Hello All,
I have a couple of questions,
I chose to build tactical no. 100, is this a command tank?
Were there other Initial Tiger 1's with the storage boxes mounted on the sides of the turret, or was this unique to tank 100?
100 doesn't have a sledge hammer or wire cutters mounted, but the other Initial Tigers do, whats up with that?
Any help on these is greatly appreciated.
Brian
edit-what this all boils down to is I would like to add the sledge, and wire cutters. Then, if appropreiate, change the number to represent an other tank.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Tiger 1 Initial prod. questions
Parks20
Maryland, United States
Joined: December 18, 2004
KitMaker: 737 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Joined: December 18, 2004
KitMaker: 737 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 01:14 PM UTC
Parks20
Maryland, United States
Joined: December 18, 2004
KitMaker: 737 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Joined: December 18, 2004
KitMaker: 737 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 03:59 PM UTC
Any help on this?
nfafan
Alabama, United States
Joined: August 01, 2003
KitMaker: 335 posts
Armorama: 315 posts
Joined: August 01, 2003
KitMaker: 335 posts
Armorama: 315 posts
Posted: Sunday, November 20, 2005 - 05:44 PM UTC
AFAIK, and I don't have my stacks of Jentzs and Doyles handy, Tiger 100 was the only one with the "saddle bag" stowage boxes on the turrt sides. But then not every photo ever taken of 502nd Tigers has been seen yet.
And from what little has been seen, not enough detail to show the exact tool stowage on Tiger 100. Plus crews would move tools around to suit their own specific needs.
All JM2cents
And from what little has been seen, not enough detail to show the exact tool stowage on Tiger 100. Plus crews would move tools around to suit their own specific needs.
All JM2cents
Parks20
Maryland, United States
Joined: December 18, 2004
KitMaker: 737 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Joined: December 18, 2004
KitMaker: 737 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:05 AM UTC
Thanks Steve, btw, what the heck is AFAIK?
Posted: Monday, November 21, 2005 - 10:14 AM UTC
Quoted Text
Thanks Steve, btw, what the heck is AFAIK?
As Far As I Know
Parks20
Maryland, United States
Joined: December 18, 2004
KitMaker: 737 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Joined: December 18, 2004
KitMaker: 737 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, November 21, 2005 - 03:26 PM UTC
Thanks for clearing that up.
ericadeane
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Monday, November 21, 2005 - 04:08 PM UTC
Hi Brian:
Definitive photographic evidence of the tool layout for 100 isn't (yet) complete. I'm not aware of any photos of "100" while in German service. The only photos I've seen are two showing it with snow camouflage and then a series showing it at the Moscow Captured Equipment display, summer '43.
The two with snow camo must are captioned Spring '43, trials at Kubinka proving grounds. I must assume that the whitewash was removed in time for its display. (and it's clearly not "121" because the turret bin and horseshoe are evident)
One of the "Spring 43" photos shows the rear: there is an empty jack bracket beneath the extra antenna mount on the rear bulkhead, upper right. On the left side, some modellers have interpreted the fittings there to be a jack block stowage area. I agree. Of the five "bits" on the upper row, the rightmost three clearly look like the jack block stowage. What the outer two left ones could be escapes me.
From the Moscow pictures, evident is the spare antenna tube on the right side edge of the rear engine. Also brackets for the gun cleaning rods. That's it.
Its sister tank, "121" was also captured with whitewash splotches. It was used as a range target. From photos showing the aftermath, its rear ammo configuration closely matches the fittings on "100" (jack block and jack & mystery fittings on leftmost rear bulkhead).
That's all the photos show. The photos I'm citing are in the Frontline Illustrations book about Initial Tiger Is (Russian w/additional english photo captioning)
(by the way, how many modellers doing "100" are going to show it in white camo splotches? I am!)
Definitive photographic evidence of the tool layout for 100 isn't (yet) complete. I'm not aware of any photos of "100" while in German service. The only photos I've seen are two showing it with snow camouflage and then a series showing it at the Moscow Captured Equipment display, summer '43.
The two with snow camo must are captioned Spring '43, trials at Kubinka proving grounds. I must assume that the whitewash was removed in time for its display. (and it's clearly not "121" because the turret bin and horseshoe are evident)
One of the "Spring 43" photos shows the rear: there is an empty jack bracket beneath the extra antenna mount on the rear bulkhead, upper right. On the left side, some modellers have interpreted the fittings there to be a jack block stowage area. I agree. Of the five "bits" on the upper row, the rightmost three clearly look like the jack block stowage. What the outer two left ones could be escapes me.
From the Moscow pictures, evident is the spare antenna tube on the right side edge of the rear engine. Also brackets for the gun cleaning rods. That's it.
Its sister tank, "121" was also captured with whitewash splotches. It was used as a range target. From photos showing the aftermath, its rear ammo configuration closely matches the fittings on "100" (jack block and jack & mystery fittings on leftmost rear bulkhead).
That's all the photos show. The photos I'm citing are in the Frontline Illustrations book about Initial Tiger Is (Russian w/additional english photo captioning)
(by the way, how many modellers doing "100" are going to show it in white camo splotches? I am!)
Parks20
Maryland, United States
Joined: December 18, 2004
KitMaker: 737 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Joined: December 18, 2004
KitMaker: 737 posts
Armorama: 0 posts
Posted: Monday, November 21, 2005 - 04:38 PM UTC
Thanks for the info Roy, it's quite helpfull. As far as the paint scheme, I have been debating the white, and haven't made up my mind.
ericadeane
Michigan, United States
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Joined: October 28, 2002
KitMaker: 4,021 posts
Armorama: 3,947 posts
Posted: Tuesday, November 22, 2005 - 05:34 AM UTC
Know that the whitwash by these two tanks was the fragmented jagged swathes of white,not overall white.