Steel Cats (Sept. 2012-Aug. 2013)

Depending on which seller, Tigers at the front is going for both sides of £20 and the other one both sides of £30.

My real name is Martin Bishop. So my knickname has always been Bish. And being in the Army, thats all i get called. The only person who calls me Martin is my mum. Even the other half and her kids call me Bish. So i didn't come up with a special name for the web, i just stuck with Bish.

And Bish it is. 

Nice to meet you Martin, but I'll call you Bish. 

ditto !

Bish

Depending on which seller, Tigers at the front is going for both sides of £20 and the other one both sides of £30.

My real name is Martin Bishop. So my knickname has always been Bish. And being in the Army, thats all i get called. The only person who calls me Martin is my mum. Even the other half and her kids call me Bish. So i didn't come up with a special name for the web, i just stuck with Bish.

" Martin ! Get in here and put your models away !!!!!"

I went ahead and picked up Tigers at the Front on Amazon for $21.00 and some change for now. See Jentz also has another intriguing book, "Germany's Tiger Tanks: Tigers I & II: Combat Tactics".

Pleasure to meet you Bish.

                                      Joe

JOE RIX

I went ahead and picked up Tigers at the Front on Amazon for $21.00 and some change for now. See Jentz also has another intriguing book, "Germany's Tiger Tanks: Tigers I & II: Combat Tactics".

Pleasure to meet you Bish.

                                      Joe

You got a good deal on that.

There seems to be several in that series either by Jentz or Jentz and Doyle.

If you are big into German armour and researching it, the Panzer tracts books are probably one of the best sources.

tigerman

And Bish it is. 

Nice to meet you Martin, but I'll call you Bish. 

Shellback

Bish

Depending on which seller, Tigers at the front is going for both sides of £20 and the other one both sides of £30.

My real name is Martin Bishop. So my knickname has always been Bish. And being in the Army, thats all i get called. The only person who calls me Martin is my mum. Even the other half and her kids call me Bish. So i didn't come up with a special name for the web, i just stuck with Bish.

" Martin ! Get in here and put your models away !!!!!"

Yes Mum.

Bish

JOE RIX

I went ahead and picked up Tigers at the Front on Amazon for $21.00 and some change for now. See Jentz also has another intriguing book, "Germany's Tiger Tanks: Tigers I & II: Combat Tactics".

Pleasure to meet you Bish.

                                      Joe

You got a good deal on that.

There seems to be several in that series either by Jentz or Jentz and Doyle.

If you are big into German armour and researching it, the Panzer tracts books are probably one of the best sources.

Copy that on Panzer Tracts. In addition there are a number of books on german armor by Wolfgang Schnieder that get very excellent reviews.

Question for the experts... when a MG was attached to the commander's copula, was this actually the gun taken out of the mantlet, transferred for the purpose of AA role?

regards,

Jack

Jack, i am not 100% certain but i think it was. When i built a Tiger a few years back i left out the co-axial gun.

But would be nice to hear from someone who knows for certain.

That's a good question Jack, but I've always seen the commanders MG with a stock on it and the hull MG  doesn't have one.

Eric, i think the stocks are easy to remove and fit.

I'm almost positive this would not be the case -- the cramped confines of a tank interior would make manhandling an MG42 hard enough in any case, getting the weapon saftied and out of the mantlet mounting, through the turret, up and out the hatch, remounted in an entirely different way, fitted with a stock and loaded ready to go would take two or three minutes, even if the crew was not already committed to their tasks in action, and for AA purposes that would be meaningless. Potential targets would be long gone, and while the gun was up top the vehicle would have lost part of its anti-infantry capability. I'm willing to be proved wrong, but I really doubt the cuppola MG was the same gun as the mantlet MG.

Mike/TB379

You may be rigfht Mike, but most photo's of Tigers i have seen don't have the cupola MG fitted, even in Normandy. So either they don't have the gun or it is stored inside.

My gut feeling is that the MG42 was in limited supply and the infantry were being supplied preferentially. Only a few tanks got the topside MG probably because the commander was highly vulnerable while using it and the success rate against aircraft was likely low -- it was a fair idea but in effect was not worth shortchanging supply of the weapon as a grunt gun...

M/TB379

PS: I just received "Tony Greenland's Armor Modelling Masterclass" -- this is going to be a great read!

The think the turret, hull and co axial weapons were all MG 34's.

Thats a great book. I first came across Tony work in an FSM article from the 80's and i used his weathering methods for years. But i do find they are a bit dated now since i have discovered washes and such.

Bish -- early in the war they discovered the MG34 was too expensive and complex, they were in a position once described as being "unable to aford it and unable to do without it," hence the MG42 was developed as a brutally simplified replacement, while remaining essentially the same design. By the time the Tigers and Panthers were fielded I'm guessing the -34 was probably becoming scarcer.

