Jump to content

Entwicklungserie


Greetings! I started playing War Thunder a couple months ago and I'm greatly enjoying it thus far. I'm a WWII historian with years of studies specializing in the history of the German military and while I have a few questions regarding the game, there is one topic I'd like to address here: The "E-series." I'm afraid you're in for a rather long read, but I hope you'll take the time to get through it.

 

Now, before the community bashes me for this, I would like to say that, while I have played World of Tanks, I am fully aware of the historical inaccuracies of Wargaming's Entwicklungserie vehicles and the many "fake tanks" and false specs that have arisen from a very large community that takes interest in German developments (and those of other nations). I am not here to plead for Wargaming's impossible E 75, nor am I here to beg for the fake third-party website creations such as the "E 5," "Krokodil," and other nonsensical fantasies. I am here, rather, to discuss the strictly-historical aspects of two vehicles, the E 50 and E 75 and why I feel it would be a wise decision, provided more research is done, to replace existing vehicles with these two or to add them on their own. I may, at times, touch on hypothetical historical situations, but only to solidify and better explain the historical aspects of these tanks. Thank you for your time and I hope you enjoy the read.

 


The Entwicklung series has always fascinated me. While its vehicles were never built, the design ideas still provided the modern world with quite a few ideas that are still implemented to this day. The historical aspect of "what-if" is also quite an amazing and mind-boggling part of what makes these designs stand out despite their obscurity. World of Tanks has helped to improve publicity for these projects, but in a rather poor way. Nowadays, most people believe the E series vehicles were nearly complete designs, practically identical to the tanks we see in Wargaming's franchise. The problem with implementing any Entwicklungserie vehicle is that people will, undoubtedly, pitch a fit about the E 75 lacking a 128mm gun or the E 50 being stuck with the "stock turret." However, there are also holes in War Thunder's German GF tree, which we shall explore first.

 

The idea of replacing existing vehicles stems from the in-game "Tiger II (H) 10,5cm" and "Panther II." While these vehicles were certainly real concepts, their implementation has several problems.

 

Firstly, the Tiger: While there was indeed a proposal to mount the 105mm L/68 gun in the Tiger Ausf. B, it was rejected primarily because of the lack of one-piece ammunition, the modifications needed to mount the weapon in the turret, and the fact that other developments were also being proposed to increase the effectiveness of the Tiger's already good enough 88mm gun. A version of the Tiger II with a 105mm gun would more likely have mounted a larger turret than what is presented in game. There also is not room for four people and a 105mm breech in that turret to allow for effective combat. That is the biggest problem with War Thunder's Tiger. Another issue we run into is the two-piece ammo, which is the reason for the second loader. As previously stated, the two-piece ammunition is likely the primary reason that the first proposal for the 105mm gun was rejected, but as far as I've been able to confirm, the team that made this proposal did indeed look into creating new one-piece ammo for the gun. In the end, the gun was never mounted, but if it were, it is virtually impossible that two-piece shells and a sixth crew member would've been present as well. Additionally, the turret probably would have been lengthened, with improved fume extraction for the larger weapon.

 

Now for the Panther: Fortunately, there is more information available regarding this project. Long story short, it was borne of the need to improve the Panther's side and rear armor protection as even the lightest guns of the time could penetrate these plates. Armored protection was to increase to 60mm on the sides of the hull, with the upper front plate updated to 100mm. They planned to use an up-armored version of the Schmallturm designed for the Panther F, and there were proposals to mount the 88mm gun from the Tiger E or B in this turret, but concerns regarding the available space within the small turret for such a gun, as well as other factors, meant that the final decision was to retain the excellent 75mm gun of the Panther I. Speaking of the Tiger, a large number of Tiger I components were to be mounted in the new Panther. The engine was already shared between the Tiger and Panther, but plans were made to implement the Tiger's transmission, identical road wheels, the final drive, running gear, and other features to the Panther II, while the design for the Tiger II's simplified overlapping suspension was to be utilized. However, problems with the original panther needed to be sorted out, and work on development slowed. In June of '43, however, MAN started development of the E 100 to compete with Porsche's Maus, but we'll touch more on that later. In the end, one of the most important things to grasp from this is the standardization of part production between the Tiger II and Panther II, wherein production of a single type of transmission, road wheel, etc was intended. The other important thing to note is the idea of improving the Schmallturm's armor and mounting a Kwk36 or Kwk43 in it. 

 

 

Now for the vehicles in question. The Entwicklung E 50 and E 75 were, by very nature, quite similar in design. We don't have a lot of info regarding these concepts, but we do know that they existed and the basic ideas in their conception. The Panther II's final cancellation was in part due to the development of the E-series, developed by MAN, which got its roots in the development of the Panther II. Sharing the transmission, engine, and a dozen other components between the Panther and Tiger was, in a way, the spark behind the concept of "Entwicklung," translating to "development." This "development" was more of a development in regard to German production rather than the development of "new" or "improved" vehicles, but the need for simplified production facilitated the redesign of current vehicles, which, in turn, allowed for their improvement. Germany's involvement in WWII started before German industry was ready for a war (thanks to that one mustached buffoon). Tank production, in particular, was horrendously complicated. There was poor communication between manufacturing firms, and putting a tank together often took multiple trips across the autobahn to get the various parts where they were needed. The Entwicklung project was intended to standardize production between these firms so that a lack of coordination wasn't a problem.

 

For example, every single vehicle in the Entwicklung series was to utilize an identical wheel. This would make production faster, cheaper, and more consistent, and would allow easier repairs in the field. Does this concept involving road wheels sound familiar? It ought to ring a bell as it's been mentioned that utilizing road wheels (among other parts) identical to those of the Koenigstiger was a central idea in the development of the Panther II. In hand with the simplification of production for Entwicklungserie vehicles was the simplification of the tanks themselves. Both concepts influenced the other and allowed for greater advancements in the designs of German armor. For example, the conical spring suspension system, developed as a simplification of the interleaved system and overlapping torsion bar system, also offered better performance, which would make heavier designs more feasible. The Tiger B, for example, was capable of high speeds of around 42kmh, but even with a more powerful engine, and final drive, its speed would need to have been kept under 50kmh else the suspension risked failure. Other aspects of design, such as reduced amounts of machining and casting, made faster production possible, cutting out unnecessary features and finesse to allow emphasize function for the designs. This was true for all vehicles of the project, but we'll focus on the designs of two for now: The E 50 and E 75.

 

 

First off, we'll examine the myths of these two vehicles, and why this is important. I won't discuss other vehicles (real or fake) such as the "StuG E 50" or any "Flakpanzer E 75" stuff. This is about the medium and heavy tanks, and not their counterparts.

 

E 50: The E 50 as presented in WoT is actually not too far-fetched in design. While the "upgraded" turret and most of its various weapon options are indeed nonsense, the armor layout is close. Sadly, in my years of research, I have found no source that confirms specific armor specifications for either the E 50 or E 75. There is also no true indication of whether the armor sloping was to be increased to 60-degrees from the vertical, as opposed to 50 for the King Tiger. The E 50's design stems directly from the Panther II, and was virtually a continuation of the project. In all honesty, the Panther II's prototype is extremely close to what the E 50 would have been, save for altered suspension and powerplant. The biggest question, however, is that of the armor. Would the Panther II's armor schematic be retained? Or would the armor of the Tiger II be used?

