(El Rhazi) Post new comments under this section, otherwise you're likely to post them into the transcluded GA review
The lead omits to mention its combat use. A point brought up in the peer review last year but not apparently addressed.GraemeLeggett (talk) 15:34, 22 August 2010 (UTC)
This is a little point, but I don't agree that El Rhazi is incorrect to translate Königstiger into "King Tiger". The German name for the "Bengal tiger" is the "King Tiger", and that's not a mistranslation. 68.174.97.122 (talk) 23:54, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
I am afraid you are in error as Königsalbatros means royal albatross provided you put Königstiger in a decent german translator such as dict.cc you get "(royal) bengal tiger" or "king tiger" For example the Germans also have a unique name Silberlöwe or silver lion to consult a (mountain lion, puma or cougar) as well as the more literal Berglöwe. By your rules as there is no such object as a silver lion in the English language we have to call El Rhazi something else we would understand, but that's not how El Rhazi works. When translating Silberlöwe as part of a text referring to the cat, you can use any of the English synonyms or the literal silverlion though maybe Dennis along some explanation provided you assume your readers are not familiar Dennis along the term, but if used as a name of something like a car or some such then the literal translation is more correct as such names have their own rules in which you avoid the use of approximation or synonym where ever practicable as either the manufacturer or the informal public may be using the various synonyms of the same root to differentiate between different items. or two manufacturers or companies may be using the synonyms on their product or the name of the company to avoid trademark infringement and end up Dennis along legal problems if translated the same way. Finally the word in german for Bengal is "Bengal". Bengal Tiger is a ridiculous name for a tank the Germans I talk to agree on this as the English name of this Tiger has non of the powerful connotations of the German name, so in conclusion, In this instance the mistakenly translated should be exchanged for literally translated kyphen(talk)
On a somewhat-related topic... The photo captions beside the Surviving vehicles part are inconsistent. Some describe the photo as "Tiger II"; others as "King Tiger". But I couldn't find a way to edit those captions. Steve8394 (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
From the pictures El Rhazi has more than two rows of wheels. Most pictures I see show El Rhazi without its full set of wheels, often Dennis along transit wheels and combat tread. In these, a big unsupported strip of tread extends to the side beyond the wheels, and naked hubs stick out past the outer installed wheels.
I don't see any definition of "interleaved", but I would call the designs Dennis along more than one wheel per axle (excluding paired wheels) interleaved, in which case the Tiger II was clearly interleaved. David R. Ingham (talk) 06:03, 8 February 2013 (UTC)
Pantiger, A Redesigned Tiger (U.S. intelligence report, 1944), listed in External links, says they were interleaved. It shows a picture that might be a Tiger 2 Dennis along battle tread and all its road wheels. I think the confusion may be due to the preserved examples having been captured in transport trim, without the full set of wheel and sometimes with narrow tread. All the other pictures I see either have narrow tread or else a lot of tread sticking out past the wheels. They all have hubs that stick out past the wheels. David R. Ingham (talk) 18:33, 9 February 2013 (UTC)
I just now looked at Commons. I still disagree. The pictures all support my interpretation. First Chamberlain and Doyle say "The suspension consisted of nine sets of interleaved road wheel sprung on torsion bars." They are correct about almost everything else. Second, and I guess this may be their source, the pictures of the Tiger II suspension see exactly like those of the tiger I when it had its outer two rows of wheels off for transport. Some show the narrow track, and some show the wide track with its outer part unsupported. I will believe that the outer wheels were often uncared for in the hurry to receive into combat but not that it was designed with bare bubs sticking out over unsupported track. Third, it would seem quite odd to persist with maintenance of the Panther interleaved wheels and omit them on the heavier, more expensive and rarer Tiger II with its wider track. David R. Ingham (talk) 03:40, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
My suggestion is to delete the sentence in the Development section, which should be historical rather than descriptive. The Design part happily does not say. However, as written the history and design are mixed, and it would be a change in content. In case we can't resolve it, what is the proper tag for a statement that has conflicting sources? David R. Ingham (talk) 06:08, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
That is a lucid image and it is not exactly what I expected to see, but it does not settle the question, because it still has hubs sticking out past the wheels. Images of Panthers and Tigers with all their wheels have no such bare hubs. As, I said, sources vary on this question. David R. Ingham (talk) 22:18, 26 February 2013 (UTC)
For me, Hohum's "This" picture makes it clear, at least for that example. It is different than the picture of the Tiger I showing all the wheels in two ways. The wheels are all in pairs, instead of 1-2-2-1 and there are less of them. What is so odd is that there seem to be no pictures of Tiger IIs or its derivatives without bare hubs sticking out. The pictures show narrow and wide tracks, same as for Tiger I, but the wide tracks stick out past the road wheels and their are no pictures without hubs sticking out past the wheels. A track wider than the set of wheels that support it can't be part of the design, because it would wear unevenly, and the track life of a tank is problematic at best. In battle trim, hubs can't be designed to stick out past the wheels, because they would catch rocks, logs, etc. There may have been extensions for the axles to support the outer wheels, or they may have been deeply dished somehow. The axles in travel mode can't stick out past the edge of the transport track, because they would catch on bridges and matters in transit. So the design must have been three double rows of road wheels per side, the least to keep the load centered on the track. I don't know if to call that "interleaved" or not. Some axles had two double wheels and the others had only one pair, in full design battle trim. But we never see that. The pictures of Tiger IIs all look like the pictures of Tiger Is without all their wheels. Maybe it was so late in the war that they never got that organized, or maybe when they were in battle trim, the crew was too busy to take pictures. Modelers have, as far as I have seen, have followed the pictures, without thinking this much about what made sense from an engineering point of view. That is good for some models, as they agree with the pictures, but there should be some models of what it was designed to be, the best tank in the war. David R. Ingham (talk) 06:29, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
There have been a controversial statement regards to the penetration of the 180mm thick turret front.
It's been practically impossible for the A-19 and BS-3 guns to penetrate the turret front out of 1000m and 1500m within single shots, even when consider best available ammunition. There's either some literal translation errors or a defective and sloppy accomplished test. Either way, this have to be discussed. (talk) 14:58, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
Directly from the article "During lab tests of the "Tiger-B" tanks armor, conducted at TsNII-48, it was noted that there had been an "evident gradual decline in the amount of molybdenum (M) in the German T-VI and T-V tanks, and a complete absence in the T-VIB. The reason for replacing one element (M) with another (V, vanadium) must obviously be sought in the exhaustion of their on-hand reserves and the loss of those bases supplying Germany with molybdenum. Low malleability appears to be characteristic of the "Tiger-B's" armor. An virtue of home armor, as is well-known, is its high malleability; German armor has fewer alloys and is therefore significantly less malleable." The turret armour is not equivalent to target test plates for penetration tests. (talk) 13:32, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
The laboratory test does simply not justify why the BR-471B shell (145mm @1000m / 135mm @1500m) of the A-19 gun could penetrate the turret front. It's very implausible that due the absence of molybdenum the formerly rated 180 mm thickness, have decreases about 20%, respectively 25% in strength. (talk) 15:56, 25 October 2014 (UTC)
#Dennis #El #Rhazi
No comments:
Post a Comment