I've just been looking at his techniques, and while he's sure not big on wash his results are eye-popping, especially his exotic camo patterns. I hear the call of a few of these projects! The issue you're refering to would be June 1989? That was the very first issue of FSM I ever bought, and his armour feature sticks in my mind to this day. I am so looking forward to doing the Tiger II with zim!

M/TB379

I'll have to check up on the guns. I always thought they were 34's, as there would be a lot of them around after the 42 came to service.

Ye, i think that was it, the June 89 issue. That was my weathering bible for years, though i never achieved close to those results. I always have the book to hand when i am doing some German armour, its very useful.

If wikipedia is to be trusted, they also introduce the term Panzerlauf:

Most German tanks used during World War II used the MG 34 Panzerlauf for secondary armament. The MG 42 was ill-suited for internal/coaxial mounting due to the method of barrel change. The main difference of the MG 34 Panzerlauf and the regular MG 34 was the heavier almost solid armored barrel shroud, almost completely lacking the ventilation holes of the basic MG 34. When mounted inside a tank, the MG 34 also lacked a butt-stock. A kit for quick conversion to ground use was carried inside the tank containing a butt-stock and a combined bi-pod and front sight assembly.

I believe the special rail attached to the copula was for AA purposes, as the Luftwaffe no longer controlled the skies. True, one MG firing at an oncoming aircraft isn't much, but if several vehicles are equipped this way and are firing at the same airplane, maybe it would be enough to throw the strafing aircraft off it's target - better than nothing I suppose as you certainly won't outrun it in a tank.

I haven't found anything conclusive on the net, but a few forums have raised similar questions.  Some say there was provision for stowage of the MG34 underneath the roof of the turrent for quick access.   Others say no, that the co-axial MG was used for this purpose.  Maybe once you guys get those books from J & D the answer will be discovered.

regards,

Jack

Kagero has a new profile/decal book out on the Tiger I.  Contains 16 different sets of markings in 1/72, 1/48 and 1/35 scales.

regards,

Jack

Just to throw a little more fuel in the fire, the MG-34 from all accounts I've read, was a more difficult gun to build, but was far more accurate. The MG-42 was a beast to control due to all that lead flying and no wonder many were on tripods.

Hi Eric and guys,

I have the Tasca Panzer II Ausf. L Luchs (Lynx) with the Modelkasten tracks and was wondering as the Lynx is a cat, does the kit qualify for this build?

Cheers

tigerman

Just to throw a little more fuel in the fire, the MG-34 from all accounts I've read, was a more difficult gun to build, but was far more accurate. The MG-42 was a beast to control due to all that lead flying and no wonder many were on tripods.

The MG 42 used a process of pressing the metal so was much simpler to build. Both the 34 and the 42 could be tripod mounted. This completly change dthe role of the weapon.

Both versions constituted the Wermacht's general purpose mchinegun, but the differences in their characteristics probably meant they ended up with different appications. I've been reading up on the Tiger and Panther and as late as Kursk in mid-'43 they were equipped with two or three MG34s, not their later counterpart, which suggests the higher value weapon systems received the priority of greater accuracy. Perhaps the -42 was issued to units for closer-in combat, where greater accuracy at range was less important...

M/TB379

GPMG's are not really meant to be accurate, at least in the same way as a rifle. They are more of an area weapon. I would think that tanks would be fitted with 34's as there was plenty of these around after the 42 came into service and the tanks didn';t need the 42 as much as the ground troops would.

I think the main point of difference is the rate of fire, with the MG 42 it was 1200 rounds/min.  (some very colourful names were given to this gun, "Hitler's buzzsaw" has to be a favourite).  This high rate of fire necessitated regular barrel changes to avoid over-heating.  Although it was designed to be a quick change in field use, it wasn't practical for  the hull and co-axial placement in tanks.  Except for the Jagdpanzer IV, all other panzers continued to use the MG 34, hence it's production continued to the end of the war.  

regards,

Jack

But then the same would be true of the 34 in regards a barrel change surely.

Yes, the 34 also was designed to make barrel change's 'on the go' but I'm not sure how different this was between the two types.  It also had slighly less rate of fire (about 800-900 rounds/min.) , and assuming the operator didn't react to a situation like it was an arcade game, the barrel would not overheat as quickly.  

I should have mentioned the MG 42 could go as high as 1500.  So yes, more likely to over heat.  On paper, it should have a crew of six, but the war situation being as it was, normally only three were assigned per gun.

regards,

Jack

Ye, the extra rate of fire would certainly make a difference. With the GMPG we had to change barrels every 800 rounds, i would imagine the 34 and 42 would be the same. But then any well trained soldier would keep his rate of fire controled.

When you say it should of had a crew of six, i assume you mean in the SF role. In the light role i believe it was a two man team.