About Tiger track links

[gibsonfndr]

In order to avoid polluting another thread may I summarize what's been discussed in another thread.
Mt first post was this one :

There we go.
We do not talk about the same thing.
As a matter of fact we had two types of tracks the latest with "ice clats" the older without as seen here.
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/gibsonfndr/tigertracks-4.jpg
So it can be seen on pics one just has to look at the shape of the trapezium that's engraved on the track link.
Here we have what you'll call "early" tracks :
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/gibsonfndr/tigertracks-2.jpg
And here what you'd call "late tracks" :
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/gibsonfndr/tigertracks-3.jpg

So where's the problem ?

What you call "early tracks" weren't the first kind of tracks to be used for the tiger tanks but the second type.
The first type was not handed as can be seen on this pic of a very early Tiger soon after arrival in Africa.
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/gibsonfndr/tigertracks-1.jpg

This is true for every "early" Tiger as the ones the kit allows us to build.
only when it received new tracks would they be of the second, handed type.
I don't know when exactly these type 1 tracks were changed on the production line but it is true with the early tanks that belonged to s. Pz. Abt 501 and 502. Note that on Tiger "131" from s. Pz.Abt 504 as seen in April 43 you see the handed tracks but on a pic of "112" shot mid March 43 you still see the old "not handed" tracks.
Confusing isn't it ?

[gibsonfndr]

Then someone said this :
Hi,

To me the confusion is when you compare tracks with what are called "Ice Cleats" to tracks with no "Ice Cleats"....is there verified evidence that "early" and "late" type tracks actually existed other than looking at photos?

Maybe the tracks in the second photo are just more worn than the tracks in the desert photo? I do see remnants of "Ice Cleats" in the LATE photo.....

I'm just curious here, no expert analysis...:D Interesting discussion.

To my eyes, they both are symmetrical since the sprocket teeth are in the same position through the tracks.

Just my opinions......:):thumb:

[gibsonfndr]

My answer :
This is exactly the moment when I begin cursing myself for not beeing able to speak batter English. I'll give it a try anyway.
Let me use this same drawings :
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/gibsonfndr/tigertracks-4.jpg

what you see on the upper links, the ones I call "symmetrical" is a typical pattern of early German tracks. What you get with the ones below is your regumar late version with what I call "ice clats" in fact I mean the "anti-skid" drawing on the link. You find the very same differece with the pz IV tracks or the panther tracks.
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/gibsonfndr/panzerIVtracks.jpg
The one on the right is a late version.
Do you understand what I mean ? The kind of "V shaped" drawings.
It's not something I made up nor are these "worn out" links. definitely two different links albeit not different in size so they do not have to change its official name and Kgs 62/640/130 the are called.
Now about this "symmetrical" thingie it's a bit more complicated for me to explain but it's easy to tell when looking at pics. when you look at the right side tracks or the left side racks on later versions of the Tiger you see that the aforementionned "V shaped" drawings are not symmetrical as the "V" goes "VVVV" or "^^^^" get it ? those are not handed. They're just the same links turned around 180°.
Now this is unusual for tanks as they like to have the tracks "hitting the ground" in one way better than another. It is easy to do with anything but a tiger you just have to clip the link on the other side whereas with a Tiger, as the guiding teeth are not centered (at least for combat tracks) then you have to decide whether you want them to be right (thus leading to "handed links") or you play it the easy way and that's what they did in the end.

Not sure I'm perfectly clear there ...
Edited to add :
Here's a serie of drawings I made using graphic Vonverter.
#1 : first type pf tracks, not handed.
#2 : second type of tracks : handed.
#3 : third type of tracks : not handed.
#4 : what you'd see if these tracks were to be handed.

http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/gibsonfndr/tigertracks-5-1.jpg

Now get a picture of a Tiger and have a lok at the tracks. On my drawing they are seen as if you were looking at the front of the Tiger as in the pic below. It's easy to see whan they are handed or not. I can not tell you when exactly #3 appeared but stay tuned ...
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/gibsonfndr/tigertracks-2.jpg

[gibsonfndr]

Then this post :
Hmmm...

it may still be that we're talking past each other, but this last picture you have posted, is one of the Tiger '100' captured by the Russians, and is also one of the options in the Dragon kit in question.

Looking at the image, this tank obviously have "handed" tracks. And this being one of the very earliest Tigers, I'd say that you have switched #1 and #2.

According to this website (http://www.alanhamby.com/suspension.shtml); "The first 20 Tigers produced had left and right hand track links. In October 1942 this was changed so that the links were identical on each side. The left hand track was simply turned around and mounted backwards. In icy conditions ice cleats could be bolted onto these track links. The combat track castings were revised in October 1943 when chevrons were added to the link surface for additional traction."

It makes more sense that they used handed tracks initially, but later used the same kind of track on both sides, to ease production and logistics.

