king and country tiger 1 wittmann (3 Viewers)

[Phantom Warrior]

The hull of 007 quite clearly displays features that weren't introduced until after the steel wheels became standard; in one case, a whole 50 tanks later.

the binocular gunsight remained in use for about a month after the steel wheels arrived. there exists a photo of 009, with binocular gunsight, and it has the steel wheels.

David

That info may settle the debate. But as I am not as familiar with all of the Tiger details as some others. The only photo of 007 is after it was destroyed, and all of the details are not visible so we are testing an indirect proof. I would like to hear a response from fmethorst and tullock first to see if they agree with your conclusions.

Terry

 

[fmethorst]

Perhaps I should have stated the conclusions which I thought obvious.
007 had:

• Steel wheels
• Turret protector ring
• Probably the thin roof
• Small idlers
• Probably the binocular gunsight
• Large muzzle brake
• No grenade launcher in the roof
• No crane sockets on the turret roof
• No rear travel lock

and all other features appropriate to a Command Tiger built in March 1944. The only thing I feel uncertain of is the colour of the numerals.

I'd be glad to hear of any proof to the contrary.

David

Are we all working off the same source picture?

Applying your list to the picture (my comments in bold):

• Steel wheels - Can't see. A lot appear to be missing (probably on local farmer's carts)
• Turret protector ring - Can't see
• Probably the thin roof - Can't see
• Small idlers - This is the most compelling evidence to support your claim. They do "look" like the 600mm idlers
• Probably the binocular gunsight - Can't see
• Large muzzle brake - Can partially see: inconclusive
• No grenade launcher in the roof - Can't see
• No crane sockets on the turret roof - Can't see
• No rear travel lock - Appears to be missing. This tank suffered catostrophic destruction and has possibly had components removed by locals. I don't consider this conclusive

To your point regarding the cold start device introduced on Fgst. 250823. This was an internal change with the exception of a small round port cut into the rear of the hull below the left armored muffler guard through which flames from a blowtorch were directed. I don't feel the picture has sufficient resolution to let us see if the port is there or not.

We can't ignore the delivery and makeup of the unit so you have to explain what that looks like if 007 was a steel wheeler. Deliveries were:
Oct. '43 - 10 Mid
Jan. '44 - 10 Mid
Apr. '44 - 25 Late

From Schneider's work the makeup before and after the April shipmemt was:

9 January 1944

Command section
007 - Mid
008 - Mid

3rd Company (Overstrength 18 Tigers)
304 - Mid
305 - Mid
1st Platoon - Mid
2nd Platoon - Mid
3rd Platoon - Mid
4th Platoon - Mid

1 May 1944

Command section
007 - Mid
008 - Mid
009 - Late

1st Company
104 - Late
105 - Late
1st Platoon - Late
2nd Platoon - Late
3rd Platoon - Mid (former 4th Platoon 3rd Company)

2nd Company
204 - Late
205 - Late
1st Platoon - Late
2nd Platoon - Late
3rd Platoon - Late

3rd Company
304 - Mid
305 - Mid
1st Platoon - Mid
2nd Platoon - Mid
3rd Platoon - Mid

 

[The Military Workshop]

All very interersting. Know we know why manufacturerss can't please all the people all of the time.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

All very interersting. Know we know why manufacturerss can't please all the people all of the time.

No kidding. At this point, let's go back to the original question of this thread. Was the K&C Wittmann's last Tiger model with rubber wheels and no zimmerit correct. We have seen that 007 did have zimmerit but there does not seem to be direct proof about the wheels. Even if 007 and 009 came in the same shipment it does not prove which wheels were on 007. 009 has some characteristics of a mid-production tank (binocular gunsight) and some from a late production model (steel wheels). I still think the data is inconclusive.

Terry

 

[Blowtorch]

Are we all working off the same source picture?

I was wondering that too.

 

[Byrden]

I should have explained where I get these statements, but I was worried that a too technical post might not be interesting.

