OK now I really hope this works...

I could not use these photos last time, but they are a lot more explicit as to what I wanted to say, and hopefully people will FINALLY stop trusting drawings, no matter how imposing the source...
I explained the pitch difference against me in the previous pictures, but apparently that was still a bit too much. APPARENTLY my eyes are a bit more excercised at this kind of thing...This time I will again attempt to pre-empt the nay-sayers to counter their desperate arguments that their eyes are not really seeing what they see, that photos aren't really photos, and that the Jagdtiger and King Tiger have the same front hull!
Yes I know this time the pitch is in my favor by a MINUSCULE amount, about 1/50th of the amount it was against me in the previous pictures, and STILL in the previous picture the King Tiger's bottom hull REFUSED to be DEEPER than the Jagdtiger's. So if you don't want to cut me a break this time, remember I cut you a break 50 times bigger last time...
Yes I know the King Tiger is "spread out" slightly by perspective, but that doesn't change what your eyes know they are seeing.
NO the Jagtiger's belly plate is not contributing anything to the lower plate's thickness, but even if you don't believe that, let your eyes tell you what they see about the upper "glacis" plate, and the amount of space the hull machine gun eats.

I'm sorry if I sound a bit aggressive, I'm a bit annoyed that I might not get to see how my scan will turn out before it gets posted, and therefore there is a chance that I am typing all this for nothing.Plus I am tired.

The difference in height of the leading edge armour join is probably at or slightly below 4 inches, as small causes tend to have big effects.

I have finally understood WHY the Germans bothered to do this apparently nonsensical thing: A fairly old thread on this site noted something I had failed to pick up on my own; the Jagdtiger rides much lower to the ground. I dearly hope I won't get an argument on this...
Unlike what was claimed back then, there was no difference in the spacing of the road wheels, all the extra lenght being in the idler.
BUT...A tank riding much closer to the ground is more prone to digging its nose join into the ground or into an obstacle, "locking" itself in. Funny how an epiphany often strikes while commuting...Incidently, the trouble they went through for an extra 3 to 4 inches really does show what weighs on a tank designer's mind. I never would have thought that the shape of the front end was such a crucial issue to cross country performance.You learn something new every day.
I personally assure you Bruce that there is absolutely no way on earth or heaven that the Panzer Tracts plans are correct on this issue. If somebody out there concurs with me, please manifest yourselves, as my authority around here against something like Panzer Tracts is, shall we say, of a lightweight nature...

The comment about 1.5mm on the Panther not being worth worrying about in 1/48th scale shows a lack of understanding of something that took me an excruciatingly long time to figure out: Vertical dimensions are much more SENSITIVE than longitudinal dimensions: If the Panther is say 3 times longer than it is high, then 1.5 mm on the height is exactly equivalent to 4.5mm on the lenght. Combining hull/turret(assuming you attach the slightest credence to what I say)is about 3mm, which would work out to a 9mm error on the proportional lenght; about 1/4 the height of a man, or 3/8th of an inch: Not a subtle error at all in anyone's rulebook, I dearly hope...
Many people who would accept 3mm on the height would scream at 9mm (1 foot 1/2)on the lenght: Yet they are the exact same thing. I will say it until I'm blue in the face; I'm not interested in SUBTLE errors. A 1 to 2mm error on the lenght is quite acceptable to me.
You can now imagine how sensitive the issue is on aircrafts, which can be 6 to 10 times longer than the fuselage is thick. This is why, for this reason alone, possibly as much as 20% of the latest aircraft kits are not only flawed, but are not even fixable even if you were Sheperd Paine himself.(He'd cheat and scratch probably...)
These fairly discrete bad apples (that's the problem with vertical errors, they are "blended" in) can easily reach a "proportional" lenght error of 10 to 15 mm, especially on WW2 fighters whose more peaky profiles are more easily squeezed (these errors in aircrafts, unlike tanks, are rarely in the direction of more depth). The recent Hasegawa P-39 being an especially egregious example, probably eclipsing the same maker's Me-109F-G's (-1.8mm X 7= + 12.6mm proportional lenght) by a wide margin.
Getting back to our own stuff, I was happy to see that Tim Perry saw the discrepancies I was alluding to for the Panther. I do not share his suspicion of innocent photographs, especially when large perpendicular wheels are present, but I do understand his need to measure the darn things.
One note about an error I made; the Jagdpanther than I thought had a truly gigantic barrel compared to Tamiya is the one at Aberdeen proving grounds, NOT Bovington, so let's keep that in mind considering the two overhang dimensions that I have found; one at 2.69m(if memory serves), the other at 3.0m. That's about 6.7mm and 14.7mm over Tamiya respectively.
As for Tim's trip to Bovington, I can't wait to have the low down on the barrel and the Panther. After all, how do I know that our Panther concern is a vertical dimension issue and that the Panther is not a much longer tank than we all think? Less likely, but one can dream...
I hope I have changed some people's mind about the extreme sensitivity of vertical dimensions, as it took me a long time to understand why so many kits look so different from real photos.
As I have said, there is a serious lack of useful information on accuracy out there, and if errors whose vertical measure appear small but can then be proportionately measured in feet don't matter, then I don't understand what is the point of what we do.
Unless what you mean is that we are painting a flat canvass...

