Jump to content
draganm

new Sdkfz 182 / tiger 1 resto

Recommended Posts

looks like the Panzer Farm in Poland is starting a Tiger 1 resto. Don't know why they would go to all that trouble instead of just pulling one out of the river but it's a cool project none the less :-\

 

attachment.php?attachmentid=124841&stc=1

 

After a very long time of "Tiger" parts purchasing, acquiring from each sides, collecting even the smallest elements - we've made the decision about rebuilding the vehicle of our dreams - Pz VI Tiger 1.

 

It is our biggest, the most priority project on which realisation we've sacrificed years of work and huge assets. Within the space of many years we had to resign from many other concepts and undertakings.

 

Within the next three months we plan to acquire and buy each, even the smallest amount of parts to rebuild the vehicle as original as it could be. Elements that we won't get from anywhere we need to make ourselves.

 

In such case, we really need help from those of you who want to take part in this fundamental for historical vehicles' collectors project which is the process of rebuilding very rare Pz VI Tiger 1. Contact us!

 

If anyone has any information about the people who has elements from this vehicle to sell or about the places where these parts are in - write or call us 🙂

 

For each part or information we will repay you in the "market" prices

panzer farm poland tiger 1.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Good for them, a lofty goal for sure but I sure support their dream...tilting at a Panther tank windmill of my own...Good Luck Panzer Farm!

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...tilting at a Panther tank windmill of my own...Good Luck Panzer Farm!

 

John

in Canada?

 

or the Ausf G in Houffalize, Belgium? I'm glad they are doing something to finally preserve that one

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here in Canada, I have been collecting as many original parts as I can find/afford, but they will all be hung on a replica turret and hull...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Here in Canada, I have been collecting as many original parts as I can find/afford, but they will all be hung on a replica turret and hull...
very cool, sounds like a challenging and very expensive project. Couple of thoughts

 

For the turret, if you can find out who built the replica turret for the Littlefield Panther in California, it would be a lot cheaper to have them make a second one. Or if you have the skills, see if Collins foundation will give you the drawings . they also had repro wheels made

 

Original parts are crazy expensive, mostly complete Rear deck for sale in Latvia for a cool $20K

 

best of luck, post back here with pics when you get started

IMG_0880-1000x1000.JPG

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Great idea, but with so few parts, when is it a replication rather than a restoration?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Terry

 

Great idea, but with so few parts, when is it a replication rather than a restoration?

 

You bring up a thorny point. So lets have a crack at it and see who I can upset or who will agree with my logic......

 

Were it say a Spitfire - throw in a couple of wartime crashes and rebuilds, then post war neglect rotting somewhere as a gate guard or on a dump in Africa/Asia/Middle East. Then recovered, totally stripped to its component parts, new spars (because NONE of the old ones can be reused in a flying restoration) , re-skinned due to corrosion, then modified to twin seat configuration so it can take a paying passenger to defray huge operating cost etc.....

So just how much, give or take, of most of the Spits now flying is original, best guess is around 30% on average, really, the main genuine component is the Merlin NOT the airframe.

Most of them are the flying version of Grandpa's axe.

But I have yet to meet anyone who will denounce one as "only a replica" - they would define that as one of those fibreglass

Spits on a pole at the front gate of an RAF base.

 

Then there is the P-38 Lightening "Glacier Girl" (the recovery story is so improbable, that without the photos and authentication most people would not believe it ever happened). But that airframe now flying, is effectively a new build accessorised with recovered components. However, given its provenance and the rarity of flying P-38s, everyone goes "oh wow a Lightening".

 

Then lets consider the couple of Mosquitos that the Kiwis have done ground up builds to result in the world's ONLY airworthy Mosquitos. Without them, there would be none flying, but they are replicas none the less. I for one would not be the least

bit sniffy about, especially so given even half a chance for a ride!

 

I do not see why the tank world should be held to a different standard. If Jim has the resources to build a genuine Panther

replica, or someone else a Tiger (rather than just another bodged up T-55 as is the norm) then I say good on them and I will be intrigued to see the story here on HMVF. Yes I would expect as many genuine parts as possible, but given the avarice of those most likely to be in possession of them as "ground finds", that could be a very expensive nod to authenticity. It may be just as

cost effective to replicate the parts along similar lines to the way they were originally fabricated.

 

Perhaps a good guide is the Gosling clan WW1 restorations. They use genuine where they can, fabricate as close as possible to original spec when they can't obtain the real part. (See their incredible restorations in the "pre-WW2 vehicles" category on this site).

