Jump to content

Entwicklungserie


2 hours 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

 

The conversion from PS to HP is .986, so 1000 PS would be 986 HP. 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

 

The conversion from PS to HP is .986, so 1000 PS would be 986 HP. 

thank you :) 

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

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.

 

 

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.

Im not sure I understand. How can there be rear-trans E 50/75s and not a front transmission, which is clearly indicated in the design while the rear transmissions are not

 

Another question...? Why do you say the HL230 was unreliable? It was a fantastic engine and was more reliable and more powerful than nearly any other engine of its size. The issues that plagued the tigers and panthers were borne primarily of the final drive and steering differentials.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

By the way, if we want to get into engines, the GT103 is unlikely, but we do have solid info on it. The HL234 is generally accepted as the power plant for the E 50/75 (and was to be used in the E 100). There were other options though, such as the Sla.16 (unlikely) and the DB507, which was a development of the DB603 aircraft engine and used aluminum in the block construction to save weight. It ended up being around 800kg lighter than the HL230, but ran on diesel and produced around 800-1000hp. Personally I think that an implementation of an e 50 or E 75 would need the HL234, but we have enough info on these other projects for them to be feasible. However, we don’t have any evidence suggesting these engines were to be used in the Entwicklung vehicles, as they were developed to power the existing tigers and panthers. 

Share this post


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

Another question...? Why do you say the HL230 was unreliable? It was a fantastic engine and was more reliable and more powerful than nearly any other engine of its size. The issues that plagued the tigers and panthers were borne primarily of the final drive and steering differentials.

 

I still think the GAA is a more efficient design thanks to materials used and the amount of valves (4 valves per cylinder, as in what would be considered a true twincam engine in 1980s cars unlike the HL230's 2 valves that make it more like an SOHC engine), but I can't say that the HL230 itself is a bad engine. It compensates for its inefficiency through its sheer displacement (almost twice that of the GAA), and that's glorious. Too bad as you said that the gearbox and differential were not that good. In fact, the Panther originally had a perfectly fine differential that was replaced with a cheaply made one.

 

1 hour ago, Nell_Lucifer said:

I have a question wouldn't the E50/E75 be equipped with the Pak43/3 (88mm autoloader) as it was intended for the Tiger II and Jagdpanther?
 

  Reveal hidden contents

5a3d5aedb25b5_193936_original(1).jpg.efa

 

 

Probably not given the size, especially on the E-50. Just having a KwK 43 on the E-50 would have been a feat of its own.

  • Upvote 1
medal

Share this post


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

Im not sure I understand. How can there be rear-trans E 50/75s and not a front transmission, which is clearly indicated in the design while the rear transmissions are not

 

Another question...? Why do you say the HL230 was unreliable? It was a fantastic engine and was more reliable and more powerful than nearly any other engine of its size. The issues that plagued the tigers and panthers were borne primarily of the final drive and steering differentials.

IIRC the Oil they had to run on at the time was pretty terrible aswell.But aside from that,the engine itself wasn´t bad.

2 hours ago, Nope said:

 

I still think the GAA is a more efficient design thanks to materials used and the amount of valves (4 valves per cylinder, as in what would be considered a true twincam engine in 1980s cars unlike the HL230's 2 valves that make it more like an SOHC engine), but I can't say that the HL230 itself is a bad engine. It compensates for its inefficiency through its sheer displacement (almost twice that of the GAA), and that's glorious. Too bad as you said that the gearbox and differential were not that good. In fact, the Panther originally had a perfectly fine differential that was replaced with a cheaply made one.

 

The HL230 doesnt have THAT much more displacement,its "only" 5 liters (18 vs 23.05) :p:

But yes,the GAA should be more efficient.4 vs 2 Valves/Cylinder,runs on a higher compression too (7.5 vs 6.8).Although the later turbocharged and fuel injection derivates of the HL230 are probably better in that regard,but those never got far (certainly not with their original user).In terms of Power/Weight its no contest,though,the HL230 weighs nearly twice as much (1200KG vs  653) (unsuprisingly,with the HL230 being Grey Cast and the GAA Aluminum).