Gaston.

I will say this: You are EXTREMELY persistent. You like to use MATH. You CAPITALIZE words when you really want emphasize your assertions.

Seriously, though, what is your objective at this point? For the sake of discussion, let's say that I stipulate that you are right about everything you say. What, in your estimation, is the appropriate reaction to this epiphany? Is everybody supposed to not build their Tamiya kits, or feel bad about the ones they may have already built?

I get what you're saying about the the proportional signifcance of dimensional errors over shorter lengths, and height therefore being more sensitive than length. But I'm still not that excited. I have a lot of stuff to do in my life. I don't have the time (nor the skills) to scratch my own Panther hull to your specs. I can accept the Tamiya kit or I can not build a 1/48 Panther. Those are my choices, and I choose the former.

There is a strident insistence on your part that these problems are not SUBTLE, but they are subtle enough that nobody else has really noticed enough blow a gasket over it. They are subtle enough that I still think that Tamiya's Tiger II and DML's Jadgtiger and Hasegawa's 109 all look like the subjects that they are supposed to represent. Sorry.

I'm sure that there are others out there who will debate the dimensions and attempt to get to bottom of this; and I will admit that if Tim gets to Bovington I will be very interested to see his findings. In the meantime, I really don't think that your interpretation of a handful of photos will dictate my perception.

ONLY MODELS!
The IMPORTANT thing to remember...
This is SUPPOSED to be a HOBBY that is RELAXING...Ranting is not a recognized form of relaxation on my end, especially when it comes to building models...
Which brings me to the REALLY important thing to remember..WE ARE BUILDING MODELS..JUST MODELS...
Enjoy the GREAT KITS we have and leave PERFORMANCE OF PERFECTION to the ALMIGHTY!
As modelers, we have very little control over the tooling and mold making of the companies that bring us these fine kits, I'm HAPPY when my Sherman looks like a Sherman, and my Tiger looks like a Tiger!
Why?
Because it's a..........MODEL!
And I ENJOYED building it!
There is medication available to help you get through almost anything in life, glad I'm healthy enough not to be taking anything for anything, maybe I don't need anything because I can RELAX with a HOBBY...
GOD HELP me that I NEVER get so wrapped up in my HOBBY that I need to be visiting the local Pharmacy....
'Nuff Said.
Pete

Hi Pete;

Well... that certainly brought YOU back to life. Where have you been?
I have done my best to IGNORE the rants of Gaston M. and will be happy to
see it all come to a non-conclusive end soon.

WHAT A WASTE OF BANDWIDTH... Time for Garfield to delete this thread!!!

George Bradford
AFV NEWS

For my 2 cents' worth...in the above two photos being used as reference, the Jadgtiger seems to be photographed from a lower angle than the Kingtiger, and if different focal length lenses have been used in each of these photos, then those two factors would have some perspective visual difference between the two vehicles.

