Christian Ankerstjerne wrote: As I see it, only In 6 and Wa.Prüf. could be responsible for official designations. Henschel's names would be acceptable as official designations within the Henschel plant, but not outside the plant. I'm not sure about the Reichministerium, as I don't know in which contents it has been used (but Jentz seems to acknowledge in his other books, that it was never officially named 'Königstiger', so I will assume that the document can't be significant.
If that is so, it seems to me that Jentz is contradicting himself. "Königstiger" is listed in his 1997 book as an "official designation". He actually writes:
"To set the record straight, the names found in the original documents have been used in the text and listed in the introductory sections of chapters 4 and 5. As can be seen from these lists, there was no single official name... The original German names for the Panzers and component parts are shown throughout the text in bold print."
"Königstiger" appears in the list in chapter 5 in bold. So how can Jentz say it is not an "official name"?
Christian Ankerstjerne wrote: As I see it, an official name is only such if it has been determined that such a name should be used. This can either be determined as a direct order (i.e. 'x vehicle will ehnceforth be known as y'), or de facto through the publication of an official document for mass distribution, where we must assume that the contents and spelling has been proof-read. Both of these cases are de facto free of clerical errors, because any clerical error (if not later rectrified) must be considered approved as the official stance. I know about Jentz's list of vehicle names, but I don't agree that all of them would have the authorative to issue either direct orders or de facto orders of a name change.
So, as I read your post, official names can come from only two sources:
1. An In6 or WaPrüf document stating specifically that vehicle X is to be known by name Y.
2. Any form of mass-publication (manuals for example) issued by In6 or WaPrüf.
Which appears a bit odd, as the manuals for tanks seems to have been issued mostly by the General-Inspekteur der Panzertruppe.
With regards to the never ending argument over the names Sturmgeschütz and Panzerjäger, Guderian as Chef der Generalstab des Heeres wrote a letter in August 1944 asking the "Chef H. Rüst u. BdE" to use the names listed in the letter. Seems to fullfull your first condition except that it is not from In6 or WaPrüf. So are the names given here to be considered "official"?
FWIW, I think it is somewhat futile to chase down "official" names. I think Jentz has taken the right approach in the above mentioned book (as well as in others by him and Spielberger) which is to define which names has been used, over time, for any particular vehicle by the German army and other involved organisations. That is an aid to the researcher and serves to weed out other names attributed by other powers, historians and baffled enemy intelligence organisations. But trying to raise some of these names to an artificial official status by attributing more "name-giving power" to one agency over another is rather pointless, as I see it.
Claus B
). The Reichministerium für Rüstung und Kriegsproduction did not to my kowledge have the authorative to make new names for vehicles. In their production reports, they are also using incorrect names (such as Königstiger).