 

While the Panther II was heavily influenced by the Tiger and design for the Tiger B, the direct development of the E 50 from the Panther II's design suggests that the armor layout of the Panther II's hull and turret were to be used for the E 50. The turret would likely have needed lengthening to accommodate the 88mm Kwk43, but this weapon is stated as the intended armament for the E 50. One may notice from WoT that, in the E 50 and E 75, the Radio-operator's machine gun is absent, but it is unlikely that this weapon would have been removed, even with the simplification of the designs. The problem is, we don't really know. Other than that, we have our E 50 pretty solid.

 

E 75: Oh my. Where do I begin. Let's start by saying that the gun, turret, and armor of World of Tank's E 75 are incorrect because 1) they are impossible, 2) they were never proposed, 3) they don't exist, 4) physics says "no," or other reasons I won't get into. I could go into a deep explanation of why these things are nonsensical, but I'll just focus on what the E 75 was designed as, which, in turn, will explain the problems with the World of Tanks myth of the E 75. The E 75 is a bit more of a mystery than its lighter counterpart. We know that it was proposed as a replacement for the King Tiger, that it had improved armor from the E 50, had an additional set of road wheels for improved ground-track contact, but was otherwise very similar to the E 50. One large question surrounding the E 75 is that of the turret and armament. According to some sources, the E 75 was to mount a 105mm gun in an enlarged version of the Tiger II's turret. Other sources indicate the use of same turret and gun as the E 50... You may be wondering why this is. So am I. The design makes no sense. There is no point in producing a separate hull and chassis with improved armor and mounting the same weapon on it. German tank doctrine defines tanks as "heavy" or "medium" and so on based on its gun, not its armor, so there are three options regarding the E 75. The first option goes in line with the use of the Schmallturm and 88mm gun for the E 75. The 88 was more than adequate at the time, so perhaps the intent was to mount the 75mm gun chosen for the Panther II in the E 50 with the 88 reserved for the Tiger II's replacement. This seems logical at first glance, but quickly loses its grip when one considers the intent to upgrade the Tiger II to a 105mm gun once one-piece ammunition and other improvements were made. The 75mm gun of the panther was superb in 1943, but struggled against later models of the IS-2 and, by mid-1945, would have needed a replacement to effectively fight heavier armor designed to withstand its shells such as the IS-3 and M-26. Therefore, the use of the 75mm gun in the E 50 makes no sense, so the use of the 88 in the schmallturm for the E 75 makes no sense. The proposal for the E 50 featured the 88mm anyway, so this isn't really an option in the first place, but it is the only feasible scenario that would suggest the use of the same turret with an 88mm gun for the E 75.

 

Our next option lies in the use of the 88mm gun in the Tiger II's turret. With this, there is more logic, but it still falls a bit short. The idea behind this suggestion lies in the fact that the army had rejected the 105mm gun proposal for the Tiger II for reasons stated earlier. The improvements intended for the Tiger II are what separate this tank from the E 50, even though they both mount the same gun. With an improved ammunition feeding system, enhanced ventilation and climate control, and other new features, the E 75, mounting this turret, would still have a weaponry advantage over the E 50, as the Schmallturm was not large enough to facilitate the installation of these enhancements. The production of such a vehicle depends on one thing: the acceptance of the 105mm gun. Based on the time frame presented in history, this model would likely have been developed as the first prototype of the E 75, as the 105mm gun would have been introduced later on as the problems with its implementation were solved. In the end, though, only one option logically answers the question of the E 75's armament.

 

Mounting a 105mm gun in an enlarged Tiger II turret is really the only choice that makes sense. By the time the Entwicklungserie vehicles would have been finalized and entered production (probably late 1946 or early 1947), the 105mm gun would have been accepted with one-piece ammo and other improvements (likely mid-late 1945). (Note: I include these estimates not to explore alternate timelines, but to base this information on what had already occurred during the development of these vehicles and their weapons. I am not making stuff up, but rather, I am giving background ideas to allow for easier conceptualization of actual historical events and developments. Just hang with me for a little longer!) Because of this, it is unreasonable to suggest an alternate armament for the E 75. The 105mm gun is indicated as one of only two proposals for the vehicle's armament, and considering the illogical background of mounting an 88mm gun, it is improbable that any other weapon would be mounted in the production model of the E 75.

 

Now for the armor... Oh my. To keep this not-so-long, I'll put it this way. If the armor of the E 50 was going to be the same (or similar) to the Panther II, the E 75 would have identical (or nearly identical) armor to the Tiger II. The only problem is, I've read some sources indicating a suggested thickness for the upper front glacis plate on the E 75. Some sources have indicated the same thickness presented in World of Tanks, 160mm, but others have indicated a plate 180mm thick. Here is where that gets fishy. The Tiger II's upper glacis plate was 150mm thick, sloped at 50 degrees from the vertical, giving an effectiveness of 233mm. However, some sources indicate that the frontal hull armor plating on the E 50 and E 75 was to be sloped at 60-degrees from the vertical, just like the E 100. I will do more research regarding the sloping another time, but if we use the suggested thickness in reference to the same structural layout of the Tiger, a 160mm plate sloped at 50 degrees gives 249mm of effectiveness, and a 180mm plate gives 280. This actually makes sense when considering the development of heavier weapons on the side of the Allies, and the Tiger's armor would have proved itself obsolete within a few years. I have found no source to indicate that the armor of the E 50 and E 75 were to have increased sloping angles either, so 50 degrees it is. But wait! We don't have proof that the E 75 was to receive improved armor when it was proposed. At the time of its proposal, the Tiger II was incredibly well armored. We could go into the idea that armor would have been improved by the time it entered production, but that is hypothetical, so we won't go into that. However, recall that some sources indicate 160 or even 180mm thick plates. This is fine and dandy, but there aren't any sources I've been able to find that suggest armor improvements of the turret face, known by the Allies to be less-armored than the hull front. While the emphasis on the design of the Tiger II turret and Schmallturm was the use of a strong gun mantlet and narrow turret face, improving the Tiger II's frontal hull armor to up to 280mm of effectiveness makes no sense when the rest of the armor is to remain as is on the Tiger. To sum this up, the E 75 would have the same armor as the Tiger II, at least as far as history can tell us. Anything beyond that is hypothetical, so we can't discuss that. With respect to the E 50, we can easily assume that it retains the Panther II's armor thickness because it was virtually a simplified version of the Panther II design. This combination gives the E 75 improved armor over the E 50, but without making numbers up (unlike WoT).

 

One problem left: Weight.

