ajmac Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 http://www.panzermuseum-munster.de/home/aktuelles/detail/article/die-schwerste-katze-aller-zeiten.html Waiting for photos.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_shadock Posted March 6, 2013 Share Posted March 6, 2013 I would bet that it is this one, on the background : The hull is nearly original, made from parts collected mainly in the Trun scrapyard, and the turret is most probably a reproduction. The restoration works has been done by Hoebig company in Germany. P-O Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
the_shadock Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 It does look fantastic doesn't it ?...of all the tanks that have arrived over the years since....I still say the whole presence and 'thing!' of the Tiger 1 is absolutely awesome and for me..... it's still got to be the 'best looking' tank ever.... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hoseman Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I agree, puts the willies up you just looking at it!!!! But also you cant stop looking at it as a thing of IMMENSE beauty. Got to be at the top of the heavy armour beauty list.....!! :cool2: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I agree, puts the willies up you just looking at it!!!!But also you cant stop looking at it as a thing of IMMENSE beauty. Got to be at the top of the heavy armour beauty list.....!! :cool2: I totally agree mate...:cheesy: it just has Presence ! with a capital P doesn't it ? Nowadays I think all the tanks of the world are suffering from the same sort of thing that 99% of new cars suffer from... .New Cars are designed along certain parameters such as aerodynamic efficiency/ internal space for passengers & load plus ..what I guess the designer thinks 'the market' expects them to look like?...get too radical and folk won't like it and won't buy it? . .plus... if you're working to a computer aided 'aerodynamic' shape then there is only one that really works so and hence... they all, more or less look the same (dull as a plank! )...and long gone are the glory days of (in particular) American car design where if it didn't move fast enough with a great slab front of chrome?....well.. you simply put a bigger V8 under the hood ! ...Tanks must I guess, have gone the same way in that designers now know that the armour / hull / turret has to be a certain shape to be deflective and also the weight and range and mobility has to be paramount to the design...hence once again you are only left with one shape that actually 'works'.... so they all look more or less the same ..... Back in the days of the Tiger, the definitive 'shape' of 'armour' had yet to be arrived at I suppose? and hence their answer to a penetration shot was simply 'thicker armour' . ...although it has to be said the T34's designers and subsequently the Panther's designers seemed to have a better idea of where the game was going?...... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
eddy8men Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 the tiger was over engineered, over weight, under powered and over width. if it wasn't for the fact that it had a decent gun it could almost be british :-D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 the tiger was over engineered, over weight, under powered and over width. if it wasn't for the fact that it had a decent gun it could almost be british :-D hahah Rick...as the owner of a few choice pieces of British WW2 era armour.. I reckon you're the only one that can probably get away with being so.... ahem.:cool2: ..'to the point' regarding it's attributes Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 the tiger was over engineered, over weight, under powered and over width. if it wasn't for the fact that it had a decent gun it could almost be british :-D That is funny Rick! More so because it's true!! - someone pass the Firefly over. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I can't work out if it is saying this is Tiger number 7 or one of the 6 Tigers being put on loan?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzkpfw-e Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 It's believed to be a "new" one. The owner, Herr Hoebig, used to own the famous "M.Murat's Field" in Trun. Concensus is that it's a bit of a big boys' Airfix kit, having been assembled from parts from a number of Tigers that were scrapped in said field. It's a late production version, with steel-tyred wheels. Only three of them are "Of the six", Vimoutier, Saumur & Lenino-Snegiri. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteor mark 4B Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Those who think the T***r is great should have had the opportunity of seeing (and hearing) a Conqueror Main Battle Tank with a good driver thundering across Soltau Training area in Germany, or Salisbury Plain. Like the T***r, the Conqueror was over-engineered, overweight and unreliable, but magnifient when it was going. I once wrote to the Tank Museum asking why SO much money was being spent on the T***r when there was so much of interest in the "unseen" collection, and they advised that the T***r brings in the punters. Apologies, my PC is unable to print the full word, T***r, there it's done it again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RattlesnakeBob Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Very true.... Having known what we knew at that time in regards to Tigers & 'heavy tanks' in general you have to wonder how and why they bothered with the mighty Conquerer tho? Especially seeing as the Centurion was so very good ... Was it a case perhaps of 'keeping up with Russkies' ....... They got heavies so we better have some too ???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Meteor mark 4B Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Quite right. The Conq was there to combat the JS3 heavy tank. As far as I know the Cent easily defeated Russian armour in the Arab-Israeli wars. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzkpfw-e Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 I once wrote to the Tank Museum asking why SO much money was being spent on the T***r when there was so much of interest in the "unseen" collection, and they advised that the T***r brings in the punters. Panzer Porn mate! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g0ozs Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Slightly off topic but regarding "As far as I know the Cent easily defeated Russian armour in the Arab-Israeli wars." I think the Israeli 105mm Centurion of 1967 or 1973 was a major advance on the 20-pdr original Centurion of 1945 - certainly having overtaken the 100m gun T45/55 - not to mention the gain in penetration from using HEAT or Sabot compared with traditional WW2 AP ammunition - so perhaps one of the reasons the Conqueror became unnecessary after the early 1960s was improvement in the Centurion and (for the British Army by the time it was withdrawn) imminent arrival of the Chieftain with a more manageble weight and a comparable gun. Certainly I remember seeing photos of destroyed JS-3 in Sinai so the 105mm was good enough. Slightly more on topic perhaps the fair comparison would be Centurion or Pershing with Tiger II as all three were around in 1945 and all combined decent sloped armour with a gun in the 85 to 90mm class - Tiger 1 is really from an earlier (Churchill/KV-1) generation of heavy tanks in service by 1943 and really only JS-3 was in production with a Conqueror sized gun before 1950 that I know of Regards Iain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jack Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Quite right. The Conq was there to combat the JS3 heavy tank. As far as I know the Cent easily defeated Russian armour in the Arab-Israeli wars. Could it really deal with the JS3 or was it at least an equal? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
g0ozs Posted March 8, 2013 Share Posted March 8, 2013 Jack If only because 105mm gunned tanks were successful in 1967 and 1973 against the JS3 I guess the 120mm Conqueror ought to have had a fair chance - from what I have read the problem with the Conqueror was mostly that its weight was more due to large size and internal volume rather than thickness of plate, nor was it particularly fast, so it wasn't that well protected for its size. I am sure those with practical experience of the Conqueror will prove me wrong ! Iain Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pzkpfw-e Posted March 9, 2013 Share Posted March 9, 2013 By the dawn of the 60s, the whole idea of the Heavy Tank had been superceded. The IS3 and its modified versions the T10 & the IS4; the American T43/M103 (also armed with a 120mm gun) and the Conq were White (Or probably Green!) Elephants. Thick armour was no protection to HEAT & HESH rounds and the little AT-3 "Sagger" capable of penetrating 8" of armour, angled at 60 degrees, showed what it could do in the Yom Kippur war. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajmac Posted March 9, 2013 Author Share Posted March 9, 2013 Tracked armoured vehicles will always have a place in the future but I strongly doubt that main battle tanks will dominate the battle field as they once did, that says more about the modern battle field than it does about the main battle tanks. PS. I wonder what we are sending to Syria, reserve FV432s perhaps? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.