anti aircraft role, that could be mounted on a carriage around the tank's commander dome". Moreover, in the same page, there are four pictures of four different configurations of the tank (Ardennes 1944, Hungary 1945, Danzig 1945 and Kassel 1945), and the third picture (Danzig, March 1945) is the only one that shows the third MG. Maybe there were indeed some configurations (i'm not talking about the enterprising crews of course) that installed the third MG. Interfree 19.15, 26 April 2006 (CEST)

[edit] Incorrect translation

Königstiger means Bengal Tiger, not King Tiger. Königs Tiger means King Tiger.

Kurt.

  • Whilst I agree that Königstiger translates to Bengal Tiger I think that the current use of Bengal Tiger in the page is confusing. I have never before heard anyone call this a Bengal Tiger and I think it is unhelpful to use a translation to a proper noun. I think that the answer is to provide a small paragraph with references to explain all of the naming issues. There is a good article at http://www.panzerworld.net/facts.html that covers this.--Gaspode the Wonder Dog 10:20, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Number built

This article contradicts itself on how many were built (as well as German armored fighting vehicle production during World War II). —Michael Z. 2006-05-22 14:28 Z

[edit] Comparison With Tiger I

With so many mechanical,logistical and combat problems, would it be right to say that the Tiger II is overall inferior to the older Tiger I??--chubbychicken 11:40, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Both were mechanical lemons. The Tiger II, however, had an extraordinarily powerful gun; the 88mm L/71 is quite a bit more powerful than the 88mm L/56. DMorpheus 17:27, 27 July 2006 (UTC)

The opinion of Soviet specialists who tested captured Tiger Is and Tiger IIs was that the Tiger II due to its deficiencies, not only in mechanics, but, surprisingly, in armour as well, concluded that it was decidedly inferiour to the Tiger I. Once we are on the subject, I recently atempted to introduce a section dealing with the Soviet take on the Tiger II as presented in the website The Russian Battlefield, only to be reverted, by a certain partisan German, whose handle is Deniss, on grounds that are laughable without being truely funny that this site may not be quoted when discussing "enemy tanks". Is it realy official policy that articles dealing with the Wehrmacht present nothing but unalloyed and narcissistic German self-perception. If so I am delighted to be the first truth telling heretic. Hopefully I will not be the last. Indeed so many articles dealing with the Wehrmacht tend to be love fests devoid of any critical thinking, especially those concerned with the Nazi-Soviet front. Should we not be rid of this bias. Soz

[edit] Tiger II vs IS-2

I know that the IS-2 on the whole is a MUCH better vehicle but which had a stronger gun (in terms of armour piercing and HE)?chubbychicken 09:18, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

IS-2 on the whole better than Tiger II ?!? Highly questionable. For the other part of the question: better HE on the soviet side but better AP as well as far better optics to hit at long ranges on the german side. --Denniss 09:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
It would help to clarify in the article that the gun had a very flat trajectory and so a high hit probability even at long ranges, like the Panther's, but unlike most Soviet tanks. Also, optics and ergonomics were good, again unlike the very cramped IS-2. Soviet tanks always look good on paper (so many millimetres of armour and main gun calibre), but that is not all that significant if you can't see anything, can't hit anything and can't work in the turret. Leibniz 12:37, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

Well, maybe I was wrong about IS-2 being MUCH better but think about it: IS-2 isn't as mechanically troubled as the Tiger II, it's logistically easier to manage and it's cheaper.chubbychicken 10:36, 10 August 2006 (UTC)

The IS-2 is nearly 25 tons lighter also. Each tank could destroy the other and there is really no way to answer this question. But adding 25 tons of weight is bound to create some advantages. I would argue that thick armor and a big gun are significant at any range and are the primary factors. Ergonomics is a secondary factor - unquestionably significant, but not enough to ignore firepower and protection except in extreme cases. DMorpheus 13:16, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
Adding 25 tonnes of weight may or may not be indirectly related to some advantages, but in and of itself is a serious disadvantage. Heavier tanks require more resources to build, take more trains to transport, use more fuel to move, cannot cross more bridges, require a larger engine and greater track area for the same battlefield mobility, put more wear on their mechanical parts, and may have a larger, easier to hit silhouette. All else being equal, fewer heavier tanks are likely to show up at the fight, and more of them are likely to get stuck while in combat.
Just to abstract the idea to a ridiculous extreme (this would be in the category of damn lies): since a Tiger II was 52% heavier (!) than an IS-2, we might guess that 52% fewer of them would be able to make it to a particular battlefield which was not of the Germans' choosing. To compensate, it would have to be 52% more effective than an IS-2, just to even things up—a very wide margin. Or 52% more of them would have to be built and fielded, but each one is already 52% more costly to build and support. —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 14:35 Z
[Damn lies: the Tiger II was 52% heavier, but of course that means the IS-2 was 34% lighter —MZ]
There you go, bringing up genuine, important issues again ;) . You're right of course, the logisitcal 'footprint' of a tank is too often ignored. I was thinking in much narrower terms - adding 25 tons of armor and firepower, for example. Likewise, one of the ways the IS-2's weight was held down was by keeping it small, which left it with only 28 rounds of ammo. But your point is valid. It's unfortunate there are no good statistics (at least any I'm aware of) regarding reliability, operational vs. under repair states within units, etc to demonstrate the folly of building vehicles like the Tiger II. DMorpheus 14:46, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've mostly read about Soviet AFVs, and it doesn't take long to see that their development of MBTs was maniacally aimed at reducing size and weight, the main advantages being in production, logistics, and efficiency of armour layout.
The T-44 had essentially the same weight and mobility as the T-34, but was slightly smaller and significantly better armoured. This was achieved by reducing internal volume: replacement of Christie suspension with torsion bars, removal of the hull machine gunner (who had also been radioman before the T-34-85), and adoption of a novel transverse engine mount. The T-64 replaced another crewman with an autoloader, which, along with efficient turret design, has allowed gun calibre to increase from 85mm to 100, 115 and 125mm, without a significant increase in the tank's size. During the Cold War, there was an upper height limit on Soviet tank crewman (don't know if that's still the case). The T-80U's gas turbine was very space-efficient, but a dead end because it sucked fuel like a sailor on leave—the T-80UD achieved similar power with a conventional diesel. The Soviets also concentrated on reactive armour and active protection systems, which increase protection without a proportional weight increase. This isn't the only approach to tank design, but it certainly has its advantages.
It's still tempting to see the 48-tonne T-84 and 63-tonne M1 Abrams in light of the WWII Soviet and German tanks.
Now the Ukrainians have apparently increased volume by putting a modern turret-bustle ammo compartment and new autoloader on the T-84 Oplot, but the Russians seem to be toying with expanding the Black Eagle tank closer to the size of Western tanks, but possibly increasing gun calibre to 152mm.—Michael Z. 2006-08-11 15:47 Z