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

The HL230 doesnt have THAT much more displacement,its "only" 5 liters (18 vs 23.05) :p:

But yes,the GAA should be more efficient.4 vs 2 Valves/Cylinder,runs on a higher compression too (7.5 vs 6.8).Although the later turbocharged and fuel injection derivates of the HL230 are probably better in that regard,but those never got far (certainly not with their original user).In terms of Power/Weight its no contest,though,the HL230 weighs nearly twice as much (1200KG vs  653) (unsuprisingly,with the HL230 being Grey Cast and the GAA Aluminum).

 

Maybe I did exaggerate, but extra displacement is still extra displacement. Of course with forced induction it's an entirely different matter. Truth is, the Germans did "no replacement for displacement" earlier than the silly American automobile manufacturers and their V8s, and all this time the Americans went with more efficient designs.

 

Goddammit the tank world is the opposite of the auto world

  • Upvote 2
medal

Share this post


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

Probably not given the size, especially on the E-50. Just having a KwK 43 on the E-50 would have been a feat of its own.

The E50 with a sligthly oversized turret ring (from the Panther F shmallturm), could fit the 88mm KwK43, and even something else, there were signals of the developers trying to short a bit the large of the 88mm case and doing it more fat to short the total large of the round, the gun breech would be modified...

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


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

Im not sure I understand. How can there be rear-trans E 50/75s and not a front transmission, which is clearly indicated in the design while the rear transmissions are not

Because these are very basic preliminary drawings and they could originate from 1943. If they actually planned to use this design then they would of done more in the next 2 years but knowing that they wanted to use rear mounted transmission, final drive units that were already being worked on in the end of 1944 then it suggests that they were not actually interested in making E 50 / 75 with front mounted transmission.

 

19 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

Another question...? Why do you say the HL230 was unreliable? It was a fantastic engine and was more reliable and more powerful than nearly any other engine of its size. The issues that plagued the tigers and panthers were borne primarily of the final drive and steering differentials.

Under heavy load one of the 7 bearings for the crankshaft often failed causing catastrophic engine failure, basically exploded into millions of small pieces. That is why all HL 230 engines were limited from original 3000 RPM to ~2500 RPM. This reduced the chance of catastrophic failure but it did not fix it and even at 2500 RPM it was a common problem. This also meant that instead of 700 PS they were making more around 600 PS. Not to mention that HL 230 did not have a lot of torque at low RPM which meant that the driver had to rev the engine as high as possible to turn the vehicle without losing performance or stalling the engine which in return increased the chance of catastrophic engine failure a lot.

Second biggest problem was overheating which was caused by narrow cooling channels in the engine block. And engines go from: "running too hot" to *DEAD" very quickly.

Also anyone who has worked with carburetors knows how big of pain in the **** it can be to get the eninge to run decently.

 

Panthers main problem was the final drive but second biggest problem was the engine and then the transmission. These 3 things combined made Panther more problematic than Tiger and Tiger II.

 

 

19 hours ago, Nell_Lucifer said:

I have a question wouldn't the E50/E75 be equipped with the Pak43/3 (88mm autoloader) as it was intended for the Tiger II and Jagdpanther?
 

  Hide contents

5a3d5aedb25b5_193936_original(1).jpg.efa

 

I have hard time seeing how this thing is even supposed to fit inside the Jagdpanter. This thing definitely does not fit inside Tiger II turret.

  • Thanks 1
medal medal

Share this post


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

Because these are very basic preliminary drawings and they could originate from 1943. If they actually planned to use this design then they would of done more in the next 2 years but knowing that they wanted to use rear mounted transmission, final drive units that were already being worked on in the end of 1944 then it suggests that they were not actually interested in making E 50 / 75 with front mounted transmission.

 

Under heavy load one of the 7 bearings for the crankshaft often failed causing catastrophic engine failure, basically exploded into millions of small pieces. That is why all HL 230 engines were limited from original 3000 RPM to ~2500 RPM. This reduced the chance of catastrophic failure but it did not fix it and even at 2500 RPM it was a common problem. This also meant that instead of 700 PS they were making more around 600 PS. Not to mention that HL 230 did not have a lot of torque at low RPM which meant that the driver had to rev the engine as high as possible to turn the vehicle without losing performance or stalling the engine which in return increased the chance of catastrophic engine failure a lot.