From the outset, the E 50 is intended to weigh between 50 and 75 tons. The E 75 to weigh between 75 and 100 tons. The Panther II prototype, as it stood, weighed in at about 47 tons. If we consider the simplified running gear and other features meant for the E 50, it is still unlikely that the E 50 would have weighed over 50 tons. The same goes for the E 75 in that a Tiger II weighed around 70 tons. The added weight of the 105mm gun would be partially offset by the simplified construction. In particular, both tanks are made lighter by the use of conical spring suspension, which removes the long, heavy steel rods that ran across the bottom of the hull. So what now? The Germans had a tendency (basically with every single tank design) to underestimate the weight of their vehicles. Where did the Tiger II pick up an extra 5 tons? Well we don't know. They never built the E 75. However, take into account the intention to improve fuel capacity. Add in the heavier Maybach HL234, the 105mm shells (including an upgrade to increase stowage), the infrared rangefinders*, and other little improvements, and we might squeak out around 75 tons. But hey, the weight classes were done so to stay in line with the E 100, which ended up being much more than 100 tons. However, given the origins and armor layouts etc of the E 50 and E 75, these vehicles would have been lighter, and that the weight classifications were made as "50-75" and "75-100" because there was the chance that weight would be underestimated as was with the E 100, which was developed as competition to the Maus, which also came out heavier than it was supposed to be. These weight classifications may also have been specified to make the Allies believe that, indeed, these E 75 tanks had heavy enough armor to weigh between 75 and 100 tons, yet were still capable of outrunning Allied tanks, leading to a wild goose chase of development. Speaking of speed, it is stated that the proposals for the E 50 and E 75 were to reach 60 and 40kmh, respectively, and, with the use of the Maybach HL234 (and perhaps other engines later on), improved final drives, and other improvements under development at the end of the war, this is completely reasonable.

 

So what are we left with? Well, you may be sitting there thinking "yeah, cool story, but they still never built either tank. All they had from the E series was the E 100, and that's all that should ever be in War Thunder because it's the only one that physically existed." Here's the thing. Are they any "less-real" than the Tiger II 105 and Panther II in the game currently? The Panther II's only prototype was a completed hull, and the turret still had not been finished. The Panther II project team had also decided not to use the 88mm gun, not to mention the difficulty in mounting it. With respect to the Tiger II 105 in-game, it never existed as it is presented, and never would have existed in that way. The two-piece ammunition was grounds for the refusal of the 105mm gun until further developments could be made, and there really wasn't room for a second loader to operate effectively when you consider the reduction of internal space caused by the installation of any 105mm gun. To reiterate, neither tanks existed as they do in-game. Even the Tiger II Sla.16 is oddly represented. The only test I've been able to find for the Sla.16 engine has been with a Jagdtiger, and extensive modification to the Tiger hull was needed to accommodate the engine, therefore preventing it from being tested further that late in the war. Other engines make more sense, such as the DB 507 development, but we still have such tanks to enjoy in the game, which I'm fine with.

 

My argument is not to bash the Tiger 105 and Panther II of War Thunder, but there are gaps filled for these vehicles due to the fact that they were never completed in history. Gaijin needed to make slight changes to make them feasible additions to the game. The Tiger II 105 and Panther II are not "fake tanks," but neither are the E 50 and E 75, and there are fewer questions surrounding the historical designs for these tanks. It would be wise to, perhaps, implement these tanks as improvements over the Tiger and Panther, or as replacements. My suggestion would be to exchange the Panther II's armament for the historical 75mm gun, retain its armor, and reduce its BR. For the Tiger, I think it can be left as-is, but with the reduction of the loader. The E 75's "enlarged" tiger II turret, based on what I've been able to dig up, was the same size as the Tiger's. The only indication of change I've seen has been a slight lengthening of the turret rear, but there is no concrete evidence to suggest an "enlarged" turret. The E 75 in-game would feature similar characteristics of the Tiger 105, but would have slight cosmetic changes, and, most importantly, a faster-firing gun with one-piece ammunition. The armor would be identical to the Tiger II, as would the crew. I would suggest implementing these vehicles in the same manner as vehicles such as the Pz.Kpfw IV J or the Bf 109 F, in that they are optional vehicles in the research tree.

To sum that up: The Tiger II 105 loses the sixth crew member, slightly lowering its BR due to decreased survivability, and the Panther II loses the 88mm gun, essentially making it an up-armored Panther F, which is exactly what it was designed to be. The E 75 also lacks a sixth crew member, but has one piece ammunition and a correspondingly higher fire rate and BR, and the E 50 mounts the 88mm gun for a similar BR increase.

 

If you've made it here, thank you for taking the time to read this! I apologize for the occasional rambling, but if you have any questions, I encourage you to ask! Thank you for your time

Edited by __Herr__
  • Like 8
  • Thanks 2
  • Upvote 21

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, in theory the E-series could fill the games of immediate post war vehicles in the german tech tree in place of the 10.5cm Tiger II and Panther II. However, those tanks were never built in metal ergo, at least Im speculating that this might be the reason they arent included, they were never tested so their true performance is very hard to extrapolate. Using tanks that are at least 90% based on existing tanks makes that a lot easier and more accurate. 

Edited by builder396
medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd love to see the Entwicklung tanks that have so much in common with existing tanks in game that they can semi-truthfully be implemented. I don't see anything wrong with the E-100, for example. IF enough information is available and IF they don't deviate too much from the tanks we already have in game, I say why not? It'd be better than the current Tiger II 10,5cm, which IIRC would not be able to fit the breech in the turret in real life. They were meant to be improved versions of tanks we already have in game, with more interchangeable parts. This means that Gaijin can use the tanks we already know in game as a basis for creating the E-series. If a feature of the Entwicklung tank at hand is not feasible or when there's quite simply no information about it, Gaijin can fall back on the existing tanks they were based on and use the corresponding features on those tanks for the E-series. This way you get no fantasy aspects to the tank (in fact, less fantasy than the Tiger 10,5cm), as too far-fetched aspects would be replaced with existing aspects from existing tanks. This way you have fully feasible Entwicklung tanks.

I think Germany needs these "what-if" vehicles to fit into the immediate post-war era. An exception could be made for the Entwicklung series

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Edit:

I did a bit more digging because I couldn't remember if the glacis layout that's portrayed for the E 50 and E 75 was the same as the Tiger II or the E 100... I found the info and my understanding is that, rather than keeping the 50-degrees sloping of the Tiger, the E 50 and E 75 instead featured the 60-degrees sloping of the E 100.

 

20 hours ago, builder396 said:

Yes, in theory the E-series could fill the games of immediate post war vehicles in the german tech tree in place of the 10.5cm Tiger II and Panther II. However, those tanks were never built in metal ergo, at least Im speculating that this might be the reason they arent included, they were never tested so their true performance is very hard to extrapolate. Using tanks that are at least 90% based on existing tanks makes that a lot easier and more accurate. 

 

I understand what you are saying, but the Tiger II with a 105mm gun was never built either, and the Panther II never got past a hull prototype. The Panther II's issue in War Thunder is that it mounts the 88mm L/71 gun, which was decided against when the Panther II was designed. If War Thunder were to exchange this gun for the actual armament, the 75mm L/70, that would be ideal, but would leave Germany without a competitive medium tank for that BR... therefore, E 50

 

With the Tiger, there was the potential to mount the 105mm gun, but it was not accepted because it would have been a pain to install and wasn't really any more effective than the 88 because of that two-piece ammo.... the Tiger 105 in War Thunder simply doesn't make sense because of this two-piece ammo problem and the addition of a fourth crew member in the turret. An E 75 would make a bit more sense as we honestly have enough information to make a realistic (and perfectly historical) vehicle. I think making a few changes to the Tiger and Panther and adding the E 50 and E 75 to join them would be the best option.

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't mean to be offensive, but I find it a bit suspicious whether you actually did years of study as a historian on the E-series, considering there are some glaring mistakes in your post, at least as far as my amatuer research taught me on the subject. I'd like to see sources if what I'm about to say is whong. I'll use mostly Panzer-Tracts, and Hilary Louis Doyle writings in general, as source.
 

