It is a seventy-year-long mistake to translate königstiger into king tiger. It actually means bengal tiger.

Medalofdead said:

It is a seventy-year-long mistake to translate königstiger into king tiger. It actually means bengal tiger.

That's as may be, but in the context of the Tiger II it's become a tradition.

so you are telling me Königsburg is in fact Bengalburg?

Algester said:

so you are telling me Königsburg is in fact Bengalburg?

No. The bengal tiger is a real species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_tiger
Leaving this here.
The German term is "Königstiger".

Lacrimosa said:

No. The bengal tiger is a real species.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bengal_tiger
Leaving this here.
The German term is "Königstiger".

I don't think that was ever in question; rather, I think he was saying that translating them as separate words may not be zoologically correct, but would be etymologically correct.

if we also look into the German Wiki entry of Bengal Tiger they have different terms to refer to it german being german thats odd they can also refer it to Bengal-Tiger or Indischer-Tiger is it because of semantics? maybe

so noone is wrong nor is everyone correct to me its more of a connotation of "Royal Tiger" why? maybe its a dutch thing LOLOLOLO?