Jagdtiger 305009

[Stef N.]

Next year I have the Takom Jagdtiger (Porsche variant) to build and I am looking for an interesting paint scheme. This following one pops up in books and online, and although it looks good, it doesn't seem very legit. Does anyone have any evidence that this existed or is it just an artists fantasy?

 

[Jochen Barett]

Would this

 

https://imgur.com/t/jagdpanzer/r6KlCy3

 

count?

[Stef N.]

A bit battered.😀 Although one does show where the zimmerit was put on which is very handy.👍

[Retired Bob]

On 31/12/2021 at 08:32, Stef N. said:

Next year I have the Takom Jagdtiger (Porsche variant) to build and I am looking for an interesting paint scheme. This following one pops up in books and online, and although it looks good, it doesn't seem very legit. Does anyone have any evidence that this existed or is it just an artists fantasy?

Hi Stef, I have the Dragon Jagdtiger (Porsche suspension) in the stash.  As you are probably aware there were not many of these built as the suspension was weaker than the Henschel type.

I haven't found any photos of these "interesting" schemes that turn up only on profiles, most appear to be in base coat sandgelb.  I have found one that is in a book but I cannot find online, it is camouflaged but lacks zimmerit.  It does have Porsche suspension and the 18 tooth sprockets and early tracks though.  I'll try and find some details for it.  

 

 

 

 

[Kingsman]

There were only 10 production Jagdtigers with the Porsche-pattern supension, plus the original mild steel prototype.  So there isn't a lot of scope for free-forming "interesting" colour schemes, unlike those vehicle types built by the hundereds or thousands.  AFAIK all but 2 of them of them had Zimmerit: the original prototype 305001 and last one built 305012 apparently did not.  But if you enlarge the top photo you can make it out on that vehicle, and even un-enlarged you can see the top edge clearly, 

 

The top and bottom photos appear to be the same vehicle (note the odd vertical stripe towards the hull side rear) and I believe it might be the Bovington survivor 305004.  Note the back of a 17cm Grille in the top photo, and we know that the Bovington vehicle was captured at the Sennelager test/training establishment and not in combat.  I don't know whether it is known definitively, but it seems likely that all the Porsche-suspension JTs served with 653 schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung as they got their vehicles in Sept 44, some months before 512 schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung got theirs in Feb 45.

 

Photo images seem to show overall dunkelgelb as being by far the most likely finish. You have 3/4 of the 11 in these pictures and all are dunkelgelb.  As there were so few I would be cautious of doing anything other than copying a period photo.  You have greater latitude for "interesting schemes" with the later type on the Henschel suspension as there were 70-odd of these built.  How many of those saw action is unclear: the last 10 or 12 built may have been too late.

 

Artistic interpretations and renderings of anything from WW2 must be considered untrustworthy unless backed up by period imagery.  That includes kit box art and painting instructions.  Even then, monochrome images might show patterns but cannot show colours and period colour images are not colour-accurate because of the limitations of early colour film.  Fortunately German WW2 colours are well known (notwithstanding endless arguments about which model paint brand is "best").  All the colours in those drawings are way off.  The top drawing is just a copy of the scheme applied to the surviving Henschel-suspension Jadgtiger which used to be at Aberdeen Proving Ground (now at Fort Benning??) and is entirely fictitious - like the yellow-spotted dunkelgrau scheme the Bovington vehicle wore for decades until finally repainted back to documented dunkelgelb capture colour about 5 years ago.

[Stef N.]

Thanks guys for the advice. I suspected some of the paint schemes looked too good to be true. At least with straight DG it is such a big canvas that I can use it as a bit of a mule to try out a few different paint techniques.👍

[Lazy Modeller]

8 hours ago, Stef N. said:

Thanks guys for the advice. I suspected some of the paint schemes looked too good to be true. At least with straight DG it is such a big canvas that I can use it as a bit of a mule to try out a few different paint techniques.👍

 

 

The vast majority of camouflages were done in the field, and by personnel most of the time not qualified for the purpose, and as such the vast majority were simply horrible, except for some that would probably be done by someone who had a little artistic vein. As such, if we try to do something similar, it will also be... horrible! This, like everything else in life, has to be taken with a grain of salt... after all, we always want our models to look beautiful...

Cheers

LM

[Kingsman]

37 minutes ago, Lazy Modeller said:

The vast majority of camouflages were done in the field, and by personnel most of the time not qualified for the purpose, and as such the vast majority were simply horrible, except for some that would probably be done by someone who had a little artistic vein. As such, if we try to do something similar, it will also be... horrible! This, like everything else in life, has to be taken with a grain of salt... after all, we always want our models to look beautiful...

Cheers

LM

And if we were dealing with 10,000+ StuGs, 8,000-odd PzIV, 7,000-odd PzIII or 6,000-odd Panthers I would wholeheartedly agree.  But there were only 10 Porsche-suspension JTs and I suspect that if you look long enough you wll find photos of all of them. In this case IMO there is no latitude at all for any artistic licence.  Apart from the vehicle itself 653 schwere Panzerjäger-Abteilung is well-documented with loads of online references.  There is even a whole book on the unit, although Amazon will fleece you about €250 for a copy.