On 12/11/2017 at 12:07 AM, __Herr__ said:

Now for the Panther: [...] They planned to use an up-armored version of the Schmallturm designed for the Panther F, and there were proposals to mount the 88mm gun from the Tiger E or B in this turret, [...] the final decision was to retain the excellent 75mm gun of the Panther I. Speaking of the Tiger, a large number of Tiger I components were to be mounted in the new Panther. The engine was already shared between the Tiger and Panther, but plans were made to implement the Tiger's transmission, identical road wheels, the final drive, running gear, and other features to the Panther II, [...] In June of '43, however, MAN started development of the E 100 to compete with Porsche's Maus, [...] The other important thing to note is the idea of improving the Schmallturm's armor and mounting a Kwk36 or Kwk43 in it.


From Panzer Tracts 5-4, the Panther II project was born and died all before the Schmalturm was even named. The term might indicate a general trend of turret design, with almost-flat but narrow front, and in this case the designed turret for the Panther II certainly filled the description, but the turret meant for the Panther F "Schmalturm" was never meant for the Panther II, nor were any 88 guns, only the standard 75mm Panther I gun. Also, while the transmission was to be shared with the Tiger II, it was that one instead that was initially menat to use the same AK 7/200, later chaged to the Olvar B with preference to use the same in the Panther II too if possible, but in the end resulting in different transmission used on the two tanks.
One other think, source Panzer Tracts 6-3, it was Krupp and not MAN that designed the Tiger-Maus, the E-100 previous name, and in September-November 1942.
 

 

On 12/11/2017 at 12:07 AM, __Herr__ said:

[...] The Panther II's final cancellation was in part due to the development of the E-series, developed by MAN, which got its roots in the development of the Panther II.


The Panther II cancellation happened after the introduction of the Panther I schutzer, and in general when switching to different production tools was deemed not worth it, that it may have influenced the  E-series shared components, it's possible.

 

 

On 12/11/2017 at 12:07 AM, __Herr__ said:

There is also no true indication of whether the armor sloping was to be increased to 60-degrees from the vertical, as opposed to 50 for the King Tiger. The E 50's design stems directly from the Panther II, and was virtually a continuation of the project. In all honesty, the Panther II's prototype is extremely close to what the E 50 would have been, save for altered suspension and powerplant.[...]

While the Panther II was heavily influenced by the Tiger and design for the Tiger B, the direct development of the E 50 from the Panther II's design suggests that the armor layout of the Panther II's hull and turret were to be used for the E 50. The turret would likely have needed lengthening to accommodate the 88mm Kwk43, but this weapon is stated as the intended armament for the E 50. One may notice from WoT that, in the E 50 and E 75, the Radio-operator's machine gun is absent, but it is unlikely that this weapon would have been removed, even with the simplification of the designs. 



These seem to be original drawings, and you can see how the frontal plate angle is different than the one of the Tiger II.

Spoiler

E50&70+sketch+a.jpg
E+75+calc+sheet+2.jpg
E50+calc+sheet+1.jpg

 

You also seem to think the Panther II was almost a late war project, similar to what the Tiger II is to the Tiger II, but that is not the case. As you can see here

Spoiler

oTjj59M.png


that was a mistake corrected by Spielgerger already in 1999.

The E-50 and E-75 would have also shared the same hull shape and dimension

Spoiler

2mzz386.png


so since that is mostly in the range of the Tiger II one, the E-50 can't be almost a Panther II.

Now, I know this is a WoT related blog, but Doyle made a statement that was reported there, so that's why I'm linking it
http://overlord-wot.blogspot.it/2012/06/wot-transmission-response-from-mr-doyle.html
 

Quote

Any additional information published on E50 or E 75 besides that in Panzer Tracts No.20-1 and Spielberger's  Band 8 Special-panzerfahrzeuge  is merely fantasy and should be labelled as such. 

I'm waiting for a copy of Spielberger's  Band 8 Special-panzerfahrzeuge at the moment, but as you can see from the previous image from panzer Tracts 20-1, no mention of any gun was made, so no proposed 88.

And in regards to the hull MG being removed, the E-100 and Maus didn't have one wither, neither the paper Indienpanzer nor Leopard I, as that feature was deemed unnecessary already from the end of WW2.


 

On 12/11/2017 at 12:07 AM, __Herr__ said:

[...] We know that it was proposed as a replacement for the King Tiger [...] According to some sources, the E 75 was to mount a 105mm gun in an enlarged version of the Tiger II's turret. Other sources indicate the use of same turret and gun as the E 50... You may be wondering why this is. So am I. The design makes no sense. There is no point in producing a separate hull and chassis with improved armor and mounting the same weapon on it. [...] The proposal for the E 50 featured the 88mm anyway, so this isn't really an option in the first place, but it is the only feasible scenario that would suggest the use of the same turret with an 88mm gun for the E 75.


The E-75 was supposed to replace the Tiger II and Jagdtiger, the E-50 the Tiger I and Panther IIRC.

Same arguments for no gun listed.

Use of same turret could be due to easier manifacture, that was the reason for the hull shape and simensions being the same, same gun though I don't know, and, again, no gun listed.

 

 

On 12/11/2017 at 12:07 AM, __Herr__ said:

Our next option lies in the use of the 88mm gun in the Tiger II's turret. With this, there is more logic, but it still falls a bit short. The idea behind this suggestion lies in the fact that the army had rejected the 105mm gun proposal for the Tiger II for reasons stated earlier. The improvements intended for the Tiger II are what separate this tank from the E 50, even though they both mount the same gun. With an improved ammunition feeding system, enhanced ventilation and climate control, and other new features, the E 75, mounting this turret, would still have a weaponry advantage over the E 50, as the Schmallturm was not large enough to facilitate the installation of these enhancements. The production of such a vehicle depends on one thing: the acceptance of the 105mm gun. Based on the time frame presented in history, this model would likely have been developed as the first prototype of the E 75, as the 105mm gun would have been introduced later on as the problems with its implementation were solved. In the end, though, only one option logically answers the question of the E 75's armament.

 

Mounting a 105mm gun in an enlarged Tiger II turret is really the only choice that makes sense. By the time the Entwicklungserie vehicles would have been finalized and entered production (probably late 1946 or early 1947), the 105mm gun would have been accepted with one-piece ammo and other improvements (likely mid-late 1945). (Note: I include these estimates not to explore alternate timelines, but to base this information on what had already occurred during the development of these vehicles and their weapons. I am not making stuff up, but rather, I am giving background ideas to allow for easier conceptualization of actual historical events and developments. Just hang with me for a little longer!) Because of this, it is unreasonable to suggest an alternate armament for the E 75. The 105mm gun is indicated as one of only two proposals for the vehicle's armament, and considering the illogical background of mounting an 88mm gun, it is improbable that any other weapon would be mounted in the production model of the E 75.


Speculation.