 

Personally, I own a Kettenkrad. It is one of the post war - allied occupation power permission - 550 builds. It took me over 8 years to get a KK and I am not miffed that the date on the data plate is higher than the end of WW2. Although many people are.

I have had some people turn their backs and refuse to look at it (as incredible as that seems) "because it is not wartime", yet mine is the only KK they have ever been near in the flesh. I don't even bother trying to talk to them if they are that bigoted.

 

I can name several people (but won't) who will not even consider a post war KK, "because it is not wartime". They have been making that comment to me for a number of years and are still to yet find a wartime build that their bank balance can handle.

It will not surprise me one little bit if their sniffyness results in them never actually having a KK in their garage.

To me, any KK is better than no KK - they disagree.

 

What's that old saying "if it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck (has bodily functions like a duck)....... then it is a duck".

 

Besides, no way could I have afforded the cost of a WW2 build (with the reality of ending up with an example in much poorer condition).

 

Where I would NOT follow authenticity is with known defects. Gearbox in Tiger being a glaring example. Who would want to go to all the expense of restoration/replication with a high failure rate and risk your pride and joy breaking down every chance it got. Better to use modern metals and have a replicated gearbox that looks the part but with some of its innards "tweaked".

 

Well, that is my opinion from Oz, who agrees/disagrees?

 

Regards

Doug

http://www.owningtanks.com

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wasn't a tiger turret found when widening the Warsaw-Berlin road, having being mounted as a fixed defence, a few years ago?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Where I would NOT follow authenticity is with known defects. Gearbox in Tiger being a glaring example. Who would want to go to all the expense of restoration/replication with a high failure rate and risk your pride and joy breaking down every chance it got. Better to use modern metals and have a replicated gearbox that looks the part but with some of its innards "tweaked".

Well, that is my opinion from Oz, who agrees/disagrees?

Doug

www.owningtanks.com

I don't think this debate will ever be settled, but I'm not sure using aircraft as a comparable field of collecting is valid IMHO, too much apple vs. Orange. With AFV's when is it "original", who knows? I like a simple description like

1) "mostly original with some reproduced parts" , or

2) "mostly reproduction with some original parts" .

That would at least stop some (or maybe most) of the arguments. There are also some vehicles which start in category 2 and eventually make it to category 1 as parts come along, which is a really cool way to do it if you have the mountain of cash required.

 

Wasn't a tiger turret found when widening the Warsaw-Berlin road, having being mounted as a fixed defence, a few years ago?
I've never seen pics of or read about a Tiger Oswalltrum. Do you have a photo by chance?

Plenty of Panther versions

http://ftr.wot-news.com/2014/07/02/panther-ostwallturm/

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Posted (edited)

Well said and tottally agree with every word!

Colin

Edited by ww2rupert

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well said and tottally agree with every word!

Colin

 

Colin

 

Who's post are you referring to?

 

Regards

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Dragam

 

> I don't think this debate will ever be settled,

 

I am pretty sure you are correct there.

 

> but I'm not sure using aircraft as a comparable field of collecting is valid IMHO, too much apple vs. Orange.

 

I strongly disagree. Orange vs Mandarin would be a better simile. Both subjects are military fighting machines. Both can require large amounts of money and effort to replicate.

If we look at any AFV, the expense, the equipment needed (lathes, milling machines, heavy lift equipment) etc far surpass the

infrastructure required to restore/replicate say a Spitfire. Most Spits, Mustangs etc can be replicated in a small hangar. Probably the most capital item would be a press to form the ribs, longerons and fuselage formers.

On the other hand, to replicate/restore a Tiger you need lift capacity of at least 30 Tonnes, a large horizontal boring machine (suspension holes), vertical lathe for turret hole and ultimately a VERY big rotisseree (sp?, whatever a hull rotating machine is called). You would then need to make casting patterns for track links and get them done, no small expense there.

 

> With AFV's when is it "original", who knows? I like a simple description like

> 1) "mostly original with some reproduced parts" , or

> 2) "mostly reproduction with some original parts" .

 

Good point. I still would be commenting "any Tiger is better than no Tiger", but granted, it would need to have inards that

look like the real thing, not orphaned T-55 drivetrain.

 

> There are also some vehicles which start in category 2 and eventually make it to category 1 as parts come along, which is a > really cool way to do it if you have the mountain of cash required.

 

Hmmm, AFV promotion scheme, it starts off as a recruit and hopefully eventually makes Field Marshall when it is 100%

original?

 

> I've never seen pics of or read about a Tiger Oswalltrum.

 

Same here.

 

I suspect there were none available as Tiger I was out of production by 1943? Whereas Panther was produced right up till the end days.