 

I see a lot of "artistic licence", "my model, my way", "I don't care that it's wrong/unrealistic/impossible" and "it's just a toy" arguments on Facebook modelling forums.  This dismays me greatly for the development of the hobby and the future effort in debunking what will undoubtedly become future "modelling fake news".  As an entirely personal view - other views are available - I make no apologies for prioritising realism over artistry.  In The Bad Old Days of grainy monochrome photos in a few books which as youngsters we couldn't afford and which the library didn't stock we had excuses for lack of knowledge and getting it wrong.  Now we are drowning in online information that keeps us poring over Google searches for half the day and night and are in danger of collapsing our floors under the weight of our own libraries of better and affordable books.  So, very many fewer excuses for lack of research and for getting it wantonly wrong then.........  Maybe now there's just too much information to cope with!

[Lazy Modeller]

I agree with what you say. Maybe I didn't explain well because my English is like Chinese.. What I wanted to say is that the camouflages were made with the purpose of camouflaging depending on the area of operations and were made by whoever was available, so leave as you could.

Most are ugly, but they served their purpose, and no one will copy them, but some that can give value to the model. Some are even so primary that they end up being quite appealing. For example, there is one of a Famo 11 made with splashes of a brush with muddy earth and which turned out to be simply beautiful...

As far as I'm concerned, I try to give it some authenticity, but without being fixated on it, because what counts for me is the pleasure of making models. Of course, there are those who like to have authenticity above all, but it's like everything, everyone knows what gives them the most pleasure.

Cheers

LM

[Stef N.]

There's this one @Das Abteilung I'm not sure if it is any good but was cheap so it's on its way to me.

 

https://www.amazon.co.uk/Combat-History-German-Heavy-Anti-Tank/dp/0811732428/ref=sr_1_1?crid=1ODYOOUTJJYO2&keywords=653&qid=1641924614&s=books&sprefix=653+%2Cstripbooks%2C70&sr=1-1

[Tigerausfb]

Hi chaps, in the four photos above, second is 305009 of s.Pz.Jg.Abt 653, 1,3&4 are of Bovingtons 305004.

 

Andrew

[Stef N.]

45 minutes ago, Tigerausfb said:

Hi chaps, in the four photos above, second is 305009 of s.Pz.Jg.Abt 653, 1,3&4 are of Bovingtons 305004.

 

Andrew

There's some great, clear photos of that one. Might have to look for some narrow, transport tracks though.

[Yorkshire man]

I've found this photo of 102...

 

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/jagdtiger/jagdtiger-102/

[Stef N.]

That's exactly like the one drawn in the colour profile.😉😀 (It looks a really tough camo scheme to be honest and I'm not sure where I would start with that?!)

[Seahawk]

4 hours ago, Yorkshire man said:

I've found this photo of 102...

 

https://www.worldwarphotos.info/gallery/germany/tanks-2-3/jagdtiger/jagdtiger-102/

Well, it's a Jagdtiger with side number 102.  Are we sure it's a Porsche suspension one or that it belonged to 653?  The Muench book has (p.329) two US Army photos of 653's 102 "abandoned and destroyed near Rittershausen during the withdrawal from the Hagenau forest" (which is the vehicle and location the profile purports to depict).  It has suffered catastrophic damage (I'd suggest from demolition by its own crew): LH casemate and hull sides blown out, gun barrel and mantlet missing).  The photos are grainy and it is rather smashed up so I can't be categorical but I'd say it's in overall Dunkelgelb.  The photograph above also looks as if it was taken after the tide of war had passed (children playing on it) but the subject is cosmetically intact.  It also seems to show a heavy overspray in 2 colours.  I'd suggest it's a different 102, unless of course it was subsequently blown up by the US Army (in which case why?).

 

To me also it doesn't show the same camouflage as the top profile in the artwork.  I seem to see a heavy overspray in 2 colours and in a "swirly"pattern, which is rather different from the "squares" in the profile.  Bottom line: I'm not convinced the profile is an accurate depiction of either 102.  It does however show the high Zimmerit demarcation line of 653's 102 correctly.

[Lazy Modeller]

The X7 isn't an option?  Seen some in Wydawnictwo Militaria 80...

Cheers

LM

[Tigerausfb]

I'm assuming the reference to page 329 of KH Munch's 653 book must be a different edition (which I don't have) to the original Fedorowicz edition I have, so I think those photos you mention appear on page 492 in the latter.  I'd suggest these photos were taken post war or at least after '102' had been bulldozed off the road, the barrel gas axed off and additional demolition charges exploded in readiness for scrapping. Earlier photos of the wreck when it's in the middle of the road show likely?? demolition charges placed by the crew, with the mantlet blown out, superstructure joints cracked and one bogie station destroyed but the left side is intact.

 

 

Andrew

 

 

On 1/12/2022 at 11:59 AM, Seahawk said:

 The Muench book has (p.329) two US Army photos of 653's 102 "abandoned and destroyed near Rittershausen during the withdrawal from the Hagenau forest" (which is the vehicle and location the profile purports to depict).  It has suffered catastrophic damage (I'd suggest from demolition by its own crew): LH casemate and hull sides blown out, gun barrel and mantlet missing).  The photos are grainy and it is rather smashed up so I can't be categorical but I'd say it's in overall Dunkelgelb.  The photograph above also looks as if it was taken after the tide of war had passed (children playing on it) but the subject is cosmetically intact.  It also seems to show a heavy overspray in 2 colours.  I'd suggest it's a different 102, unless of course it was subsequently blown up by the US Army (in which case why?).

 

To me also it doesn't show the same camouflage as the top profile in the artwork.  I seem to see a heavy overspray in 2 colours and in a "swirly"pattern, which is rather different from the "squares" in the profile.  Bottom line: I'm not convinced the profile is an accurate depiction of either 102.  It does however show the high Zimmerit demarcation line of 653's 102 correctly.

 

Edited January 13, 2022 by Tigerausfb
Pic