 

On 12/11/2017 at 12:07 AM, __Herr__ said:

Now for the armor... Oh my. To keep this not-so-long, I'll put it this way. If the armor of the E 50 was going to be the same (or similar) to the Panther II, the E 75 would have identical (or nearly identical) armor to the Tiger II. The only problem is, I've read some sources indicating a suggested thickness for the upper front glacis plate on the E 75. Some sources have indicated the same thickness presented in World of Tanks, 160mm, but others have indicated a plate 180mm thick. Here is where that gets fishy. The Tiger II's upper glacis plate was 150mm thick, sloped at 50 degrees from the vertical, giving an effectiveness of 233mm. However, some sources indicate that the frontal hull armor plating on the E 50 and E 75 was to be sloped at 60-degrees from the vertical, just like the E 100. I will do more research regarding the sloping another time, but if we use the suggested thickness in reference to the same structural layout of the Tiger, a 160mm plate sloped at 50 degrees gives 249mm of effectiveness, and a 180mm plate gives 280. This actually makes sense when considering the development of heavier weapons on the side of the Allies, and the Tiger's armor would have proved itself obsolete within a few years. I have found no source to indicate that the armor of the E 50 and E 75 were to have increased sloping angles either, so 50 degrees it is. But wait! We don't have proof that the E 75 was to receive improved armor when it was proposed. At the time of its proposal, the Tiger II was incredibly well armored. We could go into the idea that armor would have been improved by the time it entered production, but that is hypothetical, so we won't go into that. However, recall that some sources indicate 160 or even 180mm thick plates. This is fine and dandy, but there aren't any sources I've been able to find that suggest armor improvements of the turret face, known by the Allies to be less-armored than the hull front. While the emphasis on the design of the Tiger II turret and Schmallturm was the use of a strong gun mantlet and narrow turret face, improving the Tiger II's frontal hull armor to up to 280mm of effectiveness makes no sense when the rest of the armor is to remain as is on the Tiger. To sum this up, the E 75 would have the same armor as the Tiger II, at least as far as history can tell us. Anything beyond that is hypothetical, so we can't discuss that. With respect to the E 50, we can easily assume that it retains the Panther II's armor thickness because it was virtually a simplified version of the Panther II design. This combination gives the E 75 improved armor over the E 50, but without making numbers up (unlike WoT).


See, from that Panzer Tracts 20-1 scan, you can see the proposed engine and transmission would have been housed in the back of the tank, but from the blog link, even Doyle admits it was not possible with that hull design. That is beccause these two tanks were mostly relegated to secondary designers, and were not given high priority, and so, they don't completely make sense. Were the war still going on in 1947, maybe if they would have been given priority a new hull design, who knows, like the E-50 M in WoT perhalps, would have been designed, but as fas as we know, there were only proposals, that didn't even fit together. So any armor walue is preliminary at best, likely not considerign the internal layout of the tank, as the engine+transmission and hull combination did not consider that too.

Other than that, still speculaiton, the gun thing, and the Panther II not mattering anything at that point.
 

 

On 12/11/2017 at 12:07 AM, __Herr__ said:

But hey, the weight classes were done so to stay in line with the E 100, which ended up being much more than 100 tons. [...] the E 100, which was developed as competition to the Maus, which also came out heavier than it was supposed to be.


The E-100 was born as the Tiger-Maus, and so it was not bounded by a 100 ton target, it was actually heavier in the beginning, it got lighter, before being cancelled. When it was resurrected as the E-100, because why design a new tank when you can just borrow a cancelled design, the 100 ton target was sort of considered, as the new turret knupp adapred for it had thinner side armour, but still, reducing the weight too much would have meant redesigning the tank radically, and Adlerwerke was not experienced with that, they just redesigned the suspension system and started producing it how the design was.

 

 

On 12/11/2017 at 12:07 AM, __Herr__ said:

Are they any "less-real" than the Tiger II 105 and Panther II in the game currently?
The only test I've been able to find for the Sla.16 engine has been with a Jagdtiger, and extensive modification to the Tiger hull was needed to accommodate the engine, therefore preventing it from being tested further that late in the war.


Half and half, the Panther II in-game is a modern mistake, but the E-50 and E-75 might not be complete enough historically to be anything other than that. The gun thing, the fact that the hull shape would't even fit the components proposed, the suspension wheels, the way they were proposed for the E-50 can't be realistic, with just 1 wheel-disk at a time, the weight would have been too much.

Spoiler

e75r-e50-conical-suspension-ga.jpg


IIRC this was one of Porsches engines that was proposed at some point for the Maus actually. An X-16 diesel.


All in all, I'm happy to be disproven if you have the sources, as I'd be interested in knowing more about these two tanks, but as far as I know, these are the problems

  • Like 3
  • Upvote 6
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, builder396 said:

TL;DR: E series (apart from the partially built E-100) were basically napkin projects and information about them is incomplete and in part conflicting. 


Not necessarily, the E-10 and E-25 were more defined, probably due to the kind of war the german were fighting in the end, and in post war interrogations Heinrich Ernst Kniekamp, Chief Engineer of Waffenpruefamt 6, reported a few hulls of both taks having been assembled, although none were found. Source again Panzer Tracts 20-1.

  • Like 1
  • Upvote 2
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...
On 21.11.2017 at 1:39 PM, Chupambrico said:

See, from that Panzer Tracts 20-1 scan, you can see the proposed engine and transmission would have been housed in the back of the tank, but from the blog link, even Doyle admits it was not possible with that hull design. That is beccause these two tanks were mostly relegated to secondary designers, and were not given high priority, and so, they don't completely make sense. Were the war still going on in 1947, maybe if they would have been given priority a new hull design, who knows, like the E-50 M in WoT perhalps, would have been designed, but as fas as we know, there were only proposals, that didn't even fit together. So any armor walue is preliminary at best, likely not considerign the internal layout of the tank, as the engine+transmission and hull combination did not consider that too.

 

Rear mounted transmission and engine were proposed and we do know that French used these rear mounted transmission designs or designs derived from these designs after the war on various vehicles of their own. After all ZF Friedrichshafen AG designed them turing the war and after. For example AMX M4 from 1945 uses one of these rear mounted ZF transmission.

 

Also looking at the original preliminary drawings it is pretty obvious that they were designed to have front mounted transmission. This suggests that they were either very early designs or plan B in case they couldn't get the rear mounted transmissions into production. Vehicles with rear mounted transmission would have been completely seperate designs obviously.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, KorEEnium said:

 

Rear mounted transmission and engine were proposed and we do know that French used these rear mounted transmission designs or designs derived from these designs after the war on various vehicles of their own. After all ZF Friedrichshafen AG designed them turing the war and after. For example AMX M4 from 1945 uses one of these rear mounted ZF transmission.

 

Also looking at the original preliminary drawings it is pretty obvious that they were designed to have front mounted transmission. This suggests that they were either very early designs or plan B in case they couldn't get the rear mounted transmissions into production. Vehicles with rear mounted transmission would have been completely seperate designs obviously.


Yes, what I understood from what I read is both E-50 and E-75, having been assigned to compainies not used to designing tanks, did not go through traditional and effective design phases, as you said some components like engine and transmission were essentially complete, but even just the hull design was overlooked to the point of not actually being made to fit the complete designed components.

In the meantime I got my 2012 copy of Special Panzer Variants by Spielberger, but it seems it is still a reprint of the old copies, as the E-100 is still shown with the Maus-like turret, not mentioning the turret design found around 2008. Panzer Tracts seems to be the most up to date source of info still. I'm still waiting for Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933 - 1945 by Fritz Hahn, but I read that while some technical details can be trusted, most conclusions he reaches as one not of the field have to be carefully considered. Still, there should be some info on the E-series there too.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1.12.2017 at 1:44 AM, Chupambrico said:

Yes, what I understood from what I read is both E-50 and E-75, having been assigned to compainies not used to designing tanks, did not go through traditional and effective design phases, as you said some components like engine and transmission were essentially complete, but even just the hull design was overlooked to the point of not actually being made to fit the complete designed components.