I looked at a semi-profile shot of a Jagdtiger in a Concord book and it seemed to be the same as that of a King tiger taken from roughly the same angle. I have to admit that I am somewhat unsure of the point that Gaston is making but I think his point is that the glacis plate of the Jagdtiger is shorter than that of the King Tiger because the Jagdtigers angled hull floor is set at a steeper angle, hence higher off the ground, because the Jagdtiger rides lower. However, since Tamiya does not make a Jagdtiger in 1/48 we have nothing to compare their KT to.

More I look at photos in this series(?) the more the Jagd and King noses look exactly the same. It seems likely the guy that took the Aberdeen Jagd photo was kneeling (or short?). Sure does best explain why the photos of a common chassis would look different.

Also missed the first part - is this about Tamiya 1/48th King not being right or something?

As far as saggy suspension: the old warhorse at Aberdeen is 64 years old and that 64 year old suspenson is holding up about 72 tons of Jagdtiger. After 64 years everything kinda sags. Know what I mean guys?

The Kubinka Jagd not looking nearly so saggy. Shame that the Russkis took better care of their German armor that we did. You can compare photos of the Kuby King and Jagd. You can see photos of both Kuby cats browsing through

http://www.jagdtiger.de/index2.htm

(which is a nice site too!). Same guy was taking pictures of both these tanks. They are side by side at Kuby.

Looking at his photos we can see how the horizontal seam across front meets with side plates and from what we can see of the two undersides... I dunno, Don't see even an inch of diff here much less four. Still, they could be different. For sure it's not glaring out at ya though. Would Jagd chassis side plates have been changed from the King's too? Maybe that would explain what we see.

Only way to tell for sure is measure these cats. We know the tails are different but photos sure make it look like their noses are same.


Also catch a "King" in action on YouTube

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CfbjnQzaBXY

not that it has anything to do with Jadgs but is it cool!

I agree with Uncle Pete.

I looked at the Tigers on the Jagd tiger website and can't see the difference between a Tiger 2 and a Jagd Tiger. However weren't these built at two different plants? I seem to recall that one had nine sets of roadwheels and another had eight. So maybe that is the difference and and the hulls for one were different from the Tiger 2........

I still agree with Uncle Pete.

why in the world would the German's make changes like you are refering to just for a JagdTiger version. (This will be my only post regarding this issue)

If this is what modelling is about... I think I should start getting a life and look for another hobby!

Sorry
Hisham

I go away for three days....leave you guys alone.....and all HELL breaks out!! Woke up Pete, annoyed the crap out of everyone....WOW(capitilized for acentuation!)....just don't answer the post!! Leave it there...let it strangle and die on the vine. Ignore him....who cares?? Not me.....not worth the typing(after this).
Don't make me come upstairs!! Or, downstairs...or wherever you folks are!!
I'm working my way down the posts since I left.....Sturm and Drang everywhere......Bruce!! The Elderberry, QUICK!!!! Left the triple malt Scotch in Atlanta....I need a BIG glass.......

Hi Dave;

I couldn't have said it better.....amen.

I have decided to retire from the field of combat on this one. What we have here is a rehash of the most basic disagreement in model research: photos or drawings..... There generally is no way to solve this sort of argument because the two sides tend not to agree on much of anything, so there is little basis for discussion. All photos and plans "lie" to some extent because they represent a three-dimensional object in a two-dimensional plane. Our job, as model builders who try to research the accuracy of our models, is to interpret the best information and decide what we believe. I use BOTH plans and photos when I can, as this gives a more complete picture than just one or the other.

I am not being a shill for the PanzerTracts team; if their claims are correct (and they have been working on this for 40 years now), all their plans have been researched from actual measurements of the surviving examples of the German AFVs illustrated in their plans and books. If they have been faking it all these years, where do we go? As I said before, at SOME point, we have to trust the folks we have depended on to document historical data. Bearing in mind the very real hazards of interpreting plans and drawings, I can't think of any plans that would be better overall. Some are perhaps more artistic, but for accuracy, as two-dimensional plans, I don't know where else I'll find better drawn references.

Gaston apparently doesn't buy the PT line, and that is his choice. I do, and that is my choice. I met Tom Jentz in 1967 at APG and he was already working on gathering this information. So, I'll agree to disagree with no recriminations or regrets at all. I used to be a "rivet counter" a long time ago, and I still am to the extent that I'll fix and detail stuff as long as it doesn't threaten to kill me...... Elderberry wine, anyone?