Second biggest problem was overheating which was caused by narrow cooling channels in the engine block. And engines go from: "running too hot" to *DEAD" very quickly.

Also anyone who has worked with carburetors knows how big of pain in the **** it can be to get the eninge to run decently.

 

Panthers main problem was the final drive but second biggest problem was the engine and then the transmission. These 3 things combined made Panther more problematic than Tiger and Tiger II.

 

 

I have hard time seeing how this thing is even supposed to fit inside the Jagdpanter. This thing definitely does not fit inside Tiger II turret.

If the drawings originated in 1943, why would the design change so drastically within such a short time? The Tiger II contract first went out in 1937, and the Henschel firm's design didn't really see much change in terms of layout at all over the development time.

 

I feel that this is more an issue of bearing quality (which was true for practically every engine of the time) rather than the actual engine. Additionally, the engine only had to exceed 1900RPM for all the carburetors to fire, and they would remain open at up to 2800RPM. This is straight from the crew manual so I'm not sure where you got 2500 lol. Not to mention that experienced crews have been known since the dawn of the internal combustion engine to remove RPM governors in the field. Btw, it's also in the operations manual that the engine could indeed be run at the full 3000RPM, so something tells me this wasn't too great a concern. The problem was that most of the people crewing Tiger's hadn't exactly memorized the manual...

Overheating was indeed an issue, but this was mainly due to the limitations of the air filters and the amount of dust they had to deal with. With proper maintenance, the engine could run for 5000km, but without regular cleaning and lubricating, the carburetors (and everything else) would indeed fail quite rapidly.

With regard to the Panther, I feel that the transmission was a far bigger problem than the engine, but the final drive was astronomically more problematic so as to warrant the problems with the other two moot. 

I agree with you on the autoloader. They indeed looked into mounting such a contraption in the Tiger II, but it was nowhere near where it needed to be and they essentially stopped working on it. If I remember correctly, they did have a development that would've potentially worked, but the rate of fire wasn't really improved, so that design wasn't going anywhere. Another, perhaps, would've gotten somewhere, but I don't know of any such project.

 

I do want to say that I am not trying to come off as argumentative, hostile, or disrespectful in any way. I'm only trying to continue the discussion and I apologize if my tone is off-putting. 

Share this post


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

If the drawings originated in 1943, why would the design change so drastically within such a short time?

Just like why Panther II got dropped. It wasn't worth it and Panther was doing just fine.

 

6 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

The Tiger II contract first went out in 1937, and the Henschel firm's design didn't really see much change in terms of layout at all over the development time.

? VK 45.03 aka Henschel Tiger II design work started in late 1942. It has some elements borrowed from the VK 70.01 which started development in late 1941 but they are very different in overall design.

 

6 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

Additionally, the engine only had to exceed 1900RPM for all the carburetors to fire, and they would remain open at up to 2800RPM. This is straight from the crew manual so I'm not sure where you got 2500 lol.

? I wasn't talking about carburetors firing.

 

Engine RPM was limited from 3000 to 2500 with governor to prevent it from destroying itself.

 

6 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

Not to mention that experienced crews have been known since the dawn of the internal combustion engine to remove RPM governors in the field.

How to destroy the engine in 2 easy steps.

 

1) Remove governor that was installed for a purpose.

2) "Hanz, I think the engine is dead."

 

6 hours ago, __Herr__ said:

Btw, it's also in the operations manual that the engine could indeed be run at the full 3000RPM, so something tells me this wasn't too great a concern.

And is this early manual? Because early vehicles/engines had no governors and soon after too many catastrophic engine failures it was installed on all engines till the end of the war limiting it to ~2500 RPM.

 

 

  • Thanks 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On ‎12‎/‎22‎/‎2017 at 2:20 PM, Nell_Lucifer said:

I have a question wouldn't the E50/E75 be equipped with the Pak43/3 (88mm autoloader) as it was intended for the Tiger II and Jagdpanther?
 