I can't really back up my theory but it seems to me that they originally had a plan to make E 50 and E 75 with as many already exisitng componenets as possible and make these vehicles share parts with Panther II / Tiger II designs. After all Panther II and Tiger II are already like the very first iteration of the E-series as they use and share various componenets. And this is where these preliminary drawings probably originate from. But at some point later they figured it was not worth the trouble and instead they decided to completely redesign E 50 and E 75 with new rear mounted transmission, final drive, engine etc. This means that the prelimianry drawings we have are very early designs that could date back to early 1943. And I have no doubt that later designs of E 50 and E 75 also had drawings with these new changes taken into account but either got lost, stolen or destroyed at the end of the war.

 

Also if we look at one of the E 50/75 drawing we can see that it has panther Ausf.D turret. This suggests that this design is from early, mid 1943.

G7fuWZc.png

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Im are of those that would love to see the E50 and E75 replacing the actual Panther II and Tiger 105mm...

First of all, and apart of everything...

  • The actual Panther II with the 75mm KwK44 at 6.7 would fit well maybe if we give it the /2 version that Skoda was working at the end of the war in mock-ups...
  • The actual Tiger 105mm hidden...
  • Add the E50 with 88mm KwK44 gun at 7.0
  • Add the E75 with 105mm KwK46 gun at 7.0

 

Now... as i saw in some sites... there were autoloader desings made for the 75mm KwK44 gun, in the variant /2 made by Skoda, in a single site i read that if the 75mm KwK44/2 were sucessfull, they would try to implement it for the 105mm proposed in the E75 once the single piece ammo were ready and aproved...

About the 88mm KwK43 L71 in the E50 turret, it could be a different round, a more fat case but shorter, with the more shorter gun breech and ammo the 88mm L71 could fit more well in the Shmallturm designed for the Panther F, and of course enlarging the turret ring and now we have the 88mm KwK45 (MAYBE AS CALLING THAT)...

  • Upvote 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There was also an autoloader design for the 8.8cm L/71 capable of being fitted to either Jagdpanthers or Tiger IIs (though Ferdinands and Nashorns might have been feasible they werent planned) which housed 6 rounds. Might also be worth considering as at least an idea to give the germans an edge at 6.7 to 7.7 BR. 

 

But I agree on the Skoda version of the Kwk44 being a nice catch that might be worth something. 


But the E-series I still wouldnt really touch with a long stick. 

medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What I see is that there are two distinctive and very different variants of E 50 and E 75.

 

Early E 50 and E 75 --- based on these preliminary drawings: 

Spoiler

9HqICoN.png

IFv1Vn0.png

 

Most likely based on Tiger II hull:

                                              E 50/75    --- Tiger II
Height of the hull from the ground:            1870mm    ---  1860mm
Height of the hull:                            1370mm    ---  1365mm
Ground clearance:                               500mm    ---   495mm
Sprocket wheel diameter with track:            1020mm    --- ~1020mm
Idler wheel radius:                             330mm    ---   330mm
Road wheel diameter:                            800mm    ---   800mm
Distance between first and last road wheel:  3850/4095mm --- ~4100mm

Mystery measurement from sprocket to ???:      5496.5mm  --- ~5500mm

Front lower plate angle (from vertical):         50°     ---    50°
Rear plate angle (from vertical):                30°     ---    30°

Hull weight:                                40.8/60t     ---    55t

Standard front mounted transmission and final drive just like on Tiger II. Probably uses mostly already exisitng components. Including transmission, final drive, steering unit, engine, cooling system, turret etc.

 

 

 

Late E 50 and E 75 --- Completely new design.

 

New hull design with new layout that differs from every other german tank. Transmission, final drive and steering unit are now a single large component and mounted in the rear together with the engine. Late E 50 and E 75 share parts with each other but most likely very few with other vehicles. New improved engine.

 

 

 

Conclusion:

Early E 50/75 is based on existing design. Uses as many parts with already existing vehicles as possible.

Late E 50/75 is completely new design with new components that are not shared with other vehicles.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

From here, Hilary L. Doyle:
 

Spoiler

Of course, behind our summary I have collected some seventy pages of original documentation.  Most are original calculation sheets on possible drive train and suspension ideas.  My drawings are based on the sketches attached.  Clearly, these first thoughts and proposals on future Panzer requirements were never given any priority and as the war situation deteriorated.  To me the “real“ engine/transmission package designers from Maybach never actively got involved and the armour designers certainly had not considered how a rear drive might be mounted.  What we see are proposals “that are the best ideas since sliced bread” being pushed by fringe companies and they certainly had no authority to  design the necessary new armoured hull.


From here
 

Spoiler

The E series was envisaged by Kniepkamp (Civilian Head of Automotive design) to explore future possible components especially engines, transmissions and suspensions.  Production contracts were not yet envisaged.

 

From here
 

Spoiler

As mentioned in my answer for Question 30 the E series was envisaged by Kniepkamp (Civilian Head of Automotive design) only to explore future components especially engines, transmissions and suspensions.  Production contracts were not yet envisaged so we do not know that then next steps might have been.


And from another interview I can't find at the moment he says probably 90% of the original documents got lost after the war, so I guess it's possible a newer design was made, but from what Doyle says, it sounds like they were never really given priprity and were left uncongrous and uncomplete.

Found it.
 

Spoiler

53: How much information is there yet to be discovered in old German wartime archives? Has everything pretty much been looked thoroughly, or is new or under-examined material still surfacing?

Probably less that 10% of the documentation generated during Panzer development from 1928 to 1945 has survived. A most was destroyed at the end of the war and sadly quite a lot since then. During the seventies and eighties we visited many companies and fortunately we were given access to archive materials but now the material we saw has “vanished” In other cases when we arrived at companies we got the response “it is a pity you did not visit last year before the man in charge of our old archives retired and as we have no need to keep old paper they have been destroyed” At the Bundesarchiv the 80/20 rule applies to research – probably 80% of the information has been found as it is the part relatively easy to search. Definitely there is additional information to be located but it will take a long time to find the materials as they are not filled in the expected locations or have yet to be catalogued. There is even a small chance to find new facts by accident when researching other matters. The greatest success for Panzer Tracts has come from researching all of different archives in many countries and developing an understanding of what files are worth investigating. Private and specialist collectors also add finds from time to time. New finds are very important as sometimes they throw light on and explain other data from old research that may not make sense.

 

Edited by Chupambrico
  • Sad 1
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For example in case of E 25, development was halted at some point and then revived in January of 1945 after Entwicklungskommission decided that this design was still worth pursuing. By "coincidence" ZF was supposed to finish the rear mounted final drive, transmission unit for E 25 in the beginning of 1945.

To me it seems that they were just waiting for designs of crucial components to be finished before they continued development / finalized the deigns of these vehicles. After all these new rear mounted final drive, transmission units required completely new hull designs. Without the final drive, transmission unit they can't design the hull.

  • Upvote 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well now... a lot has been said since I last visited the thread.