This is becoming some sort of challenge to clarify? I am no expert in this field of reserch but if you have a copy of Standard Catalog of German Military Vechicles by David Doyle ( published by KP Books.) There is a picture of a King Tiger on the top of page 91 and a picture of a Jagdtiger on the bottom of page 145. While each picture is taken from different sides they are both from about the same angle and distance from the front. A set of deviders will show that both pictures are close to the same scale. ( I recon quite a few of you fellows would have a copy?)

At this point I will leave it to the experts to elaborate but to me the front areas in question look the same to me.
Off to Fiji at end of the week and will not lose any sleep over King Tigers. It's a tough life but someone has to do it.
Happy research regards Jimbo

After a couple of longnecks, and a good night's sleep, I have decided to lob one last comment from me. Back in the day, when Bruce and I were semi-ambulatory....I was a professional photographer. You learned how to judge angles, compensate for defects and, maybe, make ugly women passably good looking. Besides exposure and lens settings....you learn what DISTORTIONS cameras can create. The most common one??....STAND at the side of a tank....right in the middle....and take your picture. Then KNEEL-take picture....then get up on step ladder-take picture. Develop all three....note that the ruler you propped up against the wheel is ALMOST the same height(break out those dividers).....but the details at the top, or bottom....front or rear...are marginally different. WHOA!! Cowboy....what was that?? Oh yeah, change lens focal lengths....redo the exercise.....Darn!! More discrepancies!! Maybe 5 of the 6 are different... How can that be?? Well, Bucko, it's because you are trying to turn a two dimension something into a three dimension reality. Close, but no cigar, Groucho.
And then, lastly, lets look at "forced perspective"....Now follow me Mr. Marty....
From OVERHEAD, we are looking at (and I am not EXACT in this re-creation...so no measurements) an A& B& C
They look like this: B pretty equally spaced apart(allowing for type setting and computer

A C
spacing "issues"
Now, rotate 90 degrees, from overhead, to frontal....we have A B C. Hmmm, A to B is shorter in the second setting. I must need to clean my glasses?? Now, let's slide- for this exercise- half the distance from deadcenter between A & C to the left. Take more photos.....develop them... Hmmmm, we seem to have A B C. Whoa, Back up the Truth Trolley!! How can this be??
Are we grasping the purpose of this exercise. And finally, how far apart are A to B to C to A, using ANY of the ground pictures?? Hmmmmmmm, AND, the only way to even GUESS at the distance, from the photos, is IF my overhead is EXACTLY.....that's an important word here, Sir.....EXACTLY equidistant from the center each letter...and the lens you used has NO Spherical Distortion- a word to look up in your Funk and Wagnalls....
So, as my esteemed colleague, Mr. Culver and others have mentioned, I will defer to Mr. Jentz and others who have actually climbed on the monster and measured it...with a TAPE MEASURE. Still the safest way.....and the one I trust......
So, as John Boy on the Big Show says, "Shut up and quit ruinin' my life!"

Couldn't this be resolved quite easily by having folks take measurements of the glacis area of both a Jagdtiger and King Tiger/Tiger Ausf. B/Sd/Kfz. 181 (or whatever you want to call it) and make direct comparisons? Measure distance from top of kugelblende to top of glacis plate, then overall height of glacis plate and lower bow plates?

Working off of rather dodgy photographs and making wholly subjective comparisons doesn't seem the right way to approach this, assuming there is any real controversy here with regards to - what? The accuracy of the Tamiya Tiger 2 hull or the differences between the Tiger 2 and Jagdtiger bows? I'll tell you, if there is any difference, I'm not about to rebuild the hull of the Dragon 1/35 Tiger 2 I'm almost finished.

Cheers,

Scott Taylor
Thachweave Products
http://thachweave.tripod.com

...but there isn't a King Tiger or Jagdtiger in the Littlefield collection. Sooo, if someone would like to fund my trip to Aberdeen, I'd gladly take measurements and share them with the group.

Chris "toadman" Hughes
http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com

Hi Chris:

I'm sure that Jacques would like to rectify that situation!