 

Regards

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The criteria that the DVLA use for originality when re-issuing a vehicle registration might be a useful benchmark? It's pretty strict!

 

Andy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I strongly disagree. Orange vs Mandarin would be a better simile. Both subjects are military fighting machines. Both can require large amounts of money and effort to replicate.
true, the problem with aircraft starts when someone decides they have to fly. You could have a complete , preserved airframe, engine, etc. that could be cosmetically restored and look beautiful in a museum and be 99% original but it can't fly. The BF109 that came out of a Ukranian lake (likely bought by Paul Allen) is a perfect example. Still has the original tires

attachment.php?attachmentid=127156&stc=1

It will be interesting see which way this goes , but If he decides that it needs to fly, then all that old corroded AL needs to replaced, new gauges, new wiring, new engine, and it instantly becomes 90% reproduced parts. The flying versions are still considered original by some , reproductions by others, I don't have an opinion either way.

 

AFV's don't have this problem, a rusted steel plate dug up in Latvia can always be re-welded back onto a chassis and driven down the road.

 

I think that's the big difference, with aircraft no matter where you dig it up it will never fly and be 100% original, with AFV no matter where you find it or what condition it has the potential to stay original.

 

If we look at any AFV, the expense, the equipment needed (lathes, milling machines, heavy lift equipment) etc far surpass the

infrastructure required to restore/replicate say a Spitfire. Most Spits, Mustangs etc can be replicated in a small hangar. Probably the most capital item would be a press to form the ribs, longerons and fuselage formers.

On the other hand, to replicate/restore a Tiger you need lift capacity of at least 30 Tonnes, a large horizontal boring machine (suspension holes), vertical lathe for turret hole and ultimately a VERY big rotisseree (sp?, whatever a hull rotating machine is called). You would then need to make casting patterns for track links and get them done, no small expense there.

I still would be commenting "any Tiger is better than no Tiger", but granted, it would need to have innards that look like the real thing, not orphaned T-55 drivetrain.Doug

all true, it's unfortunate that the innards are the hardest thing to find and very expensive. 200K+ euro for a maybach 230 if your lucky to find one, same for the final drive , add another 100K to re-build both to mechanically running condition.

The last Panzer VI built, the one that sat in Munster for a number of years and was put together /built-up from bits, is by all accounts an empty shell. If someone were to put in a modern drive train would it still be considered "an original vehicle", who knows, I would say yes but many would scream bloody murder.

 

On the other hand there was the pure replica built in Australia from a static Fury movie prop, those guys did an amazing job starting with nothing more than a metal box. They used T55 final drive and I believe a large Scania diesel, but went thru a lot of expense to replicate the overlapping road-wheels, built an authentic looking idler wheel, made a new larger drive sprocket. They built something that was cool and could be used to entertain people at their tank days. While most of the comments were positive there were (as always is) some really nasty comments. People complained about the T55 parts, made rude insults about the welding (which wasn't even true). The museum eventually closed their FB page dedicated to their resto shop, who can blame them. :-(

 

At the end of the day I think everyone should do what makes them happy , with all the social connectivity now it's almost impossible to build a new vehicle and pass it off as something other than what it is. Mostly original, mostly reproduction, an amazing replica, etc. I enjoy following all of them. There's only 2 people who's opinion really matters

1) the owner

2) the future buyer

everything else , (including my opinion),:-D is just noise

 

It will be interesting to see how the worlds potentially 8th- Panzer V1 will wind up in Poland. If they can find the rest of the chassis, a turret, and the 88mm , to me that would be another original vehicle. l I just wish those guys would finish parading around Poland and get back to work :-)

bf-109-wreck-russia-lake-2.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

draganm

 

I had not heard about that 109, great find.

 

Also, please refer to a Tiger I as such, referring to it as a Panzer V1 is confusing. V1 in German terminology is for Versuchs Eines which means experimental mark 1. So that could refer to the prototype or an experimental version of any variant of Panzer.

Strictly speaking, the Germans rarely used the Panzer numbering system stated eg. Panzer VI, it just isn't in their grammar.

 

It would be:

 

Tiger I

 

or

 

SdKfz 181 in short form

 

or

 

Sonderkraftfahrzeug 181 Ausfuehrung E ("e" used after "u" if not typing with a German keyboard) in long form

(E being version)

 

or

 

Panzerkampfwagen VI Tiger Ausf. E

 

Originality

As you say, ultimately it really does come down to the owner and any potential buyer as to how much import is placed on

how genuine a vehicle may be. There is a story about either a P-40 or P-38 owner at the Oshkosh airshow one year, who apparently was well and truly over rivet counters. His response to yet another criticism of his choice of paint schemes was

"you can paint your P-38 (or was it P-40) any colour you like". A great put down.

