panzerkampfwagen e.doc

7/27/2019 Panzerkampfwagen E.doc

1/22

Projekty pojazdw bojowych serii E (Entwicklung)

Panzerkampfwagen E-10


2/22

Typ: Niszczyciel czogw

Dugo: 6.91m

Szeroko: 2.86m

Wysoko: 1.76m

Silnik: Mybach HL101

Moc silnika: 550hpUzbrojenie: 75mm Pak39 L/44, km 7.92mm MG34

The E-10 was one of a series of new concept tanks which was meant to simplify production. It was to be a

turretless light tank destroyer/recce vehicle, designed by the firm of Klockner- Humboldt-Deutz, which up to

this time did not have much experience of building AFV's. The engine was to be a rear mounted Maybach HL

100 of 400 HP or an air cooled Argus of 350 HP. The combined hydrodynamic transmission and steering unit

was to be made by Voith and was also at the rear of the tank, easing removal and servicing. This would also free

up space in the fighting compartment. The engine deck and rear plates could all be removed to allow access and

the engine and transmission could be removed as a single unit. It was expected that the top speed of the tank

would be 65 - 70 km/h. Even though the E-10 designation would suggest a weight of 10 tonnes, the combat

weight would probably have been about 16 tonnes.The gun was to be the 7.5 cm Pak 39 L/48, in a mount similar to that of the Hetzer. It may have been replaced

on the production lines by the rigid mounted (Starr) version of the same weapon. The suspension was by bolt on

external units which used Belleville washers as the spring medium. There were four units per side, each fitted

with a single 1000mm diameter steel tyred wheel. The wheels were alternately offset on the axles to straddle a

single guide tooth track. One feature of the tank was the ability to reduce its height. This was achieved by

rotating the pivot points of the suspension units via cranks driven by hydraulic actuators. The vehicle height

could be reduced from 1760mm to 1400 mm. The armour was to be 60mm thick on the upper glacis plate,

30mm on the lower glacis plate and the rest all 20mm.


3/22


4/22

Panzerkampfwagen E-25Typ: Niszczyciel czogw

Dugo: 5.66m

Szeroko: 3.41m

Wysoko: 2.03m


Moc silnika: 550hp

Uzbrojenie: 75mm Pak L/70, km 7.92mm MG 34

The German E series of simplified development tanks designed towards the end of the war. The vehicle

described here is the E-25, a squat, ugly little tank somewhat reminiscent in shape to the Jagdpanzer 38(t)

Hetzer which it was designed to replace, along with the Jagdpanzer IV Lang, the other Panzer III/IV based

Sturmgeschutz/Panzerjager types and all other self propelled anti-tank gun chassis in service. Most of these

vehicles carried out roughly the same task but were vastly different in design and construction and the E-25

would have rationalised them down to just one simple vehicle. As usual the information available is minimal so

I have had to make educated guesses as to a lot of the details. Also my German isn't too hot either. I managed to

master Cromwell Model's E-25 from what was available, though.


5/22

Work on the E series started in 1943 under the direction of Waffenprufamt 6 (WaPruAmt 6) headed by General

H.E. Kniepkamp, a capable and prolific engineer and good administrator. A direct translation of this

organisation is "Weapon test establishment, section 6". The firms involved in the E series were Klockner-

Humbolt-Deutz of Ulm, makers of the Diesel powered RSO/03, Argus of Karlsruhe, Adler of Frankfurt, and

Weserhuette of Bad Oeyenhausen. They were to design respectively tanks in the 10, 25, 50, and 75 ton weight

brackets. Adler were also directed to design a super heavy tank in the 100 ton class, which was actually built.Argus had the task of making the E-25, nominally weighing 25 tonnes. It was to be a low, well armoured and

agile tank destroyer taking the place of the Jagdpanzer IV Lang which was too large and fairly complicated to

build. Armament was to be the 7.5 cm L/70 gun (as fitted to the Panther, Jagdpanzer IV, etc) which was a well

proven weapon effective against all Allied tanks of the time. It may have been replaced in service with a new

weapon designed by Krupp and Skoda as the 7.5 cm KwK 44 L/70 for the Schmalturm armed Panther F and

featured a concentric recoil mechanism. This dispensed with the large cylinders on top of the gun barrel and

would have enabled a much smaller mantlet than that of the Jagdpanzer IV Lang's PaK 42 L/70 to be fitted.

