Diorama "The Impenetrable Tank"

mpkev31b wrote:

no doog, those are from a Sherman 76 , 76MM rounds.  and strikes from an m10  10 hits in total. jagdtiger "331 " commanded by  Lt Kasper Geoggler, third Kampfgruppe from 3/653 abandoned by its crew in neustadt germany in 1945, after detroying 28 US tanks between his panzer and 2 others. it was sent back to aberdeen proveing grounds maryland were it sits today.

And still, it was a sloped armor hit on the Jagdtiger--which gouged the armor unnaturally compared to a straight-on hit--ergo, the size distortion.

We've had some really great hypothetical opinions and scenarios expounded here, with a lot of great debate, but in my books, the Tiger' just doesn't pass the "Smell Test". Like someone once said: "I can't define 'pornongraphy' but I know it when I see it".

bbrowniii wrote:

Hermesminiatures wrote: I guess the whole issue here is that you shouldn't use any technique on a model when its happening in real life is highly unlikely.  Why not?  It is a model after all, isn't it?  Something we build for fun, right?  If I wanted to paint my Tiger in red, white, and purple spots, would that be 'wrong' since it was unlikely to happen in 'real life'?  If he had fun, and exaggerated reality to suggest the raw and brutal power/toughness of the Tiger I, isn't that OK?

Hermesminiatures wrote:

I guess the whole issue here is that you shouldn't use any technique on a model when its happening in real life is highly unlikely.

 Why not?  It is a model after all, isn't it?  Something we build for fun, right?  If I wanted to paint my Tiger in red, white, and purple spots, would that be 'wrong' since it was unlikely to happen in 'real life'?  If he had fun, and exaggerated reality to suggest the raw and brutal power/toughness of the Tiger I, isn't that OK?

Regardless of what gun was used, the marks in the armor on the sides and rear are deeper than the actual thickness of the armor.

A 25 pdr HE round would barely scratch the paint - the only part of the Tiger that could be damaged, let alone penetrated by an HE round was the turret roof, and that was only with shells 150mm and larger. Even a 17 pdr APBC round couldn't do much more than scuff the frontal armor unless it was at very close range. Even though a Tiger could have possibly encountered a 17 pdr AT gun in Tunisia, that would explain one or two hits only, and if the AT crew was any good at all, they wouldn't be giving away their position by plinking at a Tiger's front armor from beyond effective range.

Also, the fact that all the marks are bright and shiny spoils any hope of realism for this model - there's no way a tank would survive that many hits in a time period so short that the first ones aren't even rusted.

I guess the whole issue here is that you shouldn't use any technique on a model when its happening in real life is highly unlikely. The only way to explain damage like that is to suggest that the British invented a shotgun version of the 17 pdr that nobody has heard about yet

mpkev31b wrote:

no doog, those are from a Sherman 76 , 76MM rounds.  and strikes from an m10  10 hits in total. jagdtiger "331 " commanded by  Lt Kasper Geoggler, third Kampfgruppe from 3/653 abandoned by its crew in neustadt germany in 1945, after detroying 28 US tanks between his panzer and 2 others. it was sent back to aberdeen proveing grounds maryland were it sits today.

Just curious, but are any of those hits known to come from the HVAP late war rounds? The so called "hypershot"? 

mpkev31b wrote:

ditto to your reply aswell manstien, see my above post. look up jagdpanther "331" it's a well documented panzer with an interesting history. ive seen it in person as i was stationed  at aberdeen maryland for 2 years and lived 2 streets away from the museum. the shell hits are pretty massive. and it wasent knocked out by the hits, it was abandoned to to lack of fuel /mechanical problems.

ditto to your reply aswell manstien, see my above post. look up jagdpanther "331" it's a well documented panzer with an interesting history. ive seen it in person as i was stationed  at aberdeen maryland for 2 years and lived 2 streets away from the museum. the shell hits are pretty massive. and it wasent knocked out by the hits, it was abandoned to to lack of fuel /mechanical problems. 