If it was the pink P-40, he was correct and all the supposed experts were wrong. They just could not handle the fact that a pink P-40 was historically correct in the North African theatre. For those who don't know that story, the usual camo yellow very quickly faded to a strange pink colour in the harsh sun. It was quickly realised that it was actually a better match for the

terrain than the official yellow.

So, back on topic, if someone has the wherewithal to do a Tiger reproduction (note I did NOT say replica) and they do it to a reasonable standard, good on them. But a mutilated T-55 is just a vis mod and in my opinion is a replica, nothing more.

 

Enjoying the debate Draganm!

 

Regards

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

a pink P40 :-D , that's awesome.

 

In case you haven't seen it, here's the AAAM tiger made from static movie prop. I think it's a lot better than the Saving Private Ryan T55-Tigers , but a few people just couldn't get over the T55 parts.

at the same time, none of them offered to pitch in for the $200K it costs to buy a set of repro Tiger 1 tracks or suggest an Engineering solution for a final-drive that would have lowered the sprocket. 90% of the comments were positive though, especially from folks who have actually touched a cutting torch or Mig welder.

 

video of first drive

 

You-tube then came up with this new build. It's for Munster and pure Replica, partly plastic? it's more of a 1:1 scale model to replace the one that just went back to it's owner. Apparently the air filters are not correct and RC's bitched and moaned about that too, which is funny .

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K64TVzpiZws

 

At any rate, looks like we're bound to have at least 2 more made with original parts, the one in Poland and another from Herr Hoebig, that would bring the number of original vehicles up to 9

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Houffalize Panther being restored or preserved at Bastogne barracks after 70 years of tourists dumping trash into it and looters stealing parts

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

> a pink P40 :-D , that's awesome.

 

<https://www.google.com.au/search?q=pink+p-40&rlz=1C1GGGE___AU532AU540&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwi-77rm3OvUAhWBwpQKHUPTD4IQsAQIJQ&biw=1680&bih=871>

 

Hopefully the above link works, if it doesn't, type into a search engine of your choice "pink p-40".

 

> In case you haven't seen it, here's the AAAM tiger made from static movie

 

Thanks.

 

> at the same time, none of them offered to pitch in for the $200K it costs to buy a set of repro Tiger 1 tracks o

 

Years ago I was involved in an attempt to get around 10 Aussie LP2 Carrier (Bren Gun Carrier) owners to band together and get some sets of track reproduced.

The whole idea was to get sufficient people and thus sufficient quantity that tooling cost and thus final cost would be affordable.

It went well until it was time to pony up their deposits. Didn't happen.

 

I learnt a salutary lesson from that. Thus I was quite surprised (pleasantly) to find out that a group in the US (I think) banded together (pun intended) and got a production run of Weasel track (the US light weight WW2 vehicle, not the latter German

light AFV) done.

 

> At any rate, looks like we're bound to have at least 2 more made with original parts, the one in Poland and another from

> Herr Hoebig, that would bring the number of original vehicles up to 9

 

I didn't know about him, just had a read. Helps he once owned the legendary Trun scrapyard! Good on him.

 

What has amazed me in the last few years is the dedication applied to bringing back from jigsaw puzzles to fully restored vehicles what was essentially scrap metal. Jacques Littlefield's Panther being a good example. What has also puzzled me is that there are rarer vehicles out there, but because they are not German WW2, those restorations don't happen. Case in point being a pre-WW2 Vickers Medium that was scrapped as being unrestorable, yet was mostly there. In this hobby, beauty is most definitely in the eye of the beholder.

It will be very interesting to see what happens with the latest Dorking Covenanter. No easy restoration there. But with a survivor count roughly that of Tiger Is, I really hope it ends up restored and running and hopefully seen at Beltring one day.

 

Regards

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No original WWI plane could get a flying certificate, but thankfully there have been replicas for a while.

 

For planes its static originals or completely rebuilds which are almost a replica. Even if a like for like, proper copy, replica then no one would really mind.

 

I think there is strong argument for Museum pieces to be as original as possible and reflect the real vehicle warts and all, rather than a hash up of parts to make up something that never really was. Its all in the provenance and really should be complete as possible with some restoration which might include the bare necessities of new parts, or newly made parts. But added non original to the vehicle should be kept to the absolute minimum.

Anything other is a mash up of parts even if original parts. Nice but not correct, and interesting but the provenance is all but shrapnel.

 

After that its a reproduction that might have some original parts just because their available.