Did you ever get anywhere with Dragon with regards to the whole Sherman photo thing? I never heard anything after that one response a long time ago. I suppose the fact they don't seem to be using photos like that anymore is some sort of vindication.

Cheers,

Scott Taylor
Thachweave Products
http://thachweave.tripod.com

...but I still email them periodically about it. Plus, I'm still boycotting them. Anyways, that's really beyond the realm of this forum so we should continue about it offboard.

I'd like to begin passing the hat around for donations to fund my Aberdeen trip. Remember, we all benefit from my visit there! LOL!!

Chris "toadman" Hughes
http://www.toadmanstankpictures.com

Hello all,

This comparison is very poor indeed. Those photos are taken at different heights. You can see straight through under one and not the other, and straight over the upper hull deck of one and not the other. This will make either the upper glacis or lower glacis plate look longer or shorter. One photo seems to be from a closer position than the other. I don't think the lens of the cameras used are the same either (notice how the track centerlines seem straight out in one photo and diverging in the other). Again, go measure the real thing or give up this ridiculous ranting.


John Anderson

OK I have an extremely fair challenge for you guys...

First, find a frontal photo of the King Tiger where the lower front plate looks deeper than my (or similar) frontal photo of the Jagdtiger.

The above is NOT the challenge. The challenge is to achieve the above without the vertical perspective utterly destroying the argument you are trying to make.

Am I reading this right? The pictures I provided did not even trigger the merest hint of a doubt? My God, I must have touched a sensitive issue...

I will concede the difference could be as little as three inches or maybe even a sliver less as I don't pretend to know an exact measure here. I would say in fact, that the smaller the actual dimension the more remarquable that they actually chose to bother with it... But nothing? No difference at all?
Ouch! People are really fragile these days...

But still, why is it so hard to accept that they all got it wrong?

Tamiya got it wrong, Dragon got it wrong, Panzer Tracts got it wrong.

There is NO recent accurate kit of the King Tiger in 1/48 or above, because they all have a Jagdtiger front end. Is this really such earth shattering news? With all the thousands of reference photos out there there's no one willing to throw me a line here?

Now if that's so, lets see the naysayers provide THEIR photos, since they are so sure of their point. Remember, in my innocent foolishness, I provided
pictures where the lower plates looked EQUAL.

Your challenge, should you choose to accept it...is to provide frontal photos that tilt things the other way almost as far as my above pictures, but this time towards a deeper King Tiger lower plate. The comparison should elicit NO sense of comedic laughter.


If you are right, nothing could be fairer, right?

Shhhhhhhh... Listen to the Eons pass....


P.S. Yes I know, you don't have the time, you've said your last word, etc...Remember though, that the purpose of an education is to be able to accept when you are wrong.
Every month on the same day, I will post the number of months that has passed since I made this reasonable request.

Ohfergoodnesssakes!!!! I've already said I'll MEASURE the REAL THING when I am next at Bovington, where they have the REAL THING. Both of them, in fact. All this bleating on about picking photographs is bollo**s!!! Forget photographs!! If you don't know the focal length, the portion of the original image exposes, the distance and height of the camera relative to the object, then you can prove, or disprove, what you want with photos!! You still haven't spotted the GLARING issue with my CAD iamges yet, which, when, or if, you spot it, will prove highly illuminating!

When I have MEASURED the REAL THING, we'll know. If anyone else can MEASURE the REAL THING in the meantime, let them bring their findings to the table.

Now, about those canals on Mars.....


Tim

www.fighting48th.com

Is to do what Tim intends, go to Bovington and measure the real thing. I think it would be fair to say that Gaston should compensate Tim for the time and effort Tim spends to sort out this tempest in a teacup that Gaston has brewed up, if he is incorrect. Until then, we don't need any more inconclusive photos, nor monthly reminders. Go build a model or something, or better yet, try this approach on the 1/35'ers forums. I'm sure some of the know-it-alls there could make short work of it.

Life is too short to become entangled in some esoteric and futile argument, so in the immortal words of the Rolling Stones, "Hey! You! Get offa my cloud!" .

