Those are the comments Daglish makes on page 256 but in his conclusions on page 263, he states: ..."Early-arriving German antitank weapons unknown to von Luck might possibly have accounted for von Rosen's Tiger losses." I acknowledge it's a left turn conclusion to his previous comments, but to give him the benefit of the doubt, I believe he had previously cited the short distance from Cagny to grant the possibly that something less than an 88 could have done the deed. I only have Daglish's summary of the account of the action but he states that the Tigers in moving south encountered British tanks, destroyed them, in the process found the Tiger sights had been messed-up by the bombing, continued south, toward Cagny their assigned sector, when the lead Tigers were destroyed. Daglish's account does not present von Rosen's acts so much as an attack but an attempt to set-up a defense facing west between Cagny and Manneville. Given his damaged sights and the apparent fact that he had lost the race to Cagny which now seemed occupied by a powerful new British weapon, he withdrew to defend what he already held. It stands to reason Daglish's summary would match a piece of evidence that he would present later, but I got to believe he found no other candidates for the two known destroyed Tigers, even if they were not visually definite. And full credit to Daglish for specifically stating what he could and could not see. And thank you for sharing the additional imagery. Always fun to study!!!