Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger

[sagallacci]

With the new Porsche P.180 Tiger kits having come out, I dusted off my refs and among the claims for the argument for the aft turret was to avoid gun overhang. Having seen photos of RL tanks getting jammed up with muzzles in the dirt, I suppose there might be something to that.
At least two of the earlier Porsche Tigers (L56 gun) with turret forward were actually built and tested, but apperently none of the later (L71) hulls and turrets were assembled, fore or aft version.
But in general, the Porsche machines were kind of awful as tanks, with the way too busy drive train and a general wonkiness to them.
An aside regarding the new kits- the turret aft kit isn't bad, but has a recycled turret from another kit which is only sort of "meh" and the instructions are vague and incomplete, not for the inexperianced modeler. It does have, however, nice glueable plastic band tracks. The Turret forward kit has a much nicer turret with full interior detail and generally better parts, details, and the instructions to build it. It does have one weakness in that the tracks are individual elements (Model Casten) that don't have very positive fit and will be a particular chore to assemble.

[dy031101]

I come across line drawings of VK3001(H) and VK3601(H), which are pretty much ancestors to the Tiger I, and realized that VK3001(H) used small roadwheels with return rollers (I forgot the fact that the Sturer Emil is derived from it) whereas VK3601(H) settled on the slack-tracks with big roadwheels arrangement used by the definitive Tiger I.

Functionally and logistically, what is the difference between the two arrangements?  And what caused such evolution?

[rickshaw]

I come across line drawings of VK3001(H) and VK3601(H), which are pretty much ancestors to the Tiger I, and realized that VK3001(H) used small roadwheels with return rollers (I forgot the fact that the Sturer Emil is derived from it) whereas VK3601(H) settled on the slack-tracks with big roadwheels arrangement used by the definitive Tiger I.

Functionally and logistically, what is the difference between the two arrangements?  And what caused such evolution?

Functionally, the large roadwheel/no return roller designs were marginally cheaper and easier to manufacture.  However, they tend to be more maintenance intensive, particularly with the tracks because of their "hang" requiring continual adjustment.   They also tend to be thrown more easily because of the danger of the track rebounding off the top of the roadwheels at speed.  Something the Christies were particularly susceptable to apparently (hence the introduction of return rollers on the Comet after the Cromwell didn't have them).

You also have to consider how the tracks are made.  "Dead" tracks are easier to manufacture - requiring less working on each link and connector and were basically all that was available until after the war but work best with large roadwheel/no return roller suspensions (such as Christie type).  "Live" tracks, OTOH, require more work and cost more but have the advantage that they work with the suspension, rather than against it as a "dead" track does.   "Live" tracks work best with small roadwheel/return roller style suspension.

A "live" track BTW, if you weren't aware of it has springs in the track links which essentially make the track "curl" when at rest, whereas "dead" ones don't.   These feature means that the suspension and drive train does less work when running because the natural curl of the track means that it will move over the idler and sprocket more easily.   The Soviets were the first to introduce them on the T64.

[James W.]

The Sturmpanther - analogous to the Sturmtiger.



The well-sloped armour would probably be more efficient against infantry-carried anti-tank weapons than the thicker, but mostly vertical armour of the Tiger.

Re: this one .^.

Has any one done the opposite, & replaced the 'bunker buster' with the Jagdpanther's  L/71 88mm  set-up?
It would make a 'what if' Henschel variant Elephant - to pair with the Porsche unit.

A bit more on the general discussion, I sure don't give much credence to the likes of Zaloga's 'academic appraisal' - he misses the point with his biases,
& seems overt in his (slanted ) haste to gloss over the fundamental failings in war-long primary US usage of the outdated Sherman, which was shown
to be already inadequate in action - long before, by US forces at the Kasserine Pass fighting in Africa.

I would tend to go by the British response..

Though they'd  finally got their T-34 analog well-sorted in the Comet, they learned from their actual wartime use of the 'Cuckoo' Panther, to their obviously thoroughly well studied Panther trials that a real Panther analog in the Centurion -was needed to counter the perceived Soviet threat*.

&  the Centurion did turn out well**, notwithstanding its own typically British 'nut 'n' bolts' construction & hunger for 'fettling' by support crews.

I find it ironic that the M-26, the US Army's own Panther analog, even emulated the Panther's debut failings by being rushed into combat, while still full of bugs, & with fundamental flaws in its drivetrain which were never fully sorted, still showing themselves as problematic years later, combat-wise, in Korea.

* Soviet tanks were proper 'paper tigers' - the JS-3 was good at looking scary on parade in Red Square, but was a fairly hopeless fighting vehicle..
  ..a primary lesson learned from the Hitler's big cats was to ensure a good working environment for the crew, & with a good chance of both getting in..
  ..& surviving the impact of receiving, the dreaded 1st shot..