 

I think whats important is that replicas look right and sit and ride right. Sadly, so many just don't and there are some big failures. Like actors with too much plastic surgery, just look all wrong. A good or great replica should reflect at least on the outside what its trying to portray. Done badly they don't even do that.

A Copy is as close to the original that can be done. More than a replica. Though replicas can have a lot of copied parts.

 

Nothing wrong with a copy, or a replica, but each will have to be taken on raw merit.

Always a tricky one.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Musket

 

Good points. I will challenge you on the "no WW1 plane will get a flying certificate" as last I heard, the Shuttleworth Trust in England had predominantly genuine WW1 planes with some reproductions/replicas. How much of the genuine examples structure is actually WW1 manufacture is debateable.

I have read recently where Tiger Moths are becoming a real concern due to an until now not appreciated cumulative stress

failure mode of the wing timbers. There have been several if not more crashes where the wings simply broke up in mid-air. The until now criteria for assessing airworthiness of timber was predominantly age and visible deterioration based. They appear to be thinking that this is not reliable criteria and that g force etc loading also significantly

affects the timber. The problem being there is no satisfactory way of determining this.

I suspect it will have to end up being hours of use condemnation such as applies to lots of helicopter components. Or maybe even

just X years since it was a tree.

So, unless they are de-certified and put in a museum, any flying Tiger Moths will end up having new wings.

 

> Nothing wrong with a copy, or a replica, but each will have to be taken on raw merit.

> Always a tricky one.

 

Now we really are getting into the murky area.

 

Earlier in this thread, mention was made that ultimately it is the owner and the buyer who will quantify and qualify just how good

a replica or reproduction is and its value.

From other sources (such as the Kradrider email list) it is evident there is a huge problem with rebirthed post war vehicles being

on sold as WW2. It would appear that certain German vehicles have as high a probability of being fake as 98%. The owners are blissfully unaware until such time as they need spares, order and pay for them and then find they don't fit when they try and

install those parts. There then ensues an argument, usually with a German supplier, about the supplier ripping them off. As we all know, most Germans are very "korrekt" but they still have an uphill task to convince someone that their vehicle, despite the Waffenamt stamps and paperwork is really not German or WW2.

French M201 jeeps rebirthed as WW 2 jeeps and sold for double their actual value is another favourite of those with no scruples.

 

Then we come to Hetzers. To my knowledge, those that are mobile and appear at shows are actually all Swiss G13s that have

been to varying extents altered to look like WW2 Hetzers. Someone with enough money to buy one of these also probably has

done their homework and is aware of this fact. I suspect that "any Hetzer is better than no Hetzer" attitude applies. Were full disclosure not made however at time of sale, especially in the USA, it would be a lawyer fest.

Personally I would do without the stress of trying to drive an armoured tracked vehicle around with nothing better than 2 letterbox flaps for a field of vision regardless of whether it is of German or Swiss origin.

 

Lastly, OT-810s vis-mod'ed to impersonate SdKfz 251 semi-tracks. Those wishing to sell their franken OT-810s seem to advertise with very varying attachment to the truth. In the main, the ads always seem to start with "SdKfz 251".....

 

Regards

Doug

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally the "Panther" I am going to try and create will be a replica, albeit with some genuine parts, but it will never be anything more than that. And that gives me a lot of latitude in its construction, the hull and turret will only be thick enough to avoid having to use an inner structure or framework which gives that "movie prop" look. The rest, well we will see, the Russian fellows who built the stunning Tiger 1 replica a few years back came up with an interesting coil spring suspension system...so the fact it is not a "restoration" will allow some real creativity

 

John

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally the "Panther" I am going to try and create will be a replica, albeit with some genuine parts, but it will never be anything more than that. The rest, well we will see, the Russian fellows who built the stunning Tiger 1 replica a few years back came up with an interesting coil spring suspension system...so the fact it is not a "restoration" will allow some real creativity

John

sounds cool, but maybe hold off for a little while. With so many Tigers and Maybach engines popping up, a genuine Panther might soon be cheaper than a Sherman? ;)

 

from FB, good to finally hear something from this collection again

 

Following a lead, the Wheatcroft Collection has recently unearthed a cannon buried in Berlin. It was located by a metal detector, and revealed itself to be a 7.5cm KwK 37 L/24 Close Support Gun. It appears to have been removed from a STuG III or a SdKfz 251 and converted into a festungspak during the street fighting in May 1945.

 

The gun is now back in the UK undergoing restoration after being deactivated. When permission is granted by local land owners, a further expedition is planned later this year to recover what promises to be the remains of a heavily destroyed Tiger I.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×