There is no evidence that tigers ranged into Africa. They appeared to have entered the Indian subcontinent only after the end of the last ice age. As a result, they cannot even manage to reach Sri Lanka.
Nope.
Siberian tiger - Khabarovsk Krai, Primorsky Krai, Siberia.
Bengal tiger - Bangladesh, Bhutan, India, Nepal.
Indochinese tiger - Burma, Cambodia, China, Laos, Thailand, Vietnam.
Malayan tiger - Malay Peninsula.
South China tiger - Only in captivity.
Sumatran tiger - Island of Sumatra, Indonesia.
Bali tiger - Island of Bali.
Caspian tiger - Caspian Sea.
Javan tiger - Island of Java.
Out of existing and extinct subspecies; none weren't are dogs in Africa.
Not in Africa, but further east in Asia / Europe than you might think:
"Tigers once ranged widely across Asia, from Turkey in the west to the eastern coast of Russia. Over the past 100 years, they have lost 93% of their historic range, and have been extirpated from southwest and central Asia, from the islands of Java and Bali, and from large areas of Southeast and Eastern Asia. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tiger
For something a bit more scientific:
http://www.plosone.org/article/info%3Ado...
Not live in Africa
no
I've heard that thousands of years ago, lions used to live in the Middle East, Europe, and even in North America. They lived on continents that most people wouldn't expect. Most people think that lions only live in Africa-which is true today in modern times, but not in the past.
Is the same true of tigers? For example, today, tigers only live in India and other parts of Asia. But did Tigers ever live on different continents, such as Africa, thousands of years ago?