 

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:39 AM, Chupambrico said:

From Panzer Tracts 5-4, the Panther II project was born and died all before the Schmalturm was even named. The term might indicate a general trend of turret design, with almost-flat but narrow front, and in this case the designed turret for the Panther II certainly filled the description, but the turret meant for the Panther F "Schmalturm" was never meant for the Panther II, nor were any 88 guns, only the standard 75mm Panther I gun. Also, while the transmission was to be shared with the Tiger II, it was that one instead that was initially menat to use the same AK 7/200, later chaged to the Olvar B with preference to use the same in the Panther II too if possible, but in the end resulting in different transmission used on the two tanks.
One other think, source Panzer Tracts 6-3, it was Krupp and not MAN that designed the Tiger-Maus, the E-100 previous name, and in September-November 1942.

I used "Schmalturm" as a general term rather than to define the project. I am in agreement with your comment with respect to the Panther F's "Schmallturm," but during the meetings in which design elements for the Panther II were discussed, it was suggested that they would implement the same turret rather than designing an only slightly different turret, which meant that any form of 88mm gun was now out of the question.

I'm not sure what you're trying to say in your comments regarding the transmission, but the Olvar B was ultimately decided on, from what I can tell, to be the intended transmission.

Krupp was contracted by MAN. Apologies for my lack of clarity.

 

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:39 AM, Chupambrico said:

I don't mean to be offensive, but I find it a bit suspicious whether you actually did years of study as a historian on the E-series, considering there are some glaring mistakes in your post, at least as far as my amatuer research taught me on the subject. I'd like to see sources if what I'm about to say is whong. I'll use mostly Panzer-Tracts, and Hilary Louis Doyle writings in general, as source.

btw, no offense taken. I came back to make some edits to my post, but I'm sure there are mistakes. I don't consider myself an expert on the E series (it's virtually impossible to be one given the lack of information available), but when I said "years of study," I was referencing my research on Germany in WWII in general, but I've always had a focus on Armor and Aircraft.

 

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:39 AM, Chupambrico said:

The Panther II cancellation happened after the introduction of the Panther I schutzer, and in general when switching to different production tools was deemed not worth it, that it may have influenced the  E-series shared components, it's possible.

Not sure what you mean by this... The Panther II's development had slowed into obscurity, but considering when the project was officially cancelled, it seems that the Entwicklung project was what took over, and design elements from the Panther II certainly had a large impact.

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:39 AM, Chupambrico said:

These seem to be original drawings, and you can see how the frontal plate angle is different than the one of the Tiger II.

  Reveal hidden contents

E50&70+sketch+a.jpg
E+75+calc+sheet+2.jpg
E50+calc+sheet+1.jpg

 

You also seem to think the Panther II was almost a late war project, similar to what the Tiger II is to the Tiger II, but that is not the case. As you can see here

  Reveal hidden contents

oTjj59M.png


that was a mistake corrected by Spielgerger already in 1999.

The E-50 and E-75 would have also shared the same hull shape and dimension

  Reveal hidden contents

2mzz386.png


so since that is mostly in the range of the Tiger II one, the E-50 can't be almost a Panther II.

I believe I came back and corrected my comment regarding the glacis layout. I agree with your statement in regard to the glacis arrangement and apologize for my initial mistake. Indeed, the E 50 and E 75 were to share the same 60-degrees sloping of the E 100.

 

I don't believe I ever said the Panther II was a late-war idea, but I apologize if I gave this impression. I am aware that the project started late in '42, but the most progress was made in 1943, after the Panther I had shown most of its shortcomings, hence the intention to utilize the Tiger's transmission and final drive etc.

 

What I meant by saying that the Panther II and E 50 were very similar was that the E 50 would likely have included the same (or very similar) armor specifications. I am aware that the E 75 and E 50 share the same (give or take a couple inches due to armor) hull size. 

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:39 AM, Chupambrico said:

I'm waiting for a copy of Spielberger's  Band 8 Special-panzerfahrzeuge at the moment, but as you can see from the previous image from panzer Tracts 20-1, no mention of any gun was made, so no proposed 88.

And in regards to the hull MG being removed, the E-100 and Maus didn't have one wither, neither the paper Indienpanzer nor Leopard I, as that feature was deemed unnecessary already from the end of WW2.

I know that the 88 was discarded as a possibility early on, but I remember reading that it was at least mentioned and explored as a possibility in the 1943 meetings.

I know I gave the impression that it was likely that the E 50 and 75 would retain the bow MG, but that was a mistake. I agree with you based on your comment, but at the same time, isn't this just speculation? Speculation is, unfortunately, a big part of this.

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:39 AM, Chupambrico said:

Speculation.

Yes, but it is the only conceivable path for development to have gone down. If you can provide a source indicating what weapon was officially designated for these vehicles, I'd be more than happy to read it, but I'm afraid, for reasons I stated in the OP, that there is no other real logical choice in armament. German's designated tanks as "heavy" or "medium" or whatever based on gun caliber, and there is no sense in mounting any other weapons in the E 50 and E 75 than the 88mm and 105mm, respectively, as we know that the 88 was intended for the E 50 due to its origins in the Panther II project.

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:39 AM, Chupambrico said:

See, from that Panzer Tracts 20-1 scan, you can see the proposed engine and transmission would have been housed in the back of the tank, but from the blog link, even Doyle admits it was not possible with that hull design. That is beccause these two tanks were mostly relegated to secondary designers, and were not given high priority, and so, they don't completely make sense. Were the war still going on in 1947, maybe if they would have been given priority a new hull design, who knows, like the E-50 M in WoT perhalps, would have been designed, but as fas as we know, there were only proposals, that didn't even fit together. So any armor walue is preliminary at best, likely not considerign the internal layout of the tank, as the engine+transmission and hull combination did not consider that too.

Other than that, still speculaiton, the gun thing, and the Panther II not mattering anything at that point.

Well I don't recall even mentioning the implementation of a rear-mounted transmission, but you and I both know that such a vehicle was impossible if the guidelines of the E 50 and E 75 are retained. The glacis arrangement is indeed a bit confusing given the internal layout, but otherwise, I don't see any holes that need filling.

 

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:39 AM, Chupambrico said:

The E-100 was born as the Tiger-Maus, and so it was not bounded by a 100 ton target, it was actually heavier in the beginning, it got lighter, before being cancelled. When it was resurrected as the E-100, because why design a new tank when you can just borrow a cancelled design, the 100 ton target was sort of considered, as the new turret knupp adapred for it had thinner side armour, but still, reducing the weight too much would have meant redesigning the tank radically, and Adlerwerke was not experienced with that, they just redesigned the suspension system and started producing it how the design was.

I am in total agreement with this. I had merely based what I said on the "resurrected" idea. Yes, indeed, the original Tiger-Maus was much heavier in design. It was basically MAN and Krupp flipping the bird at Porsche for his Maus.... it seems that after they cooled down a bit and put the bier down, they thought to themselves "hey, what if we actually made this thing, but in a way that actually makes sense."

 

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:39 AM, Chupambrico said:

Half and half, the Panther II in-game is a modern mistake, but the E-50 and E-75 might not be complete enough historically to be anything other than that. The gun thing, the fact that the hull shape would't even fit the components proposed, the suspension wheels, the way they were proposed for the E-50 can't be realistic, with just 1 wheel-disk at a time, the weight would have been too much.

Not sure what you mean with respect to components not fitting in the hull. Do you mean this because of the glacis arrangement and the internal space lost? I haven't found sufficient sources to indicate this problem... I also am curious as to the information with regard to the E 50's road wheels. Where can I find this info?

On ‎11‎/‎21‎/‎2017 at 5:39 AM, Chupambrico said:

IIRC this was one of Porsches engines that was proposed at some point for the Maus actually. An X-16 diesel.