** When the Australian Army sent its Centurions to Vietnam, the 'grunts' (PBI) thought they'd be 'white elephants', but in fact they soon proved to
be 'indispensable' operating in the role of direct infantry fire-support, & being fairly robust in the face of mines & the RPG onslaught from 'Charlie'..

[rickshaw]

** When the Australian Army sent its Centurions to Vietnam, the 'grunts' (PBI) thought they'd be 'white elephants', but in fact they soon proved to be 'indispensable' operating in the role of direct infantry fire-support, & being fairly robust in the face of mines & the RPG onslaught from 'Charlie'..

And interesting claim.  Where does it come from?  I have heard it voiced in books by experts as coming primarily from the high commanders and some politicians but never from the PBI.  The PBI were a little sceptical at first but were soon enthusiasts of supporting armour in Vietnam and later.  It was primarily why the Army adopted and maintained the Leopards against Treasury intransigence for decades, even to the point of lying to Senate Estimates Committees about their cost of operation.    It is also now why Army has increasingly become a mechanised force with the infantry riding in AFVs such as the ASLAV and the Bushmaster, rather than walking everywhere.

[James W.]

Try this site Rico, it has a fair overview, & cites relevant references as links.. www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4357

There is the amazing case of the Centurion doing close-support 'bunker-busting' which received an RPG hit on the barrel, ~1/4 way from the muzzle..
So due to the damage, no more HE.. until it was decided to test-fire a 'solid' right 'up the spout' - which promptly pinged the damaged section right off..
& so HE bombardment was duly recommenced..

I can vouch for this, I've seen the preserved 'sawn off' 20 pdr  main section - its kept as an exhibit in the Australian National War Memorial Museum..

[The Wooksta!]

One thing I'd like to see, but have yet to see anyone do one, is a Jagdpanther with the late Panther/Panther II running gear.  Unless Dizzy has done one and I've missed it.

[Dizzyfugu]

No, not until now. I've just converted a Sturmtiger into a Jagdpanzer with a 12.8cm gun instead of the mortar.
A jagdpanther with the late Panther F running gear is a nice idea, though, and there are some E-50/75 kits available (Modelcollect) with casemate hulls, similar to the Jagdpanther - but their chassis is bigger/longer.

[James W.]

Funny you should mention that W..

I built a pair of 1/35 Panthers, a 'late' Jagdpanther with the large solid dished wheels,
& a late Ausf G Panther, with the late smaller diameter 'resilient wheels - both Italeri..
& what do you know, the lower-hull with chassis components swaps straight across..

I did a bit of a 'what if' by presenting them as a pair in (baking soda) snow & painted white over a  pale blue/grey 'spotted cat' camo pattern,
& with the turreted Panther doing a 'Comet'- by having a long 88mm main gun shortened from L/71 to fit in the turret..

[The Wooksta!]

No, not until now. I've just converted a Sturmtiger into a Jagdpanzer with a 12.8cm gun instead of the mortar.
A jagdpanther with the late Panther F running gear is a nice idea, though, and there are some E-50/75 kits available (Modelcollect) with casemate hulls, similar to the Jagdpanther - but their chassis is bigger/longer.

If I were to do it - which I wouldn't as I don't do armour and certainly not German - I'd cross kit the 72nd  Hasegawa Panther F with the steel roadwheels and Schmallturm with their Jagdpanther

[James W.]

I realized a while ago that Porsche also drew up designs for requirement that eventually led to the Tiger II: one has a conventionally-mounted turret and the other has a rear-mounted turret.

Did Porsche investigate further to find out for themselves which one is the better choice for submission?

The placement of the conventionally-mounted turret seem awfully close to that of the Russian T-34...... which reminds me of Logan Harkte's observation on T-34's poor weight distribution (nose heavy) preventing any reinforcement of forward hull armours.  Granted, since it's the Tiger II specs we're talking about, upgrade potential is likely to be of no consideration to begin with in terms of forward protection anyway...... but what about the weight distribution as is for either designs?

That Porsche Tiger II in its 'hintern' iteration does appear rather 'Merkava'-like in concept, or more likely - the other way 'round...

[rickshaw]

Try this site Rico, it has a fair overview, & cites relevant references as links.. www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4357

There is the amazing case of the Centurion doing close-support 'bunker-busting' which received an RPG hit on the barrel, ~1/4 way from the muzzle..
So due to the damage, no more HE.. until it was decided to test-fire a 'solid' right 'up the spout' - which promptly pinged the damaged section right off..
& so HE bombardment was duly recommenced..