  Reveal hidden contents

5a3d5aedb25b5_193936_original(1).jpg.efa

 

 

The PaK 43/3 was the gun mounted on the Jagdpanther and maybe the Jagdtiger 8,8 (not sure though), so if the system were to come to the game, it would be mounted on the Jagdpanther and (maybe) Jagdtiger 8,8... soontm 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This topic is a pleasure to read, keep up the good work guys.

 

I've also a question : is there a good book about the E-series or the other German WWII proposed/paper projects ?

Edited by Auto_tracking
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, FuLlYAuToGlOcKM8 said:

What about the E-25?

Any chance of seeing it in game?

 

highly doubt it outside of an event prize- and a very unexpected one at that. it's not all that much different from the hetzer or panzer IV/70s.

medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So I read up some more on the problems faced with mounting the 105mm gun in the Tiger II. The main issue was indeed the two-piece ammo and the concerns of internal space. This would hold true if the turret were mounted on the E 75. The page I read also explained issues with mounting the 88mm KWK43 in a “schmalturm” turret. The issues mainly consisted of the Breech length and the size of the turret rings. The guns could fit, but without much room left for ammo or, more importantly, the crew.

 

The page also mentioned the use of a single turret design, completely separate from the Schmalturm and Tiger II turrets, for the e 50 and 75, with the same weapon (Kwk43) and differing only in armor.

 

here lies the problem with that: the article makes no mention of the project to redesign the Kwk43 to use a smaller Breech with shortened cases for the ammunition (which has been mentioned in various posts on here). The other problem is that German doctrine never defined a vehicle class by its armor, but by its weaponry. The author seemed to have a background in Soviet developments, which likely is the reason for the mistake, as soviet tanks were defined as “heavy” or “medium” etc based on armor and/or weight. By this alone, mounting identical armament on the E 75 and it’s “medium” counterpart makes no sense, and by the time these vehicles would have entered production, the KwK43 would no longer have been potent enough to serve as the weapon utilized in the heavy tank role: taking out targets on open terrain at distances that provide impunity to the user. The 105mm Kwk and the various developments (such as that of an l/70 weapon during the mid-war period) were clearly intended to fill this role, and the only reason for rejection in the Tiger II was internal space. To solve this, work started on adjusting the ammunition in the same manner as the Kwk43, shortening the casing. This would allow for single piece ammo and for a shortened Breech, eliminating the space problem and the need for a second loader. If the weapon were ever to be used in a tank, this is virtually the only way. 

 

The article does, however, clarify that Krupp was instructed to design new turrets. My question is, though, whether or not this turret was to be identical. A simple development of existing designs that were already being worked on for the Panther and Tiger are more suitable, so it’s more than likely that these “new” designs would simply have been altered developments of existing designs (which is usually what the Germans do, improve on existing concepts rather than starting from scratch). Other sources I’ve seen suggest an “enlarged” Tiger II turret for the E 75. A slight lengthening would do the trick.

 

Even without adjustments for turret designs, the gun alterations already in progress were to solve any issues involving the use of the 88 and 105 guns.

 

So there’s my two cents on the guns. As stated numerous times, using the Kwk43 for both tanks is simply nonsense. This goes against all previous German developments and would leave heavy tanks unable to do their intended job as allied tanks became more heavily armored (I.e. T-54). 

 

The article also discusses the development of rear-mounted transmissions. Upon reading this, it seems more possible, but there still are no designs or blueprints that suggest this, and while it’s certainly possible that this was under development, odds are the designs would not have been used for the first productions E 50/75. The whole point of these tanks was to simplify production, and using existing rules design elements would have been much simpler. While rear transmissions have their benefits, the sacrifices are overlooked in the article. Chiefly, torque. The Germans had already looked into using rear-transmissions with their tanks, but determined that the improved performance given by front drive tanks was worth the difficulties in maintenance. These troubles had already been partially addressed through the detachable roof structure seen on the tiger B and Panther. 

 

At any rate, shortened gun breeches solve the question of internal space (and two piece ammo), and the transmissions could go either way, but I feel that, based on the few details we have, the traditional layout is more accurate.

  • Upvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know where you take this shortened casing story but I don't see how that would fix anything. If you shorten the casing you have to make it wider to still allow same amount of propellant. Making the case wider makes the gun barrel and breech wider while the 10,5cm gun is already wider than the 8,8cm gun. Also making the casing shorter does not necessarily allow more room lenght wise inside the turret because the gun still has to be balanced which means that if you make the casing and the gun 30cm shorter then you probably have to move the gun 20cm inwards which means you maybe only save like 10cm which is hardly any extra room. Only real way to fix this problem is to make the turret ring bigger.

  • Thanks 1
medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

@__Herr__

@KorEEnium

@*AceArchangel

 

Let's summarize, for a possible in-game implementation :

 

E-10 (superseded by the Jagdpanzer 38 (d) ?)

 

  • Gun :
  • Armor :
  • Engine : Maybach HL 100 (400 hp)
  • Gearbox : rear-mounted
  • Steering system :
  • Suspension : Belleville spring units, coupled to the gearbox, allowing the vehicle to be raised and lowered
  • Running gear :
  • Speed :
  • Weight :
  • Crew :

 

 

E-25

  • Gun : 7,5 cm PaK 42 or 10,5 cm 10H64 PWK
  • Armor : 50 mm sloped at 50-55° (hull front)
  • Engine : Maybach HL 101 (550 hp at 3800 RPM)
  • Gearbox : ZF semi-automatic gearbox (rear-mounted)
  • Steering system :
  • Suspension : 10 Belleville spring units
  • Running gear : 10 steel road wheels (diameter of 100 cm), 700 mm-wide tracks
  • Speed : 65 km/h
  • Weight : 26,3 tonnes
  • Crew : likely 4

 

 

E-50

  • Gun : 7,5 cm KwK 44/1 ?
  • Armor : ... mm sloped at 60° (glacis), 60 mm (hull sides)
  • Engine : Maybach HL 234 (900 hp at 3000 RPM)
  • Gearbox : pre-selected 8-speed gearbox (front-mounted)
  • Steering system : dual radius
  • Suspension : 6 horizontally-mounted Belleville spring units
  • Running gear : 12 steel road wheels
  • Maximum road speed : 60 km/h
  • Weight : 50,8 tonnes
  • Crew : likely 5

 

 

E-75

  • Gun : 10,5 cm L/68
  • Armor : ... mm sloped at 60° (glacis)
  • Engine : Maybach HL 234 (900 hp at 3000 RPM)
  • Gearbox : pre-selected 8-speed gearbox (front-mounted)
  • Steering system : dual radius
  • Suspension : 8 horizontally-mounted Belleville spring units
  • Running gear : 16 steel road wheels
  • Maximum road speed : 40 km/h
  • Weight : 60 tonnes (hull)
  • Crew : 5 ?
Edited by Auto_tracking
medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought I read somewhere E-10 was cancelled due to the Jagdpanzer 38(t), (I think it said something about them being so similar there was no need to start new production) so it should carry the same 7,5cm KwK 40 L/48 (muzzle break optional). 

Edited by xX_Lord_James_Xx

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yup, E-10 was cancelled at the stage of a wooden mockup. It didn't go into production because of similarly sized and mechanically simpler Jagdpanzer 38(d), based on a re-engined and lengthened version of the Panzer 38(t) chassis. But it's feature to reduce its height about 30cm, using suspension, was interesting.

medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, Auto_tracking said:

E-10 (superseded by the Jagdpanzer 38 (d) ?)

 

27 minutes ago, xX_Lord_James_Xx said:

I thought I read somewhere E-10 was cancelled due to the Jagdpanzer 38(t), (I think it said something about them being so similar there was no need to start new production) so it should carry the same 7,5cm KwK 40 L/48 (muzzle break optional). 

 

13 minutes ago, Whitedany said:

Yup, E-10 was cancelled at the stage of a wooden mockup. It didn't go into production because of similarly sized and mechanically simpler Jagdpanzer 38(d), based on a re-engined and lengthened version of the Panzer 38(t) chassis. But it's feature to reduce its height about 30cm, using suspension, was interesting.

 

E 10 aka Hetzer got the furthest in development out of the E-series vehicles. Blueprints were completed in summer of 1944 and exist to this day.