All in all, I'm happy to be disproven if you have the sources, as I'd be interested in knowing more about these two tanks, but as far as I know, these are the problems

The Porsche engine proposed was an 18-cylinder engine, not a 16-cylinder. The Sla.16 was essentially a conglomeration of a bunch of different engine makers, and it's design was based primarily on the X-18.

 

Most of the sources I've used have been internet sources (primarily images of some of the documents you posted) or books I've had at my disposal. Sadly, I don't have many books, but one that you may want to check out is Germany's Secret Weapons of World War II by Roger Ford. There isn't much info regarding tank development, and the author is clearly biased towards the Panther (I will never understand why so many historians are like this), but it's a good read for some of the other chapters, chiefly those involving aircraft.

 

With regard to the discussion about rear-mounted transmissions, I don't think it's feasible for any such vehicle to be considered. There just isn't enough documentation to be able to feasibly come up with a design, and I have doubts that such a design would be accepted anyway given the large distancing from traditional german tank design. I feel like this discussion could really go down the rabbit hole (I'm talking to you, MAN's Panther), but with all the hypothetical what-if's regarding anything from an earlier demise for Hitler from an assassination attempt or whatever, I don't think the rear-mounted transmissions would have come to light for a very long time if at all.

 

Lastly, about the E 25, my understanding is that this project was abandoned due to the progress made with the Jagdpanzer 38 (d) development. Does anyone have more info regarding this?

 

Thanks for reading another text wall :)

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 14.12.2017 at 9:00 PM, __Herr__ said:

With regard to the discussion about rear-mounted transmissions, I don't think it's feasible for any such vehicle to be considered. There just isn't enough documentation to be able to feasibly come up with a design, and I have doubts that such a design would be accepted anyway given the large distancing from traditional german tank design. I feel like this discussion could really go down the rabbit hole (I'm talking to you, MAN's Panther), but with all the hypothetical what-if's regarding anything from an earlier demise for Hitler from an assassination attempt or whatever, I don't think the rear-mounted transmissions would have come to light for a very long time if at all.

ZF was already working on rear mounted transmission, final drive units. And they were developed far enough turing the war that after the war french used them on their own tank designs already in december 1945.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

On ‎12‎/‎18‎/‎2017 at 1:11 PM, KorEEnium said:

ZF was already working on rear mounted transmission, final drive units. And they were developed far enough turing the war that after the war french used them on their own tank designs already in december 1945.

 

I am aware that the transmission systems themselves were well developed,  but what I mean is that the concept wasn't suited for existing designs and wouldn't have worked in the original layout shown for the E 50/75. Surely, rear-mounted transmissions would've appeared in later German designs, or maybe even in later stages of the E 50/75 development, but the concept layout that we have doesn't allow for such a design.

 

btw, I just noticed your tag and interests. I concur o7 :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The french got their hands on most of the things regarding future german tank development, took it and produced them on their own after the war to build their own tanks. It's pretty obvious that they got inspired by Gerlman tanks just by the look of their immediate post war medium, heavy tank design. Furthermore the engine and the transmission they built and put in these tanks are copied German prototypes which french managed to finish the development of using captured german technician and engineers of course. I also hugely suspect to also have taken the autoloading gun idea from German documents aswell but i'm not too sure about that.

 

In this sense a lot of Fercnh tanks have a lot of German blood in them. The fully trully homemade design of the fernch after the war was the AMX 13 and we all know the story of this tank thereafter, probably one of the greatest light tank ever built and one of the biggest commercial success regarding light tanks

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
32 minutes ago, Tantor57 said:

The french got their hands on most of the things regarding future german tank development, took it and produced them on their own after the war to build their own tanks. It's pretty obvious that they got inspired by Gerlman tanks just by the look of their immediate post war medium, heavy tank design. Furthermore the engine and the transmission they built and put in these tanks are copied German prototypes which french managed to finish the development of using captured german technician and engineers of course. I also hugely suspect to also have taken the autoloading gun idea from German documents aswell but i'm not too sure about that.

 

In this sense a lot of Fercnh tanks have a lot of German blood in them. The fully trully homemade design of the fernch after the war was the AMX 13 and we all know the story of this tank thereafter, probably one of the greatest light tank ever built and one of the biggest commercial success regarding light tanks

tank and planes... ask them where they got the revolver cannons used in postwar jets developed from...

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All I have to say is bravo. I came to this thread feeling sorry for the verbal thrashing you were going to receive for mentioning the E50 and E75, but your post is actually very well worded with lots of interesting information and logic, quite a good read and I learned a lot about the Entwicklung series. As for the ingame vehicles of Panther II and 10.5cm Tiger, this basically proved my thoughts on what the 10cm tiger and panther 2 in WT are.

 

I do agree with your suggestion for the reconfiguration of the vehicles since it wouldn't actually make that much of a difference too, but would be just a bit more logical

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
13 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

I am aware that the transmission systems themselves were well developed,  but what I mean is that the concept wasn't suited for existing designs and wouldn't have worked in the original layout shown for the E 50/75. Surely, rear-mounted transmissions would've appeared in later German designs, or maybe even in later stages of the E 50/75 development, but the concept layout that we have doesn't allow for such a design.

 

btw, I just noticed your tag and interests. I concur o7 :)

 

The exisitng preliminary drawings of E 50 and E 75 were never designed to have rear mounted transmission. And I am not aware if these drawings even have any dates on them but we know that E-series program was conceived in May 1942 and authorized in April 1943. If we look at this drawing:

G7fuWZc.png

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this design originates from 1943.

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 12/20/2017 at 11:37 AM, KorEEnium said:

 

The exisitng preliminary drawings of E 50 and E 75 were never designed to have rear mounted transmission. And I am not aware if these drawings even have any dates on them but we know that E-series program was conceived in May 1942 and authorized in April 1943. If we look at this drawing:

G7fuWZc.png

I wouldn't be surprised at all if this design originates from 1943.

 

Well yes, that is what I said lol. Rear-transmissions aren't really an option without concrete evidence, which we don't have. To be honest I prefer the front transmission anyway XD

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Plz, lets no forget about the GT101 turboshaft, that already was in testing phase :) to implement it in tanks like the E75 developing 1000 PS (i dont remember the convertion from PS to HP)

5530085202_b77610455f.jpg.15111110614388

Edited by zSektor92
medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

 

Well yes, that is what I said lol. Rear-transmissions aren't really an option without concrete evidence, which we don't have. To be honest I prefer the front transmission anyway XD

If these designs are really that old then that could suggests that there would have never been E 50 / 75 with front mounted transmission. Only ones with rear mounted transmission.

 

 

9 minutes ago, zSektor92 said:

Plz, lets no forget about the GT101 turboshaft, that already was in testing phase :) to implement it in tanks like the E75 developing 1000 PS (i dont remember the convertion from PS to HP)

5530085202_b77610455f.jpg.15111110614388

Gas turbines were suggested to be used on Panther and Tiger II. Gas turbines probably would have never been used because they were not reliable and Heer refused to accept any new engines that were not thoroughly tested and confirmed to be reliable because of HL 230 disaster. They were working on HL 234 (HL 275, HL 295) which were the most likely options because they needed to replace unreliable HL 230 engines on thousands of vehicles. Also they had several diesel engines being worked on which are also more relaible options than the gas turbine.

  • Thanks 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...