Advertising Last completed movie pages
MIAG Jagdpanther SP AT 8.8cm Gun (Sd. Kfz. 173) 
Ep. 1.04Class: Others, Military armored vehicle — Model origin: 
00:35:39 ![[*]](/res/star.png){kind=small}
Minor action vehicle or used in only a short scene
Comments about this vehicle| Author | Message |
|---|---|
|
◊ 2006-09-29 23:08 |
German tank. |
|
◊ 2006-09-30 01:25 |
Jagdpanther tank destroyer (actually a replica made for the movie) |
|
◊ 2006-10-06 14:02 |
Jagdpanther SP AT 8.8cm Gun (Sd. Kfz. 173), built by MIAG (Mühlenbau-Industrie AG). If it is the real thing that is. |
|
◊ 2006-10-06 14:03 |
do we enter MIAG as make? |
|
◊ 2006-10-06 15:03 |
I am generally not convinced if we should list the make with armored vehicles at all. I'd just stick to the military designation tbh. A Cadillac Sherman A4? Sounds ridiculous to me and is not true anyway. Military vehicles are designed according to Army specifications and then the production is tendered to the industry, so more than likely more than one company is awarded with a contract. I am sure the Jagdpanther was built by other companies as well, maybe even as a joint venture. These were Government (tm) orders won by the industry. So albeit the design and production of the chassis of the Jagdpanther was initially made by MIAG (Daimler-Benz also built a proposal, but it was dismissed), they had armament by Krupp, or Thyssen, or Rheinmetall, the engines were Maybach, the gearboxes probably ZF or MAN, and god knows who else had a hand in building them. I think MIAG was struggling producing enough Jagdpanthers (sic) and Büssing-NAG, MAN, Borsig, O&K and god knows who else jumped to the rescue. Things became more and more chaotic the more the war progressed due to shortages and bombed out facilities and one has to wonder who built what in the end and how it was possible at all. Fact is that Jagdpanthers were still built in 1944, but who can say where and by whom? |
|
◊ 2006-10-06 18:49 |
I understand and can agree with this historical point of view... Now, the problem is to classify these armored vehicules in the lists where the makes are first entrance field |
|
◊ 2006-10-06 18:57 |
We could put all of them in a fake "Made for Army" make -- Last edit: 2006-10-06 18:57:55 |
|
◊ 2006-10-06 23:08 |
Not a good idea. That's like putting all Formula 1 cars under 'Made for Sports'! Usually military vehicles are private ventures, sometimes prompted by a government demand, sometimes designed for the global military market. Dropping the makers name doesn't make any sense. And that military vehicles like all other vehicles use parts manufactures elsewhere is old news. Even the very first cars (Benz, etc.) were not completely home made. Today a great deal of components are outsourced. |
|
◊ 2006-10-06 23:27 |
But for some race/sport cars it would be better, when they do not really have a make  |
|
◊ 2006-10-08 02:59 |
Well, if we stick to Alexander's suggestion, then we have to add MIAG to the manufacturer's list. I'm still not convinced that this is the right way to list them. -- Last edit: 2006-10-08 02:59:24 |
|
◊ 2006-10-08 14:31 |
We already three other vehicles listed under MIAG make. |
|
◊ 2006-10-13 12:19 |
You are right when a vehicle is only built by one manufacturer. But quite a few were built by numerous companies and I don't mean each made components, they built the entire thing, a bit like railway equipment. The way it works is that an Army does the basic design and then invites bids from the industry. Interested companies then submit proposals for evaluation and in the end one of them is awarded a contract. In war times, demand can vastly outgrow supply, so contracts would be awarded to other companies too. Now when that happens, which manufacturer would you like to use? The one that built it initially? The one that built most of them? In wartime Germany - and I bet in England and USA likewise, contracts were awarded to multiple manufacturers from the very beginning of production. In that case it would be impossible to determine a certain make. And in WWII Germany things became more and more convoluted as war progressed due to bombed out factories and production moved to whatever location was still available, including abandoned mines. In the end it was downright chaotic and one has to wonder how there still was any output at all. Who was the manufacturer then? |
|
◊ 2006-10-13 16:01 |
so we say: Reichswehr Jagdpanther Bundeswehr Leopart 2 US-Army M2 Halftrack |
|
◊ 2006-10-18 13:17 |
I'd just say Jagdpanther Sd. Kfz xxx, Leopard II and M2 Halftrack, since especially the latter two were/are used by numerous other armys. |
|
◊ 2008-01-30 15:02 |
just list it as "made for movie"..there are no "Jagdpanther" parts anywhere in its construction..i believe the base vehicle was a Soviet T55 or similar with prop dished spats added to the wheels..its not a T34 though. |
|
◊ 2010-03-16 23:37 |
I found the best way to classify prop vehicles is by the name of original surrogate chassis - I track vehicle in my files as a T-54/55 'Jagdpanther.' Without a serial number or some other manufacturer code there is no way to know if this vehicle is Czech, Polish or Russian built. We don't even know if was a upgraded T-54. |
|
◊ 2010-03-31 14:11 |
Maybe it would be an idea just to enter the official military designation eg. "M4 Sherman" in the make field and list the manufacturer in the extra info ("built by Chrysler"). I know that doesn't follow the rules of the site but at it might group tanks together more clearly for people. -- Last edit: 2010-03-31 14:11:57 |
|
◊ 2010-03-31 15:54 |
It would generate lots of "makes" in the makes list. Mayne rather have a generic "Made for Army" make |
|
◊ 2010-03-31 21:04 |
No, I'm with Alexander on that one. I've just thought, if something has been designed to resemble a real vehicle and it's not too far off, maybe "Replica" would be better than "Made for Movie". |
Add a comment Advertising Advertising