Skoda were working on an auto loader which would fire 40 rounds a minute and it had been test fired by the end

of the war. In reality of course that rate of fire would not be practicable as the gunner would not be able to select

the targets fast enough to catch up with the gun! An alternative was the StuH 42 10.5 cm howitzer to equip

close support artillery units. H.L. Doyle's drawing shows a small, one man, fully rotating turret armed with a 2or 3 cm gun as an anti- aircraft/light vehicle weapon.

The suspension was to be externally mounted in a novel fashion. The swing arm contained the spring and

damper mechanisms, moving against a fixed crank on the hull side. There were to be five units either side, each

one supporting a single large road wheel. These were offset and overlapped in typical German style, so the track

guide teeth ran between alternate wheels, with axles of the same length using spacers to give the correct offsets.

The road wheels would have been 1000 mm diameter resilient steel type similar to, but larger than the 860 mm

wheels for the late Panther G and the projected Panther F (not the 800 mm type from the Panther II or Tiger II).

The springs inside the suspension housings were to be made from stacked Belleville washers with a central

hydraulic damper. Each suspension unit was bolted to the hull side and bottom plate so it could be easily

removed if damaged. The track was to be 66 cm wide the same as the Panther, but with only a single central

guide tooth per link.

The hull armour was to be extremely well sloped, for instance the upper hull side plates were at 45 degrees. I

believe the roof plate would have been bolted to the hull like previous German tank destroyers. I have

concluded that the small roof turret would be offset to the left so that the gunner's legs and body would not foul

the breech area of the main gun. This would leave the driver with no exit from the vehicle as he would be

blocked by the main gun to his right and the small turret behind. As a result I think there would be an access

hatch located immediately above his position. This is on a sloping part of the roof so I doubt if it would be the

lift and swing type from the Tiger II/E50/E75 so I have guessed on a simple side hinged pattern. Gun crew

access would probably have to be in the rear right hand corner of the roof, and here I think it would have been a

circular hatch design similar to that on the Jagdpanzer IV. It could have been simply cut out from the plate

rather than from a new piece of metal. See Doyle's article in last year's Mil Mod for the same idea on theSchmalturn rear hatch.

The engine was originally meant to be an Argus air cooled motor mounted transversally at the rear, driving an

eight speed gearbox with hydrostatic steering, but this was probably not to be fitted straight away as it was still

under test. Also designated was a water cooled maybach engine of 400 HP, the extra 50 HP being lost through

fans and pumps for the cooling system. The Spielberger book's data tables show the liquid cooled Maybach HL

230 P30 as fitted to the Panther, but this was probably to be mounted only as a test engine, being in production

for quite a while and well proven. The 700 HP available would have given the E-25 a speed of 65 kph. This

amount of horse power coupled with the wide track would have made the E-25 extremely agile. 350 - 400 HP

would still have given ample reserves of power. As there are no drawings available of the roof and engine deck

these areas are pure conjecture. I based the master I made for Cromwell Models on a bit of guess work on

airflow. Most air cooled engines are fitted with sheet metal cowls which fit fairly close to the cooling fins. Theidea is to get the air as close to the cylinder as possible. Any fan is kept as close as possible to the cowls as


6/22

otherwise there has to be ducting etc. For an instance, look at the SdKfz 234 (trop) armoured car series. They

sported louvres on the engine deck but absolutely no sign of a fan. Luckily the Tank Museum has a Tatra engine

on display and it shows the fan mounted directly on the end of the engine, well away from the decking and other

external parts. Even with the low silhouette the E-25 would have had a usefully sized fighting compartment, due

to the transmission position at the rear of the vehicle and the external suspension units. It would have had much

more internal volume than the Hetzer. While I was building the model I kept placing it next to a Panther and aKing Tiger to visualize its size and was constantly amazed at what a neat and effective design it was. Perhaps

the only draw back would have been the length of the L/70 gun barrel. Stuck right at the front of the vehicle it

would have been prone to damage in built up areas, and from nosing into the earth when on the rough. This was

initially seen as a major drawback to the Jagdpanzer IV Lang but careful handling circumvented the problem.

