Did the turret swing all the way around?
Yes.
Bish, that is an answer worthy of an old Field Marschall…
Just as a side note, it was not a “Porsche” turret. Both of the turrets for the King Tiger were designed and built by Krupp.
But one was designed for the Henschel tank and one for the Porsche tank. And they were distinctly different.
Thanks BISH for the direct answer. It’s better to ask vs posting pics and being corrected.
I searched the net for 40+ minutes for the answer but finally decided to ask FSM.
Bronto and Stik, I mean’t Henschel.
Again thanks
They all turn 360°
But much slower than this.!http://www.animateit.net/data/media/smiley712/breakdance.gif
This is one of those modeling “myths” that won’t go away. The only differences in the original design (with the curved front) between the turret for the VK 45.02(P) and VK 45.02 (H) was the (P) used electric traverse while the one for the (H) used hydraulic traverse. The design was changed after the original design was determined to be not suitable for mass production. This correct information is contained in “VK 45.02 to Tiger II : Design, Production, & modifications” by Jentz and Doyle.
Thats not what is written in “The Tiger Tanks” by Peter Gudgin. The author was a tanker in a Churchill equipped unit, whose own tank was knocked out by a Tiger in Tunisia. After convalescing to recover from woulds in that encounter, he was assigned to intel analysing captured German tanks, including the Bovington Tiger. He contined this job throughout the war and participated in the gathering, preparing, and dissemination of this information to Western Allied forces, and postwar participated in the debriefing of captured particular Germans subjects regarding their armor programs. Lets just say that based on this declassified information, personal expereince, and knowledge, and he is certainly a subject matter expert and I highly recommend the book. IIRC, the turrets were indeed designed seperately by Porsche and Henschel for the designs in the respective follow ups to the Tiger I- I dont have the book in front of me now and just woke up. The shot trap under the mantlet from the down curve on the turrt chin was listed as a primary reason not to continue with the Porsche turret.
Stik -
I have the Gudgin book also. A lot of the development information that was used in that book is outdated. While its true that the shot trap on the front of the turret was one of the reasons for changing the design, the major one was the huge amount of man-hours and materials that was needed for the first design turret. If you look at the Panther mantlet, it also contains a shot trap that wasn’t rectified until the addition of the “chin” towards the end of Ausf G production.
Seems easier to me to call them ‘Porsche turret’ and ‘Henschel turret’ rather than ‘early turret with the shot trap’ and ‘late turret without shot trap’… [A]
Easier isn’t always correct.
I love the forum! Ask a question and see what you get for an education. You guys just taught me more than I knew yesterday.
Happy 4th
Bronto I see your point. Just when someone says ‘Porsche turret’ I know what he’s talking about. Guess I could just call them ‘early’ and ‘late’.
No, but in this case, it is an easy way to identify which turret we are talking about without confusing anyone. Just as we say early, mid and late production Tiger. None of these are accurate as the Germans didn’t use the term, but at least it help us to roughly identify which one we are talking about.
You could have also pointed out that the term King Tiger is not correct, personally I don’t use it. But for ease, and to avoid confusing people or causing hassle, sometimes its easier to just let things go.
Yes, ask one question, and the conversation will take a turn somewhere down the road in a related or unrelated direction and lots of information will be put out. It is often the case where modelers use terms not in use by the users of the actual equipment. Only those who were there truly know what was what, and even then they often lack all of the contemporary information regarding any subject- the so called big picture. Easier or outdated may not always be correct, but neither may be newer or more difficult. There are very few absolutes in this world. And lots of variables.
Hmmm, I think I’ve heard that Konigs/King/Royal not being a correct term before. Which is the correct term- Tiger II?
I was just watching a clip on Youtube a little while back where Steven Zaloga claims he couldn’t find any reference anywhere to the US Army ever calling the M36 a ‘Jackson’. His theory is that the name originated with Tamiya to fit with the Lee, Sherman, and Stuart decided to make the TD sexier by slapping the name of a Confederate general on it. Personally I have no idea.
The correct term, from memory, is PzKpfw IV Tiger Ausf B. The term Tiger II was also an official term. The name Konigstiger did appear in a Monthly production report by Albert Speer in Jan 1945, but it was never an official term. I think the term Royal Tiger is British in origin, but I’m not sure if it was used during the war.
I believe the term Jackson was an unofficial name given to the vehicle by the British. But I don’t know that much about US armour, so could be wrong.
Thanks Bish, yeah I’ve heard Ausf. B too. I’d always heard Royal as a British term and King as the American.
I know Wolverine was the British name for the M10, as well as Lee and Sherman were British nicknames but Zaloga claimed he didn’t find ANY use of Jackson during the war, not British, not American, not Canadian, nothing, nada, zilch…
So the Americans did not give names to any of these vehicles. I didn’t know that, I thought these were official names. So did the Americans name any of their vehicles at the time. And if not, when did it start.