Malcolm

Sigh..... OK, go measure the bl**dy things, both of them. THEN, if you can, take pictures of both with the camera exactly the same distance away from the vehicle, same height, same focal length - you get the drill. Bet you dollars to doughnuts both vehicles will be the same. Of course, the dollar is worth practically nothing these days, so what do I have to lose..... (I do love doughnuts, of course.) Call it a win-win situation: if you prove Gaston is mistaken, I can avoid throwing all my PanzerTracts into the bonfire, and if you prove Gaston is right (and the earth reverses drectional rotation), then ALL known references are wrong, and we don't have to worry about scale accuracy; such a thing does not exist. We build only OOTB, and have fun, fun, fun 'til our Daddy takes our T-Bird away..... Woo-woooo, woo-woo, woo-woo......

I think what the real issue here, as has been pointed out by myself and others, is the fact that Mr. Marty is refusing to recognize the fact that both pics have NOT been taken from the exact same height and distance which causes a visual perpective difference.

MAYBE FROM MARS..
Ok, standing on the MOON, and looking back at earth, using sun light reflected from MARS and looking through the HUBBLE device left in space by the AMERICANS I can CLEARLY see that Marty GASton is correct and the TAMIYA King Tiger is ALL WRONG...Looks more like A Steel Wheel Panther..
Argument over, Marty, YOU WIN!!
Later, PEACE OUT..
Pete

Oh Pete, Where have you been....so succinct...so obvious. Can we set up donations for Mr. Marty to travel there to obtain the right perspective?? You know, I think after the Aliens intercept out email emissions....this will be the mornings topic of conversation.....on the Planetwhogivesa****....just inside Hisanus......a minor planet....barely visible....and rarely thought of........To paraphrase-"Mr. Marty-Always with those negative waves, Man...." quoteth Oddball
Last post....I promise....I'm going to look at the VAST improvement in Pat's second figure. THAT is worthy of note!!

It doesn't really matter. You say that the height of the front angle on the two vehicles may be three inches different. That amounts to about 1.5mm in 1/48. Curiously, this is also the size of the problem that you allege to exist with the Tamiya Panther (which I notice you have stopped trying prove as you focus your efforts on this Tiger II issue). Even if it were true, it's just not a large enough problem (literally) that everybody should pitch their Tamiya models in the garbage. I mean, anybody can if they want to, but not because Gaston told them to.

Here's another thing. You have said that in a moment of epiphany you figured out why the Germans did this hull modification from the basic Tiger II: In order to provide the Jagdtiger with a higher front prow so that it wouldn't get hung up on obstacles. That is simply nonsensical. Even if the weight made it ride lower, the chance that three inches would make a difference is very small. Further, any obstacle that would prevent the Jadgtiger from riding over it would have to be narrow enough that it didn't span width of the vehicle, but instead just stuck up in the center between the drive sprockets. This is because if the obstacle were wide, the tracks would be on it and the height of the drive sprockets would carry the front of the vehicle up over it.

Further, the obstacle would have to be sturdy enough to halt the Jagdtiger if it caught on the front hull point, but flexible enough that it would bend and slide under the vehicle if it hit on the lower front hull plate instead.

All of this defies probability. The whole point of using the existing Tiger II hull for the up-gunned Jadgtiger was to rationalize production to whatever degree possible. There is no way the the Germans would assume the loss of efficiency associated with changing the front hull in order to achieve a three in difference in plate join - just to guard against the the off-chance that a Jadgtiger would hit the very specific kind of obstacle described above. If there is a difference (which has not been establised) there would have to be another reason for it.

I don't know why I decided to take exception to this particular silliness at this point in the thread. I guess it's because EVERYTHING that you say lacks any foundation for believing it (and this baseless claim just sort of further demonstrates that theme) so I couldn't let it go.

CRACK HEAD!
Tod, I forgot to mention, while I was ON THE MOON....looking through the HUBBLE...I had a nice long conversation with Dr. Porsche and Albert Speer, who told me..NOTHING was done to change the Jagdtiger front hull, the whole idea was to make production quicker and easier...and the GAS MAN is just on CRACK....
Now I suggest we take Dave's advice and head on over to check out Pat's INCREDIBLE FIGURE PAINTING....(GREAT JOB, PAT!!), before we wake George Bradford up, then we'll BOTH be in BIG trouble...
Later,
Pete