 

From Panzer Tracts No.20-1:

"According to Kniekamp in postwar interogations, the drawings for the E 10 were completed in the summer of 1944 and contracts given to Magirus to complete three trial vehicles. The three hulls were being made in Silesia, but were not finished when the russians arrived."

 

 

 

2 hours ago, Auto_tracking said:

@__Herr__

@KorEEnium

@*AceArchangel

 

Let's summarize, for a possible in-game implementation :

 

E-10 (superseded by the Jagdpanzer 38 (d) ?)

 

  • Gun : 7.5cm Pak 39 L/48 (Weapon for series production was still unsettled in January 1945 but was to be based on most modern weapon available.)
  • Armor : Front upper plate - 60mm @ 60° ; Front lower plate - 30mm @ 60° ; Side - 20mm @ 10° ; Rear upper plate - 20mm @ 15° ; Rear lower plate - 20mm @ 33° ; Bottom - 10mm; Roof - 10mm
  • Engine : Maybach HL 100 (400 hp) was only supposed to be used in prototype vehicle. Production vehicle was planned to have Maybach HL 101 (550 hp)
  • Gearbox : rear-mounted
  • Steering system :
  • Suspension :
  • Running gear :
  • Speed : Fast enough to counter Hellcat.
  • Weight : unknown
  • Crew : Maybe 3?

 

 

E-25

  • Gun : 7,5cm Pak L/70
  • Armor : Front upper plate - 50mm @ 50° ; Front lower plate - 50mm @ 55° ; Side upper plate - 30mm @ 52° ; Side lower plate - 30mm @ 0° ; Rear upper plate - 30mm @ 40° ; Rear lower plate - 30mm @ 50° ; Bottom - 20mm; Roof - 20mm
  • Engine : Maybach HL 101 (550 hp at 3800 RPM)
  • Gearbox : ZF semi-automatic gearbox (rear-mounted)
  • Steering system :
  • Suspension :
  • Running gear : 10 steel road wheels (diameter of 100 cm), 660 mm-wide tracks
  • Speed : unknown
  • Weight : unknown
  • Crew : Probably 4

 

 

E-50

  • Gun : unknown
  • Armor : Front upper plate - 80mm @ 60° ; Front lower plate - 60mm @ 50° ; Side upper plate - most likely 60mm; Side lower plate - most likely 60mm ; Rear plate - 60mm @ 30° ; Bottom - 25-40mm; Roof - 40mm
  • Engine : Maybach HL 234 (900 hp at 3000 RPM) (Maybach HL 275 (750hp) or HL 295 (850hp))
  • Gearbox : pre-selected 8-speed gearbox (front-mounted)
  • Steering system : dual radius
  • Suspension : 6 horizontally-mounted Belleville spring units
  • Running gear : 12 steel road wheels (Most likely each suspension arm would have gotten 2 steel road wheels side by side just like on Tiger II instead of 1 because otherwise each wheel was going to carry more weight than each road wheel on Maus which was a big problem.)
  • Maximum road speed : 60 km/h
  • Weight : Hull ~40,8 tons
  • Crew : Most likely 5

 

E-75

  • Gun : unknown
  • Armor : Front upper plate - 140mm @ 60° ; Front lower plate - 100mm @ 50° ; Side upper plate - most likely 80mm; Side lower plate - most likely 80mm ; Rear plate - 80mm @ 30° ; Bottom - 25-40mm; Roof - 40mm
  • Engine : Maybach HL 234 (900 hp at 3000 RPM) (Maybach HL 275 (750hp) or HL 295 (850hp))
  • Gearbox : pre-selected 8-speed gearbox (front-mounted)
  • Steering system : dual radius
  • Suspension : 8 horizontally-mounted Belleville spring units
  • Running gear : 16 steel road wheels (Most likely each suspension arm would have gotten 2 steel road wheels side by side just like on Tiger II instead of 1 because otherwise each wheel was going to carry more weight than each road wheel on Maus which was a big problem.)
  • Maximum road speed : 40 km/h
  • Weight : Hull ~60 tons
  • Crew : Most likely 5

 

 