Ok, I'll play Devils advocate here. Tigers arrived in Africa starting post Torch landings in Nov 42. Their first combat actions were within a month or so in Dec 42. All Tigers in Africa captured or destroyed by May 43 when Africa falls to the Allies. Guns that potentially could have fired at the Tiger in that time period: Tank guns 75mm on M3/M4 Mediums, 6 pdr on Crusader, 2 pdr on Crusader/Valentine, 37mm on M3 Medium/Light; SP non tank guns: 3in on M10 GMC, 75mm on M3 GMC, 105mm on M7 HMC, 25 pdr on Bishop, 37mm on M6 GMC; Towed AT or Field Guns:25 pdr, 17pdr, 6 pdr, 105mm, 37mm. Both the 105mm and 25 pdr put out a big round, but at not very high velocioty, so could produce big divits in the Tigers armor without a penetration. There are numerous recorded instances of these guns being used in direct fire mode against German tanks in Africa during this time period. The 17 pdr which first saw action in Tunisia would  penetrate the Tiger and make the battle damage and theme of the diorama a moot point. As already pointed out here the 75mm gun would not leave such big damage. The 3in gun on the M10 would leave a larger hit, but not overly so compared to the 75mm, even with its' higher velocity/flatter trajectory. Hits that penetrate the stowage bin would impact against the turret armer beneathe and send out shrapnel from any non penetrating hits back into the stowage bin to further damage it.

As far as troops go, elements of the Herman Goering Division were sent to Africa post Torch as well. They have been known to wear a combination of the Luftwaffe tropical filed uniform along with SS smocks during the Tunisian campaign (at least according to what I have seen in Osprey and Concord books).

So the diorama itself is entirely plausible in concept, but could use more refinement in execution detailwise. 

the doog wrote:

mpkev31b wrote: i dont agree totally the shell hits are over sized. take this pic for instance. JagdTiger note the shell hits on the front sloped armor, and the huge gouge on the bottom hull armor and the damage to the gun pretty big holes to me that did NOT knock this tank out.  Yes, but consider this, mpkev--in Tunisia, the Tiger would have been facing the very first incarnations of the Sherman, with it's puny gun--NOT a JSII, Pershing, 90mm TD's, M4A1's or anything approaching what would have been comsidered a "large calibre" gun in the Tunisian desert. Anything fighting out there against the Tigers were hopelessly outgunned; this was, after all, where the Tiger first gained it's fearsome reputation.  The sizes of the shell hits there look nothing less than 122mm JSII hits, if not more for several of them--additionaly, the reason the Jagdtiger hits look so big is that the hits were glancing blows--scooping out the armor, not directly impacting it!

...can't recall ever having seen photos of battle damage on the front of a Tiger I.

Scroll down a bit..

http://www.fprado.com/armorsite/tiger1.htm

mpkev31b wrote:

i dont agree totally the shell hits are over sized. take this pic for instance. JagdTiger note the shell hits on the front sloped armor, and the huge gouge on the bottom hull armor and the damage to the gun pretty big holes to me that did NOT knock this tank out.

Anything fighting out there against the Tigers were hopelessly outgunned; this was, after all, where the Tiger first gained it's fearsome reputation. 

The sizes of the shell hits there look nothing less than 122mm JSII hits, if not more for several of them--additionaly, the reason the Jagdtiger hits look so big is that the hits were glancing blows--scooping out the armor, not directly impacting it!

EasyMike wrote:

Model Maniac wrote: ...... I can't recall ever having seen photos of battle damage on the front of a Tiger I.  It was common knowledge not to attempt a head-on fight with a Tiger.  He'd win; you'd lose.

Model Maniac wrote:

......

I can't recall ever having seen photos of battle damage on the front of a Tiger I.  It was common knowledge not to attempt a head-on fight with a Tiger.  He'd win; you'd lose.

the doog wrote:

And I agree 100% about the "shell hits"--the ones in the turret basket would have ripped it to shreds, and the shell hits should be all more-or-less the same sized, and smaller, IMO.

