tiger 1 ????

[Michael Kenny]

Perhaps this copy of the photo WITHOUT the small pic superimposed on it might make it all a bit clearer.
Unretouched:

[webmill]

Reply to M Kenny

Note; There is no Tank commander sticking his head out of the copula. It is an illusion, in both pictures you presented, the before and after! -The forward Flanged mount rectangle is removed from the tank
Looks instead as part of tree material in the background over the Tiger copula.in both pictures of the same Tiger.

Webmill

[webmill]

Further differences between the two pictures presented by M Kenny lead me to believe these photos may be from a very still camera such from the frames of motion picture.
The only differences that can be seen I put forward is there is a small white line on the side of the turret and underneath the main gun there are dark lines not seen in the bottom picture that is with the reactangle on the front hull.
Conclusion the flanged mount rectangle does not need to be superimposed, but removed between frames.

And I would go further--the rectangle with the flanged mount may be a mock up in the first picture and not removed by a person in the second picture--instead its possible it is removed from the tank by a hook! or something similar!

Webmill

[webmill]

reply to M Kenny

Also note the configurations on the forward rectangle (with the flanged mount) are identical to the configuration of the flanged mount and whats around it on the real side of the Tiger

The rectangle is a slight blow up in scale of the side of the Tiger!

Webmill

[webmill]

Reply to M Kenny;

Note, the steel tow rope (which is normally attached to the side of the Tiger I on the upper hull side and in tighter loop and further back) is now modified to go around the flanged mount and another tube like protusion right at the tip of the tow rope loop around it;at the very front of the upper side hull front
In the rectangle flanged mount on the front hull the larger tow rope loop does go around the third flanged mount, but there is no tube like protusion on the rectangle; thus what is the tube like function on the real side of the Tiger I--is it real or another functionless mockup attached?

Note, in the third picture of the Tiger I with side flanged mounts (on the first page of this thread) the side hull does not have a tow rope on the side.--and no tube like protusion.

It is possible the hole in the tube like protusion is only there because pipe is all the Germans had to attach there.

Webmill

[Michael Kenny]

You obviously have an agenda and I leave you to it.

[sallyg]

Wow, maybe they are for recovery by the mother ship.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Webmill
Your posts are very difficult to understand, so please elaborate on your ideas if I have misunderstood what you're writing. It would help a great deal, if you would use proper punctuation and sentence structure.

The photograph initially posted displays a super-imposed close-up of the mount on the side of the Tiger. The same photograph, without any alterations, was posted by Michael. In the attachment below, I have attempted to highlight this close-up and its source. As you can see, there is no mock-up of any kind. The only difference between the two photographs are modern-day alterations. They are from the exact same negative.

I have also attached another version with a close-up of the mount.

[webmill]

Hello C. Ankersternje:

I would put forward the two flanged protusions on the side of the Tiger can have steel rope coiled around each one or between the two. This steel rope for the coil is not necessarily for towing as the Tiger already has a tow steel rope for that;
Where does this extra steel coil from, I would not precisely know, but perhaps it is from destroyed rail cars used for transport as one possibility.
If the steel rope was coiled around a Flanged protusion the extra steel rope can deflect incoming rounds in combat; and is lighter than the extra armor of Shurzen bolted on;
However its other purpose may be to stow extra steel coil for another non combat purpose or possibly still another combat purpose for another AFV;
Since the flanged protusion is simply something used that was available, and not designed for a steel coil, the end of the Flanged protusion would possibly need somekind of non-slip stopper-like device in the center hole to improve the improvisation, because the steel coil cannot being falling off,but the Germans never got that far.

[Michael Kenny]

I simply can not understand what it is you are claiming here. It must be a joke.

[ChristopherPerrien]

I think he may be trying to state that these mounts are for a long tow cable, although I would say they may be for a " tow bar" or some similar tank implement/tool, like a unditching beam. Similar looking mounts I have seen on various US AFV's for towbars, which are preferred over tow cables for any kind of distance towing. It may only have been an experimental SOP add on/modification for a certain Tiger or Tiger unit.


I never knew the Tiger I to have "skirts", as the armor of the tank was good enough to stop Russian ATR bullets, which was the cause of "Skirts" in the first place. Perhaps these flanges were an experimental/quasi/cum, Narrow skirt mount/tow bar mount to prevent sticky bombs from being attached to the flat sides on the upper hull of the Tiger I.

Chris

[Rob Veenendaal]

To me those things look like they are build to keep something away from the tracks, not to lift or tow anything.
Note there were three of them on each side, but not all equally separated.

Whatever their use: It was an experiment that did not make it.
There were many theories about their use, most proved not possible or very unlikely. These two still hold:
- The schurzen theory is plausible, though one would expect a different shape of the things.
- There is also the pontoon theory, which may seem far fetched, but could work.
We know the Tigers could go under water, but also know the Germans did not like it. Could this have been an attempt to realize a "SchwimmTiger" ???
Calculations show it could work - still waiting for a modeler with the "guts" to build one!

Rob

[webmill]

To me those things look like they are build to keep something away from the tracks, not to lift or tow anything.
Note there were three of them on each side, but not all equally separated.

Whatever their use: It was an experiment that did not make it.
There were many theories about their use, most proved not possible or very unlikely. These two still hold:
- The schurzen theory is plausible, though one would expect a different shape of the things.
- There is also the pontoon theory, which may seem far fetched, but could work.
We know the Tigers could go under water, but also know the Germans did not like it. Could this have been an attempt to realize a "SchwimmTiger" ???
Calculations show it could work - still waiting for a modeler with the "guts" to build one!

Rob

A Tiger was very heavy at 60 tons, .;
Or if anything on the Tiger breaks free during a pontoon crossing the mounts hold the insurance by what is attached;as a Tiger can sink a pontoon bridge;to the point the Tiger is under water in the center of the river but not off the pontoon bridge;
The Germans didn't anticipated in older pontoon bridges how heavy the new Panzers would be; So the Tiger I cant cross slowly but needs to go faster;so I suggest,the mounts carry steel coil rope for another TIger I that is crossing a pontoon; as an assist; or a bar taken off the mounts that allows another AFV to go on the pontoon, but at a distance to assist the Tiger I crossing
in my opinion;
or the mounts are used if the Tiger I is sinking the pontoon bridge to improvise a schwimm Tiger on the pontoon bridge itself and never leaving it

[Rob Veenendaal]

More like this:

http://www.panzerbasics.com/images/pontoon.jpg

Note the attachments are similar to those on the Tiger and Panther.
In theory, the Tiger can be made to float like in the photo.
IMHO problems arise getting it in and out of the water.

Either the pontoon theory or the schurzen treory is bogus, but to me both look plausible at the moment.
Remember that whatever the function of the attachments was, it was an experiment that did not make it.

Rob

[webmill]

Reply to Rob:
looking at the picture from panzer basics, I see what you mean by a problem of getting the Tiger in a Pontoon set up andinto the water and then out;
I would speculate it is not for a traditional pontoon setup as seen in Panzer basics, rivers are fresh water and the Tiger too heavy:
I will still stand by my pontoon bridge with the improvisation if the Tiger gets into trouble on the pontoon bridge and it automatically will, I believe! therefore the mounts are for a Sherman DD copy (without the DD propellers, of course) for the Tiger on the pontoon bridge, so, I would speculate its a upper half Sherman DD copy for the Tiger and the Germans never went as far to actually do it.