Firstly, let's point out that Doyle and Jentz are famous for not using anything but original materials. These gentlemen spend years researching for their works and they are very professional about it. They don't speculate or repeat secondary information.

They state that the heater port was introduced in February 1944, and we can assume they found this data in the German archives.

Now, to the photo. This annotated copy, and everything I will now tell you, is due to Bary Crook.

The heater port is pretty clear to see. Compare to this photo of it:

But there is much more evidence. When the port was added to the tank, the ordinary Tigers were OK but it collided with the antenna storage tube on the command Tigers. Therefore the layout of tools on the entire back wall was 'mirrored'; the antenna tube moved from left to right, etc.

This tank has been 'mirrored'. All of the tool storage is visible in the photo. That is the irrevocable proof that it really has the heater port, and therefore was made in or after February, and therefore cannot have been present in January.

The unit may have had a command tank numbered '007' in January; it just wasn't this one. Renumbering of tanks was not an unusual event when units were reorganised. A large delivery of new tanks might be the reason for a reorganisation.

Now, as for the other claims that you dispute:

Turret protector ring: look at the hinge of the turret escape hatch. It has 2 bolts and 1 empty hole. The hinge had 3 bolts until the protector ring was introduced; then the existing hinges were partially cut away, leaving this empty hole, while a new hinges were made with 2 bolts only.

Rear travel lock: while it's possible to unbolt and remove this, it leaves 2 prominent welded supports which are not in the photo.

David

 

[Phantom Warrior]

I should have explained where I get these statements, but I was worried that a too technical post might not be interesting.

Firstly, let's point out that Doyle and Jentz are famous for not using anything but original materials. These gentlemen spend years researching for their works and they are very professional about it. They don't speculate or repeat secondary information.

They state that the heater port was introduced in February 1944, and we can assume they found this data in the German archives.

Now, to the photo. This annotated copy, and everything I will now tell you, is due to Bary Crook.

The heater port is pretty clear to see. Compare to this photo of it:

But there is much more evidence. When the port was added to the tank, the ordinary Tigers were OK but it collided with the antenna storage tube on the command Tigers. Therefore the layout of tools on the entire back wall was 'mirrored'; the antenna tube moved from left to right, etc.

This tank has been 'mirrored'. All of the tool storage is visible in the photo. That is the irrevocable proof that it really has the heater port, and therefore was made in or after February, and therefore cannot have been present in January.

The unit may have had a command tank numbered '007' in January; it just wasn't this one. Renumbering of tanks was not an unusual event when units were reorganised. A large delivery of new tanks might be the reason for a reorganisation.

Now, as for the other claims that you dispute:

Turret protector ring: look at the hinge of the turret escape hatch. It has 2 bolts and 1 empty hole. The hinge had 3 bolts until the protector ring was introduced; then the existing hinges were partially cut away, leaving this empty hole, while a new hinges were made with 2 bolts only.

Rear travel lock: while it's possible to unbolt and remove this, it leaves 2 prominent welded supports which are not in the photo.

David

I wouldn't worry about being too technical here. And the photo is very helpful illustrating your points. Could you do the same for the turret part of the photo?

My question now becomes with the photo blown up, can we tell if they definitely are the 600mm idlers and do we know if the small idlers were used only with the steel wheels?

Terry

 

[wayne556517]

Who cares the K+C model is awesome,unbelievable......

 

[Byrden]

Could you do the same for the turret part of the photo?

Here is the proof that the tank has a turret ring on the hull top, or at least it dates from the time of those rings:

The muzzle brakes can be hard to tell apart when you don't have a good view. But look at how the corners of the two holes line up:

can we tell if they definitely are the 600mm idlers and do we know if the small idlers were used only with the steel wheels?
Terry

I have photos of both idler types, they are very different; there is no doubt about it.

David

 

[wayne556517]

Whats wrong with this little beauty.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

Who cares the K+C model is awesome,unbelievable......

I care just because I would like to know. I have the model and I like it and intend to keep it. But I enjoy history and like to learn as much about the models I have as I can.
and the discussion is of interest to several people. If it bores you, don't read it.