 

medal medal

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with the comments regarding shortening the Breech in that no, it wouldn’t solve all the issues. The point I was making was that it was being worked on as a start. The turret ring would indeed need enlargening, but that’s not too big of an issue. In the end, I’m confident that the finalized design for an E 50 and E 75 would have mounted some variant of 88mm L/71 and 105mm L/68 (or L/70), respectively, with changes to the weapon and turret as needed. If these vehicles were to roll off the assembly line say, in late 1947 (supposing whatever alternate history you’d like to propose...), the finalized products would have needed these weapons to compete with the arms race. The Germans were good at making the impossible reality. I don’t think these guns would be too much of a trouble XD

 

With respect to the other Entwicklungserie vehicle and mentioned:

E 10: entirely plausible. KorEEnium’s specs are spot on and this would, frankly, be a very easy vehicle to add. I am only unsure of the crew, as 4 men would be more sensible, but the size of the design suggests 3.

 

E 25: This vehicle, not the E 10, was cancelled in favor of the Jagdpanzer 38(d). The 38 was very similar in design, and was already well under development, so they decided to simply scratch the E 25 and alter the 38 as needed. As with the E 10, the Jagdpanzer 38(d) is well documented and would be easy to implement.

 

E 50

KorEEnium’s edits are spot on with my own, save for a few changes:

Gun: the 75mm L/70 is an option, but some variation of the 88mm L/71 is far more likely and the development seems to point in that direction imho

Engine: HL234 was virtually complete and the supercharged variant was already under development for the E 100, so I think this is more likely. However, I don’t want to discount the Daimler/Mercedes Benz 507 engine. This is a good one to read up on, as it was developed from the DB Panther and, in turn, the maus engine proposals. This was a powerful inverted V-12 Diesel which, with supercharging, gave roughly the same performance as the supercharged HL234 at significantly lower RPMs. It was also very light by comparison (850kg) and was a well-developed powerplant. This engine would probably replaced whatever motor the E 50/75 started with.

 

E 75

Agreed save for the 105mm gun and I do have a question about the glacis. I do seem to remember reading somewhere that the Upper Front Glacis wasn’t to be either 160 or 180mm. This never made sense to me considering the weight and turret armor, but I figured 150 or 160 was a reasonable value considering all we’ve discussed and the developments being made at the time. I’m perfectly fine with 140mm, I’d just like to know where you got the value.

 

(I agree entirely with the 80mm armor plates. Just for funsies though, hypothetically, would improvements have been made considering the increasing production of more potent allied guns? (Chiefly the 76 on the Sherman). I wonder what thickness would have actually helped... as it seems anything below something around 140 wouldn’t have helped at all...)

 

Same engine changes as with E 50.

 

I do have one concern regarding speed. Yes, the planned speed was 40kmh, but I wonder, given an engine easily capable of 800-900 (or even 1100+ if supercharged), along with the improved tracks and suspension, would the E 75 have been faster?  It wouldn’t have weighed much more than the Tiger (if it weighed more at all), and given the other improvements and a supercharged 507 or 234, that easily gives a horsepower/weight ratio of over 17hp/ton... and that’s not even at full power. Considering the Soviet IS-7 had a similar performance ratio, perhaps the E 75 would have been capable of similar speeds (60km/h)?

 

This is just speculation but I do feel it’s worth mentioning. I don’t, however, think this is a viable option for the game (unless of course they decide to add tanks like the IS-7... which they’ve discussed before)

 

In the end, these tanks still were never built, but if you all recall my initialpost, neither were the Tiger II 105 or the Panther II already in the game, and to be honest, the E 50 and E 75 designs we’ve discussed are far more realistic and reasonable. I understand questions of armament or armor, even of the suspension and turrets etc, but these are all questions that are left unanswered by the in-game Panther II and Tiger 105, and those vehicles (as they are in-game) would never have existed even if given the opportunity. I feel that the E 50 and E 75 are more feasible, more accurate, and more interesting concepts that can be used instead. I would, however, retain the Panther II, but remove the historical inaccuracies (I.e. KwK43). Yes, it would basically be an up-armored Panther F... but that’s exactly what it was historically.

 

I apologize for yet another wall of text, but I hope someone reading finds them interesting to some degree XD

 

 

  • Upvote 4

Share this post


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

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...