Bergpanzer Tiger myth right?

[Digger49]

G.Day
I read on the russian front the germans used KV 1 reconditioned in Rega with the gun still fitted this was to provide dDigger49efence and to keep the weight up for recovering Tigers. think this was from 42 or 43 on.

[AikinutNY]

I had read in a book by one of the acclaimed authors on German Panzers that one of the factories producing Tigers also made "some" Bergepanzer Tigers. Now there were no pictures or drawings or even a discription of what they looked like other than the Tiger chassis. So, I guess this puts the Bergetiger in the same league as the Ramtiger(P).

There were three Bergepanzer(P) converted from the Tiger(P)s left over from the initial production run. These are sometimes called Bergetigers.

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Three Tigers were converted to recovery vehicles by one of the Tiger units (whose name escapes me at the moment) at a field workshop. It wasn't a factory-made modifications, and there are no photographs which are known to show these vehicles. That is not to say that there are no known photographs of it, since it seems likely that the modified vehicle would only differ slightly from regular Tigers.

[kamehouse]

In Chamberlain and Doyle's Encyclopedia of German tanks in WW2(already mentioned) there are 2 pictures of the Bergepanzer Tiger (P) and it says than other than a small derrick crane,rams and timber beams,no special recovery equipment was fitted.
There are also 2 pictures (one of them being the close up of winch posted by Patrice) of the Bergepanzer Tiger Ausf E but there aren't much details I am afraid.
Sorry I have no scanning equipment.

[Javichu]

Heavy towing point at the front plus towing bars on the front plate...I would say a Bergetiger not a Charge Layer



from:
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/ ... 82&page=40 Post 594
http://www.wehrmacht-awards.com/forums/ ... 82&page=41 Post 603

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

kamehouse
That book is wrong. The vehicle identified as a recovery vehicle based on the Tiger I chassis is a charge laying vehicle, not a recovery vehicle. The Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War II has a lot of errors in it, not all of which are easy to spot.

Javichu
That is a charge laying vehicle, not a recovery vehicle. There can be absolutely no doubt about that.

[Javichu]

Sorry...No doubt? Would you ellaborate please?

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

There is no evidence which indicates that it should be a recovery vehicle.

[Javichu]

Is there any evidence of a Ladungsleger Tiger?

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Yes, the unit records.

[Javichu]

I didn´t know it was mentiones in the unit records...Was it mentioned specificly as a demolition Charge Vehicle? And is there any explanation why a such valuable vehicle was used that way?
TIA

[Christian Ankerstjerne]

Yes, it is mentioned as a charge laying weapon (there is a note about it in the Panzer Tracts volume on recovery vehicles). As for why it was used, I would guess it was because of the armor strength. I would consider the question as to why it would be used as a recovery vehicle more significant, since the Bergepanther offered the same engine power, but with a lighter chassis.

[AikinutNY]

One possible answer is field modifications by the unit. They had a need to lay charges, they had a Tiger I with a wornout or damaged main gun and could not get it repaired, so it was used. The Bergepanther could still be reserved for it's recovery role while this vehicle worked on the charges. Plus the versatility of the rotating armored turret that a Bergepanzer did not have, all thought the crewmember working the winch was out side. All of the modifictaios could have been removed very easily if a main gun was made available.

[jtrowbridge5]

bergepanzer Tiger [p]
Dennis

http://jtrowbridge5.smugmug.com/gallery ... fzVz/Large

[Digger49]

bryson
I read in one site that KV1 were repaired in Riga for the purpose of tiger recovery with Group North and possibilty
Group center. Armament was felt on a. for protection b. for the weight.
I will try to find out more