Then how about we all agree that the debate of whether the IS-2 or Tiger II is better is a near unanswerable question (as mentioned earlier)?chubbychicken 08:13, 11 August 2006 (UTC)

Of course. They were designed for quite different roles. Leibniz 10:28, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
How were their roles different? —Michael Z. 2006-08-11 16:02 Z

IS-2's were mainly for supporting infantry assaults and blasting fortifications (but they could still destroy German panzers if needed). Personally, I'm not sure about the Tiger II but I think it was more of a tank-killing kind of tank - if you know what I mean.chubbychicken 04:17, 12 August 2006 (UTC)


The IS-2 is even lighter than the Panther...

I'm not sure.....you're probably are right but I always thought the Panther was just that slight bit lighter.chubbychicken 10:04, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Sagging springs in the lead photo

I notice the Tiger II in the Munster museum seems to have tree stumps holding up its hull. I'm guessing this is so that the springs don't sag, like they appear to have done in the Gleize, Belgium example. Although I like the outdoor setting, perhaps we should swap these two photos, so that the lead is more natural-looking? —Michael Z. 2006-11-12 21:37 Z

[edit] Wehrmacht worshipping bufooneries

The so-called "combat history" section is nothing but the usual megalomaniacal ferrytales about fearless cool-headed German troopers annihilating Soviet tanks and simple-minded soldiers by the hundreds. Eagerly accepted fake anecdotes are not a proper account of a weapon system's combat utilisation. It is generally regrettable that Wikipedia has allowed iself to become a shrine to the glorious Wehrmacht that never was. I propose that , unless someone can produce a less infantile coverage of the subject, that the section be deleted! Soz

100% agree comerade! It`s more like of bufooneries of Otto Carius/Rudel/Hartmann.

Whilst I agree that this section does not represent "combat history" so much as a few unrelated anecdotes involving Tiger II's, as best as I can make out the individual events describe are more or less factually correct. Unless you can prove otherwise I don't see much need to replace them. It may pain you to admit, but the Tiger II was a very powerful weapon system and could do a great deal of damage when positioned correctly. Getztashida 01:20, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Soviet Analysis

While I think this is an interesting a valid addition to the the article, it seems to based almost entirely on the article from the Russian Battlefield website "Was the King Tiger really King?" [1]

If that is the case, I have doubts about it's accuracy, as some of the articles found on that website are of arguable neutrality. Furthermore, the article in question is directly contradicted by British and American post-war research. whilst I'm happy to accept that late in the war German industry had difficulty manufacturing high quality armour-plate and the TIger II may have suffered as a result, there is plenty of evidence that Tiger II's could shrug off all manner of high velocity shells with little or no damage to the frontal armour.

Additionally, the section made casual reference to the "Mechanical hopelessness" of the Tiger II chassis. I have removed this comment. As some of you may have noted, I a have several times attempted to moderate the traditional myth that the Tiger II could barely move under it's own power with the more modern interpretation that the German heavy tanks far more more mobile than they were given credit for immediately post war. This view is based upon German wartime documents and is supported by many reference works such as "German Heavy Tanks" by Chamberlain and Ellis. Whilst it is undoubted that the Tiger II was nowhere near as reliable as the Sherman or T34, anyone who has visited the Tiger II in La Gleize and taken a moment to appreciate that it got there under it's own power (and on unmetalled roads during the harshest European winter in living memory) will realise that the Tiger II was far from "mechanically hopeless" Getztashida 01:35, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/i/g/Talk%7ETiger_II_2547.html"