tiger 1 ????

Discussions on the vehicles used by the Axis forces. Hosted by Christian Ankerstjerne
webmill
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 18 Mar 2007, 23:09
Location: Palm Beach Gardens. Florida

Re: tiger 1 ????

#46

Post by webmill » 26 Nov 2008, 11:21

webmill wrote:Therefore, I would put forward the possibility that these pontoon mounts on the Tigers in France 1944 were there in experiment on possiblities of adapting a large Tiger tank pontoon that enable a small barge work for the the Tiger I. A smaller barge that is more easily hidden from Allied Air Attacks, and needs help,from a Tiger self pontoon mount due to the heavy 55 ton weight of the Tiger?
However, if my idea of combining a Tiger I self pontoon with a small barge was not it, as it was not it with the idea of combining with the pontoon bridge sections and the Tiger self pontoon; then the pontoon mounts on the Tiger were there before the Allied invasion to show the Allied Tactical Air Command that allied air attacks on the Barges,with the Allied planes sinking barges before these were needed in anticipation (of the important French or European rivers to be crossed by the Tigers) would not be successful in stopping the Tiger mobility in the expected battles to come,as part of intelligence game with the Allies by the Germans
However, the Germans could be attempting an intelligence game with the Allies with the pontoon mounts on the Tiger that could backfire. The Allied intelligence may not believe a pontoon float for the Tiger I would work in practical terms and the Allies have not spotted any. therefore the backfire is the Allies are motivated to sink the barges on the Seine because it is the only way the Tigers can cross the river. Thus the Tiger I crews may realise that the pontoon idea is a backfire and this explains the Tiger crew playing with the pontoon mounts with cardboard.

Webmill

webmill
Member
Posts: 199
Joined: 18 Mar 2007, 23:09
Location: Palm Beach Gardens. Florida

Re: tiger 1 ????

#47

Post by webmill » 08 Feb 2011, 23:24

The purpose of the duplication front side section of the tank hull of the Tiger I; the extra length of the duplicate siding rectangle is not for adding extra siding length to the front of the Tiger I as the photograph seems to infer; instead I contend the duplicate side rectangle is to be attached to the side rear hull to extend the rear; the purpose of the rear extension is to make the rear of the Tiger I appear at a distance as the front of the Tiger I. When this type of extension siding is added the Tiger I can place its main gun 88mm L56 either to the front or place the 88mm to the rear with the turret in reverse. the siding duplicate rectangle on the rear makes the Tiger I as it moves the same as a caterpillar with a head at each end.
Thus, the purpose of the Tiger I crew with this two headed caterpillar dupe/ruse would be, I would think, to drive the Tiger I in reverse gear forward on a road out of a village, the main gun 88mm is placed to the rear but appears to the front as the Tigers drives forward in reverse gear; the entire Tiger I appears as if the front of the Tiger I (including the Tiger I front hull armor) is in forward gear moving forward; but it isn't in forward gear.

This forward moving two headed caterpillar is to make the illusion to dupe/fool Allied Fighter pilots in a fighter strafe; Allied pilots with fast speed and little time for a closer look assume the Tiger I is making it out of the village, thus the Allied fighter will strafe ahead of the Tiger I or skip bomb ahead and in front of the moving Tiger I. the Allied fighterbombing and strafe is surprised as the Tiger I crew I assert put the Tiger I into a quick transmission gear change into forward from reverse to stop the Tiger I and cause the Allied fighters to be far in front of it in error. The Tiger I has a excellent heavy transmission that can hold up to a shocking gear change to put the 45 tons of Tiger I moving back which is actually the forward gear of the Tiger I.The Allied fighters are thrown off and the Tiger I hopes German AAA is positioned ideally nearby to take fast advantage of a AAA fire on the low flying strafe fighters going after the Tiger I but missing. Thus the Germans hope to shoot down some Allied fighters ...and as many times the Tiger I and German AAA can do this.


User avatar
R_Rijntjes
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 01 Feb 2008, 13:33
Location: Koudekerke

Re: tiger 1 ????

#48

Post by R_Rijntjes » 28 Nov 2015, 21:24

Has anybody thought about this ?

A Panther or Tiger zu Fuss ?
Attachments
P8301886.JPG
P8291885.JPG

User avatar
Rob Veenendaal
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 19:21
Location: Maastricht (NL)
Contact:

Re: tiger 1 ????

#49

Post by Rob Veenendaal » 28 Nov 2015, 23:39

If these Wurfrahmen 40 were to be mounted on Tiger or Panther, I think we could expect 4 to 5 mounted on each side.
- The resulting vehicle is extremely (impractical) wide.
- The Wurfrahmen 40 is said to have been succesfull in support of the Panzers. If it is for support of panzers, then why mount it on a Panzer that is needed at the front?
- Tanks attract any weapon flying around. That said, mounting these dangerous goodies on the side does not seem wise as you risk loosing a very valuable panzer this way.

Just my opinion. Whether realistic or not, the model looks very impressive! :thumbsup:

Regards, Rob

User avatar
R_Rijntjes
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 01 Feb 2008, 13:33
Location: Koudekerke

Re: tiger 1 ????

#50

Post by R_Rijntjes » 29 Nov 2015, 00:00

Why should it not, why hang shurtzen on a axle ?
The round hole can fit a axle or something round, you do that because it has to be turned, because if it had not to be turned it would be a square hole or something?
But that are only some thoughts :)

Regards,

Ramon

User avatar
Rob Veenendaal
Member
Posts: 30
Joined: 04 Sep 2004, 19:21
Location: Maastricht (NL)
Contact:

Re: tiger 1 ????

#51

Post by Rob Veenendaal » 29 Nov 2015, 10:30

It seems to me that technically, the mount for Wurfrahmen 40 could work. As stated above, there are some reasons thinkable for not mounting these on these valuable vehicles. That said, we are talking about an experiment that obviously failed.
So, may be this theory should technically hold next to the schurtzen and pontoon one.

Regards, Rob

User avatar
R_Rijntjes
Member
Posts: 56
Joined: 01 Feb 2008, 13:33
Location: Koudekerke

Re: tiger 1 ????

#52

Post by R_Rijntjes » 30 Nov 2015, 12:56

Her is a picture, a example of Wurfrahmen attached to a Panzer :wink:
Attachments
wurfrahmen35f_2.jpg
wurfrahmen35f_2.jpg (50.07 KiB) Viewed 584 times

User avatar
Reichskriegsgericht
Member
Posts: 134
Joined: 02 Jun 2004, 12:39
Location: Germany

Re: tiger 1 ????

#53

Post by Reichskriegsgericht » 30 Nov 2015, 13:38

Of what I can see, this is an ex-french tank (perhaps a Hotchkiss). The Germans used plenty of these and many were converted to self-propelled guns, tractors and similar vehicles as for the Wurfrahmen. I have yet to see a Tiger or Panther with Wurfrahmen.

Alanmccoubrey
Member
Posts: 3370
Joined: 19 Sep 2008, 14:44

Re: tiger 1 ????

#54

Post by Alanmccoubrey » 30 Nov 2015, 14:36

The Germans certainly experimented with the Wurfrahmen on a Panzer I :D
Alan

Post Reply

Return to “The Ron Klages Panzer & other vehicles Section”