And after a bit of searching I finally found a discussion of the Tiger tracts over at Missing-Lynx, which supports the view that handed tracks came first, only to be quickly replaced by "standard" tracks. (Same track on both sides, only mounted the other way around).

http://www.network54.com/Forum/47207/message/1108297700/Tiger+tracks

The conclusion to all this?

1) gibsonfndr is wrong in claiming that handed tracks replaced standard tracks. It was the other way around
2) the model in question is correct if the vehicle was produced before October 1942.

Just for the record, here's an image of mine of the Bovington Tiger I, an Early prod model finished in February 1943. The right and left track are the same (when they should have been "handed", given gibsonfndr's theory).

http://astralscooter.com/mygallery/images/937433/947195.jpg

At any rate, it is a nice model you have there ;)

Best Regards,

Arild :)

[gibsonfndr]

Please remember we're talking about very early Tigers.
As I said you can not rely on a July 43 picture to describe how the tigers were in October 42 (for example).

of course I might be totally wrong and will do some research on this subject as soon as I have got enough time ... now anyone with first hand informations is most welcome ...

[astralscooter]

Good idea to continue in a new thread :)

I have dug out my copy of Jentz and Hoyle's "From D.W. to Tiger I", in which it reads in paragraph 3.4.1.12:

"Pz.Kpfw. Tiger with Fgst.Nr.250001 to 250020 wre outfitted with right and left cross-country tracks. Starting with Fgst.Nr.250021 in October 1942, standardadized Kgs 63/725/130 cross-country tracks were fitted to both sides."

Ie. the 20 first had handed tracks, the rest had standard tracks.

And I am going to take Jentz' word for it. After all, he has gleaned all his info from the original German sources.

Arild :)

[gibsonfndr]

And I am going to take Jentz' word for it. After all, he has gleaned all his info from the original German sources.

Arild :)So will I then. Unfortunately I can not find where I got my informations from so I can not decide whether I was misinformed or my memory gets worse every day.

[astralscooter]

Let's pretend you have heard it from someone with a faulty memory :D

Then you were in good faith :thumb:

Arild

[gibsonfndr]

Let's pretend you have heard it from someone with a faulty memory :D

Then you were in good faith :thumb:

Arild
Hmmm ... very kind of you but I'm afraid it all comes (as you noted) from me confusing type 1 and 2 ... alzheimer is lreading over my shoulder while I write ... just like my pupils who do not understand why they have it all wrong when they claim 5x5 = 10 ... I had the basic idea correct but the wrong result ...

[Coops]

Hi Laurent, this happens to the best of us :).
This pic is where it all went wrong :).
#1 should be swapped with #2 :). Glad you sparked the place up with your ideas.
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/gibsonfndr/tigertracks-5-1.jpg

[serpico]

I'm the guilty "someone"...

I see what you're all getting at, but the point I was trying to make was just that I believe it's very difficult to look at 60 or so year old photos and make a definite opinion as to what tracks are on a tank.

Maybe it's my eyes but I find it kinda hard to see real differences unless the photo is real close up. I'm not challenging your knowledge, just your interpretation given the available photos.

In this end my point is what difference does it really make?

I don't believe a photo taken at one point in time totally defines what happens in battle conditions, repairs made and environment of the time etc. But that's just my look at it, I respect everyone's opinions here, just making a counter argument. :D

I

[gibsonfndr]

I don't believe a photo taken at one point in time totally defines what happens in battle conditions, repairs made and environment of the time etc. But that's just my look at it, I respect everyone's opinions here, just making a counter argument. :D

I
Hi Someone.
:)
You are right in a way but unfortunately, pictures are all we have sometimes.
Of course we have some official documents around but even they are not enough.
We have quite a lot of examples.
Here's one :
We have (according to Jentz) no offcial document that'd prove us that the very late Pz IV Js had simplified brake access hatches. That's why he'll never mention this fact in his books but we have these ...
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/gibsonfndr/panzer%20IV%20Ausf%20J/panzer4jtard-7.jpg
-So what does it prove ?
Not much but at least it existed.
-How many ? when ?
Don't know but they existed.
-Oh but this could be field modifications by one unit ?
No because we have quite a lot of pics from different units.

Another example ; The famous "Achtung Panzers" series of book, although reliable most of the times, do make mistakes and they made a very big one with their Pz III Ausf G drawings. How can we tell ? Pics.

So all we can do is rely on the pictures (+ books).
Of course you may say "no big deal" and this is true indeed. Not very important unless - and I confess this is how I see things - you first look at historical truth when building a model. Some people prefer the artistic point of view and where's the harm ? I remember seeing a model of a wonderful Jagdtiger captured by the Russians ... where's the mistake ? who cares ?

Internet is a wonderful thing but when you look for informations you can find the better or the worse so I'll only rely on pics to make the final decision when building a model. So I'll end up saying "this is how THIS tank looked like at THIS very moment and place".

I hope my answer to you is not "out of focus" and just for the fun of it here's a pic I do like and please tell me what's wrong with this little pz I ...
http://i16.photobucket.com/albums/b19/gibsonfndr/weirdpanzer2.jpg

Cheers.
Laurent