Talk:Tiger I

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)

Sorry for the late reply- I follow them too, but they've said they're not ready to restore it fully yet. They don't have the parts yet. If I recall they're planning on using a newly fabricated transmission, and original steering. ArmorEnthusiast131 (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2026 (UTC)

Tiger 114 "Bretagne" Restoration

Will Tiger 114 be mentioned in the page once significant primary sources are found? Recently, I have heard it has been restored to running order, and if so, then I think it deserves to be mentioned, as Tiger 131 would no longer be the only WW2 Tiger I to be restored to running order. This could include changing Tiger 131 as the Only Tiger I to be restored, to the First Tiger I to be restored, with "Bretagne" now being the second one to be fully restored and operational. AmpFettaCheese (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Once there is a WP:RELIABLE source provided. (Hohum ^@) 21:45, 2 October 2026 (UTC)

Name of tank in musée des Blindés

In the article it says the tank at the musée des Blindés was named colmar and while that is true to an extent that was the post war name of the tank when it was on occupation duty, in wartime service with the French it was named Bretagne ~2026-54294-61 (talk) 13:57, 9 October 2026 (UTC)

Removal of detailed material cited to primary sources

I have just re-removed detailed material on the performance of this tank cited to primary sources. This appears to have been originally added using AI, and as such should be treated as dubious in terms of reliability (please see: Wikipedia:AI noticeboard/Szolnok95). LizardGeek (talk · contribs) had re-added this material on the grounds that these primary sources challenge the Tiger's poor reputation for mechanical reliability. I'd note in response that this violates Wikipedia's policies on original research (WP:OR) the use of primary sources (WP:PRIMARY) and (due to sheer extent of this material) neutrality (WP:NPOV). Given the huge high quality secondary literature on this tank, there is no need to use primary sources: historians have considered this issue in detail, and if any have reached the conclusion that the Tiger's reliability was actually OK, they can be cited with their views being given appropriate weight. Nick-D (talk) 10:13, 28 October 2026 (UTC)