Terry

 

[Harry Faversham.]

Whats wrong with this little beauty.

Why you no lissen Gringo?
No Zimmeritt, and the wrong wheels for starters!

​

 

[lancer]

Why you no lissen Gringo?
No Zimmeritt, and the wrong wheels for starters!

​

And most obviously, it is underscale to the figures. -- lancer

 

[fmethorst]

Excellent points David. and very compelling. There is definitely still some conflicting information in regards to the deliveries but your statements regarding the photograph make sense.

Firstly, let's point out that Doyle and Jentz are famous for not using anything but original materials. These gentlemen spend years researching for their works and they are very professional about it. They don't speculate or repeat secondary information.

They state that the heater port was introduced in February 1944, and we can assume they found this data in the German archives.

David

I agree and have a lot of respect for their work. They make no statement about 007 directly though that I am aware of.

Wolfgang Schneider is another guy I respect and who does his homework. His information is also from original sources.

But there is much more evidence. When the port was added to the tank, the ordinary Tigers were OK but it collided with the antenna storage tube on the command Tigers. Therefore the layout of tools on the entire back wall was 'mirrored'; the antenna tube moved from left to right, etc.

This tank has been 'mirrored'. All of the tool storage is visible in the photo. That is the irrevocable proof that it really has the heater port, and therefore was made in or after February, and therefore cannot have been present in January.

David

I was wondering about that. I thought at first the whole picture had been "mirrored" but the turret wasn't so this point is completely valid.

The unit may have had a command tank numbered '007' in January; it just wasn't this one. Renumbering of tanks was not an unusual event when units were reorganised. A large delivery of new tanks might be the reason for a reorganisation.

David

True. Since we know 009 is a steel wheeler then there must be an error in the makeup of the initial batches of 10 and 10 in Schneider's book. They can't have contained 2 Panzerbefehlwagen Tiger Ausf.Es otherwise these would have been 007 and 008. Perhaps they only included a single command tank and two were shipped in the April batch.

Perhaps tullock (Jeff) can review some of the original source material in his possession in this regard.

 

[forlornhoper]

The mystery or should it read misery,continues,throughout this thread a number of authors have been noted for their "expertise" and with all that has been said ,we still cannot match the chassis number ( 250802 in one source ) with the tiger 007,nor do we have an original photograph,there is little point discussing photos of 009 when the subject is Westernhagens 007,visual features of mid or late production tigers are not enough for definitive proof,we need original documentary proof and even then some wont be convinced,even eyewitnesses on the spot never mention the model type and the story of its demise is conflicting,Wittmanns comrades never mention the model type in their AARs and therefore we are left with a 64 year old mystery with many persuasive clues but lacking real substance for definitive proof.

 

[Phantom Warrior]

If we can we tell if they definitely are the 600mm idlers on 007 and if we can determine that small idlers were used only with the steel wheels, then we could conclude that 007 had steel wheels.

Terry

 

[forlornhoper]

good point Terry but there was more than 007 knocked out that day and tank debris from the destroyed tanks would be strewn all over the field including mid production models ,but it will all depend on their dispersion range from each other for the debris could be classified as mixed,we would need to see photos of the idlers attached to the chassis of 007 not 009 for definitive proof. ken

 

[Phantom Warrior]

good point Terry but there was more than 007 knocked out that day and tank debris from the destroyed tanks would be strewn all over the field including mid production models ,but it will all depend on their dispersion range from each other for the debris could be classified as mixed,we would need to see photos of the idlers attached to the chassis of 007 not 009 for definitive proof. ken

The photo of 007 does show the idlers and they appear to be the small 600mm idlers. Again, the question is were only small idlers used with steel wheels. I suspect the answer is yes and if so, then the wheels on 007 would be steel.

Terry

 

[forlornhoper]

Terry your conclusion sounds good to me,all good things come to those who wait,Jean Restayn was right after all,cheers ken

 

[Rob]

Excellent thread guys,really interesting.

Rob