Bergepanzer Tiger never existed ,the modified Tiger was in fact a charge laying vehicle.
More info there:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?f=47&t=51651&start=15
Hello kamehouse,
Be that so, then my apologies. Over the years I’ve seen several images captioned as BergeTigers, said images having been around in books many, many years.
Interesting to learn something new.
Many Thanks.
Regards, Uyraell.
No worries.
As you must have noticed,I also posted in the linked thread and learnt something too!
If you are a Tiger lover better dont look at this, russian 122 and 152 mm penetrations on Tiger 1. ( auch )
Remarkable that three crew members made it out - as the text says.
They may have made it out of the tank, but by the gods I’d bet their hangover was phenomenal!!
The noise of the impacts alone would have been near the limits of human endurance/tolerance.
To say nothing of the frag injuries likely received as direct result of the impacts.
Regards, Uyraell.
Remarkable that three crew members made it out - as the text says.
Tank commander and gunner killed as I understand…
Right, the text says commander and gunner were killed by the impact of the 15.2mm assault gun shell. Driver and radio operator bailed out immediately, the loader however stayed inside of the tank at first and suffered severe burnings (but could be salvaged alive) due to the detonation of a 12.2mm shell of a IS-2.
Hello,loved reading through this topic as the Tiger I is also my favourite tank,but I see in some of the discussion in regards to the Tiger II’s turret (Porsche and Henschel).There never was a “Porsche” turret or a “Henschel” turret,they did not design turrets.Krupp designed the turrets,Porsche and Henschel designed the chassis upon which of course the turrets were mounted,it’s very misleading.
Right, the text says commander and gunner were killed by the impact of the 15.2mm assault gun shell. Driver and radio operator bailed out immediately, the loader however stayed inside of the tank at first and suffered severe burnings (but could be salvaged alive) due to the detonation of a 12.2mm shell of a IS-2
Lucky soldier actually, the fragmentation and heat caused by a 12 cm shell passing trough a 11 cm armor hard armor must be horrific.
Hello,loved reading through this topic as the Tiger I is also my favourite tank,but I see in some of the discussion in regards to the Tiger II’s turret (Porsche and Henschel).There never was a “Porsche” turret or a “Henschel” turret,they did not design turrets.Krupp designed the turrets,Porsche and Henschel designed the chassis upon which of course the turrets were mounted,it’s very misleading.
True, but there is a grain of accuracy, the round mantlet turret originally was designed for the Porsche Typ 180 ( doktor Porsche proposal for a tank carring the Kwk 43, i.e Tiger II ) so is like said “turret for the Porsche Tiger II desing” or “turret of the Henschel Tiger II design” , that was shortened obviously.
You are correct, Panzerknacker. 
Also of note is that Porsche had already designed and cast 50 turrets for the Kwk43 L71 because he had anticipated winning the Tiger II contract.
When he did not win it, those 50 turrets were put on the first 50 King Tigers, before the Henschel turret became the vehicles’ standard.
Krupp was involved heavily in the design of the main gun mounting for each of the Tiger II turret designs.
However, of particular note here is that Krupp designed the mounting.
Whereas, Henschel commissioned Krupp to design the mantlet of the Henschel turret, my understanding is that the rest of the turret is according to Henschel design.
While perhaps semantically incorrect, the term Henschel Turret or Porsche turret tends, as a result of the above, to be applied as required.
Where Krupp designed the entire turret was the Tiger I.
That fact can at times cause confusion regarding the Tiger II turrets and their design histories.
Sources: A: Chamberlain and Ellis. B: David Miller.
Respectful Regards, Uyraell.
Hello gentlemen,good to see some dialogue in regards to my statement.Panzerknacker,I see you have read some material from Thomas L.Jentz(excellent authority on Tigers;tactics,design,production etc.)I have a small blurb from his book “Germany’s Tiger Tanks” VK45.02 to Tiger II:Design,Production & Modifications,this book is excellent reading,very technical,but very interesting(20 years of research)it states- Krupp was the sole designer of the turrets for the VK 45.02(H) and VK 45.03.The only difference between the turret design by Krupp for the VK 45.02(P) and the VK 45.02(H) was the turrets mounted on Porsche chassis had electrical traverse drives while turrets mounted on Henschel chassis had hydraulic traverse drives.The first 50 turrets originally fabricated by Krupp for the VK 45.02(P) were modified,fitted with hydraulic drives,and mounted on the first 50 VK 45.03 chassis from Henschel.Krupp also designed the “Serien-Turm” that was mounted on all subsequent Henschel chassis starting with the 51st VK 45.03(Fgst.Nr.280048) Please read this book if you get the chance,have a good day.
Uyraell ( costly spelling nick isnt ?) and Thunder: We agree in everything ; there is no need to re-read the book. I was just explaining the ethimological (… :mrgreen:… ) reasons behind the incorrect denomination “porsche turret”.
Hello Panzerknacker,I figured you had,I’ve certainly enjoyed his books,both the technical side and the pictorial collection of his photos,have a great weekend.
Well, the technical information very is good, the only problem I ve found is the somewhat “dense” stile of writing by Thomas L Jentz.
Interesting picture I ve found in “Panzer in the gunsights 2, ETO 1944-45”
The Culemeyer trailer for transporting the Tiger II by road , I suppose atrain of 3 or 4 half track were used to tow it in road.
Just a sidenote: the tank is Tiger II “332” of Kampfgruppe Peiper, recovered by the US First Army’s 463rd Ordnance Evacuation Company on December 26, 1944 near La Gleize/Belgium. Today it can be seen at the Patton Museum of Cavalry and Armor in Fort Knox/Kentucky.
Good info, so probably the US army used the Culemeyer rail, and it wasnt captured in this fashion.
Towing 68 tons of tank plus 23 of trailer must be something.
No, “332” was encountered by Shermans of the 740th Tank Battalion on early December 25. After the first hit the crew bailed out, leaving the tank more or less undamaged.
About the Culemeyer “Straßenroller”, I don’t know for sure but I kind of doubt that the US Army was equipped with these - unlike the Wehrmacht. It was probably captured before as well.
I meaned they captured both elements separated, and they were put togheter afterwards. One shot ? easy scaring crew.
More pics. Cant find the place of the hit, must be in its right side.