I can vouch for this, I've seen the preserved 'sawn off' 20 pdr  main section - its kept as an exhibit in the Australian National War Memorial Museum..

I too have seen that barrel.

As for your reference it merely states:

Despite considerable scepticism by many observers and senior Army personnel...

Which is basically what I stated.

I'll check the other references when I get to them.   My copy of the Army History Conference papers is in storage and while I don't have a copy of the others, I'm fairly sure I know where I can find copies.   I suspect it will simply be again, "many observers and senior Army personnel" rather than the Infantry themselves.

I missed exercising with Centurions in 1977, just after the Leopards had arrived in 1 Armoured Regt.  I was on the first infantry-armour co-op exercise with the Leopards.   I have seen several training films made by 1 Armd. Regt. with Centurions over the decades.   It was an impressive vehicle without a doubt.

[James W.]

Rico, given the time elapsed, it may well be apocryphal, or 'Chinese whispers', but here on the AWM site: https://www.awm.go.au/unit/U60600/
- it states "...some infantry had doubted the usefulness or necessity of the Centurion tanks..."

I have spoken to returned veterans about it.. & was told that they initially didn't want to be detailed to be support 'coolies' if the tanks broke down, got
bogged &  such like, but that in the event, things turned out better than the usually sardonic/doubtingly pessimistic soldiery had predicted..

[SleeperService]

I would tend to go by the British response..

Though they'd  finally got their T-34 analog well-sorted in the Comet, they learned from their actual wartime use of the 'Cuckoo' Panther, to their obviously thoroughly well studied Panther trials that a real Panther analog in the Centurion -was needed to counter the perceived Soviet threat*.

&  the Centurion did turn out well**, notwithstanding its own typically British 'nut 'n' bolts' construction & hunger for 'fettling' by support crews.

I find it ironic that the M-26, the US Army's own Panther analog, even emulated the Panther's debut failings by being rushed into combat, while still full of bugs, & with fundamental flaws in its drivetrain which were never fully sorted, still showing themselves as problematic years later, combat-wise, in Korea.

* Soviet tanks were proper 'paper tigers' - the JS-3 was good at looking scary on parade in Red Square, but was a fairly hopeless fighting vehicle..
  ..a primary lesson learned from the Hitler's big cats was to ensure a good working environment for the crew, & with a good chance of both getting in..
  ..& surviving the impact of receiving, the dreaded 1st shot..

** When the Australian Army sent its Centurions to Vietnam, the 'grunts' (PBI) thought they'd be 'white elephants', but in fact they soon proved to
be 'indispensable' operating in the role of direct infantry fire-support, & being fairly robust in the face of mines & the RPG onslaught from 'Charlie'..

The British (and the US) received a KV-1 and T-34 from the Soviets which could be examined at leisure (and sadly was). The British applied nothing from the T-34 to anything previous to the Centurion not even sloped front armour. In order to avoid upsetting the railway companies they stuck with riveting a mild steel carcass together then bolting armour plates on the outside. The Humber Armoured car was welded from the Mk.II on at the request of the manufacturing company. Numerous reports and studies showing vast savings in time, money, and material were ignored, and many soldiers died as a result. Yes, it makes me angry as it's still happening today. We finally got it right in 1945 with the centurion missing WW2 but having stretch to keep it viable for a very long time indeed.
It is fortunate that the Germans didn't do much better and Thank God they didn't. 

Try this site Rico, it has a fair overview, & cites relevant references as links.. www.flamesofwar.com/hobby.aspx?art_id=4357

There is the amazing case of the Centurion doing close-support 'bunker-busting' which received an RPG hit on the barrel, ~1/4 way from the muzzle..
So due to the damage, no more HE.. until it was decided to test-fire a 'solid' right 'up the spout' - which promptly pinged the damaged section right off..
& so HE bombardment was duly recommenced..

I can vouch for this, I've seen the preserved 'sawn off' 20 pdr  main section - its kept as an exhibit in the Australian National War Memorial Museum..

As an infantryman having a couple of tracks handy makes life a lot easier and safer. The 20pdr cannister round was awesome. One round to expose the bunker slit then an HE or smoke to deal with the occupants. In return we looked out for nasty people with RPGs and evil intent. You'd never get me in one to fight but I'm bloody glad others did.

NOW BOT to Tigers please.

I have seen a Tiger II turret planted on a Tiger I hull certainly in a line drawing and possibly a render too. I suspect it was possible as the turret race is only 20mm different and it would make serving the long 88 much easier. Has anybody got anything stashed on their drive? I had but then I hadn't. I feel a cunning plan developing in my fevered brain.

[ysi_maniac]

What if germans copied T-34 to produce a tank more german?