Watch this video of Glacier Girl's 20mm cannon vs a barrel. The holes in the turret basket look like they could be of the same caliber. Note the explossive enegy from the single round. Now complare that to the lack of damage to the basket. All that energy has to go somewhere.

mpkev31b wrote:

i dont agree totally the shell hits are over sized. take this pic for instance. JagdTiger note the shell hits on the front sloped armor, and the huge gouge on the bottom hull armor and the damage to the gun pretty big holes to me that did NOT knock this tank out.   The jadgtiger was based on a Tiger 2 chassis so the armor would be alot thicker.

Hermesminiatures wrote:

There's nothing wrong with the figures' uniform colors, they are appropriate for Tunisia/Italy. I like the overall color of the tank, the shade and weathering are very nice. The shell marks, on the other hand...are absolutley ridiculous. A Tiger is not solid steel and if hit in the side, turret rear, and especially the sheet metal stowage bin (!), a shell big enough to make those marks would go through every time. There's nothing like battle damage to make a tank look like a warrior, but less is always more.

DITO

How about the "brewed up tank"

i dont agree totally the shell hits are over sized. take this pic for instance. JagdTiger note the shell hits on the front sloped armor, and the huge gouge on the bottom hull armor and the damage to the gun pretty big holes to me that did NOT knock this tank out.

I find it quite annoying that HeavyArty has to make the same comment on every thread. Maybe we could learn to pick out some of the positive points, rather than always pointing out the [sometimes obvious] flaws. Use those flaws for your own advantage rather than just bashing another modeler, or in this case, collector. If that is not how the comments are intended, then I apologize for my interpretation.

They are not intended to be simple bashing.  My main intention is to point out the flaws so others don't repeat them. 

Doog put it better than I...

A nice concept, but aside from the actual painting/finishing/weathering, pulled off in an amateurish way.

sfcmac wrote:

Wow pretty keen observations. I will be certain to inquire your alls opinion on my armor builds. It is amazing what can be learned in these post.

As far as the model goes, I like the concept, but the uniforms hit me as wrong period; hypothetically even. And I agree 100% about the "shell hits"--the ones in the turret basket would have ripped it to shreds, and the shell hits should be all more-or-less the same sized, and smaller, IMO.

A nice concept, but aside from the actual painting/finishing/weathering, pulled off in an amateurish way. 

That explains it, MR.... Either SS or Luftwaffe splinter would be ok for the smocks then until later in '43 when it would have been all Luftwaffe splinter... Trousers are correct for the Luftwaffe Med uniform...

There's nothing wrong with the figures' uniform colors, they are appropriate for Tunisia/Italy.

I like the overall color of the tank, the shade and weathering are very nice.

The shell marks, on the other hand...are absolutley ridiculous. A Tiger is not solid steel and if hit in the side, turret rear, and especially the sheet metal stowage bin (!), a shell big enough to make those marks would go through every time. There's nothing like battle damage to make a tank look like a warrior, but less is always more.

Tankluver wrote:

Nice looking tank but I dont thik that the infantry would have had camoflauge on them they would usually have an all tan uniform.

Not really... Hard to tell, but I'd guess the figures are Panzergrenadiers, not Infanterie.   By 1943, the Germans had a large quantity of Italian fabric and Italian camo fabric, and there were units in Tunisia that were in the M43 tropical uniform, rather than the familiar M40 Afrika Korps olive.  Shortages of German fabric due to Allied bombing led to all kinds of uniform combinations in the MTO.  Just about every German uniform made for that theater could be found made with Italian cloth on Heer and SS troops, and Italian cloth was of much better quality by that time compared to German fabric... There were plenty of German/Italian uniform mixes as well as Afrika Korps and Tropical uniform mixes...  Modeling German uniforms in the MTO is about as free-style as you can get and still call 'em "uniforms"...      

I love looking at these threads. Like someone else stated in another one, it gives us all a chance to be a judge, so to speak, and practice piocking out some faults. It can make us all better modelers.

I find it quite annoying that HeavyArty has to make the same comment on every thread. Maybe we could learn to pick out some of the positive points, rather than always pointing out the [sometimes obvious] flaws. Use those flaws for your own advantage rather than just bashing another modeler, or in this case, collector. If that is not how the comments are intended, then I apologize for my interpretation.

Personally, I like the battle damage, it looks pretty convincing to me.