The E-25 was to slot into place between the Panzer 38(d), a wholly German, greatly simplified and enlarged

development of the Czech Panzer 38(t) and the E- 50 Panther. Panzer IV chassis production was to be phased

out completely as all the weapons it carried in its various guises could be taken by the 38(d) which was two

thirds the weight and size. If E-25 had ever fought against Shermans and Cromwells it would have made an

extremely difficult opponent to destroy.

Make no mistake, this was not a fantasy vehicle. Some hulls were completed by 23rd January 1945 and were at

Kattowitz ready to be moved to a proving ground (Entwicklungskommission Panzer, Berlin W8, PariserConference Hall).


7/22

E-50


8/22


9/22

THE NEED FOR RATIONALISATION

The Heereswaffenamt (Army Weapons Department) of the German Army became increasingly aware of the

need to conserve materials and manpower as the war progressed. A development (Entwicklung, or E) program


10/22

was started to investigate certain aspects of tank design, but using the design offices of engineering companies

which had no previous experience of tanks.

The basic ideas were to save internal space, save time and effort, standardize parts and carry out research into

gun stabilization. Why maximize internal space? A larger gun needs larger ammunition and related systems,

and there was no room for further expansion in the current range of vehicles. Gun stabilization would give a

degree of fire on the move capability and also alleviate trunnion loads as the tank travelled cross country. Thedesigns were to not use torsion bars as these took up an inordinate amount of room, but have bolt on external

suspension units, and preferably have the gearbox and final drive at the rear of the hull. These latter items were

to be simplified where possible to minimize machining and gear cutting operations. This layout would have

been somewhat of a compromise as tests by the Germans had shown that tractive effort was far greater with

front drive, but the components were less vulnerable to anti-tank fire mounted at the rear and also gave greater

internal space in the fighting compartment (this is directly opposite to the latest Israeli thinking which puts crew

safety as the prime consideration, hence the Merkava has the engine and transmission at the front to act as

armour). If possible plain bearings were to be used in place of ball and roller bearings.

Despite round the clock bombing by the Allies, production of tanks was actually at a very high level. However,

the armed forces were scraping the barrel for manpower. Redundant Kriegsmarine sailors were being used as

line infantry and the simplified production requirements of the E-series would have freed up a lot more menfrom the factories. It must be remembered that for ideological reasons the Germans did not use women in their

factories except for some secretarial tasks, unlike their opponents Britain, America and the USSR who used

female labour in tank, aircraft and munitions factories, releasing men to fight. In the Nazi scheme of things

women were to be dedicated to Kirche, Kuche, Kinder, which means "church, kitchen and children". Instead

Germany used inducted foreign labour from the occupied countries and slave labour from P.O.W. and

concentration camps. None of these groups were exactly pleased to be working for their captors and the quality

of the work suffered as a result.

Direction of the program was by Waffenprufamt 6 (WaPruAmt 6) under General H.E. Kniepkamp, a capable

and prolific engineer and good administrator. A direct translation of this organisation is "Weapon test

establishment, section 6". By the end of the war Kniepkamp had patented about 50 individual designs

concerning track laying vehicles. The firms involved in the E series were Klockner-Humbolt- Deutz of Ulm,

makers of the Diesel powered RSO/03, Argus of Karlsruhe, Adler of Frankfurt, and Weserhuette of Bad

Oeyenhausen. They were all mainly component manufacturers, making things like engines, gearboxes and

brakes for the larger concerns such as MAN and Daimler-Benz. They were to design respectively tanks in the

10, 25, 50, and 75 ton weight brackets. Adler were also directed to design a super heavy tank in the 100 ton

class, which was actually built. The E-100 was to have had a turret practically the same as the Maus and was

brought back to England at the end of the war, partially assembled, only to be scrapped later. (Military

Modellingfeatured the E-100 in the June 1991 issue, written by Jonathan Roberts)

Adler was primarily a car builder but also supplied parts for half tracks, and designed the "A" and HK300 series

of one tonne half tracks to be developed in parallel to the Demag series. These remained prototypes, no series

production was undertaken. Later Adler was involved in the proposed replacement for the one tonne halftracked tractors, the leWS (leichte Wehrmacht Schlepper or light army tractor), which was usurped by the

R.S.O. fully tracked tractor.

THE NEED FOR A NEW PANTHER

Construction of the existing Panther was a major problem. Although a fine tank it took an extraordinary amount

of manpower, time and resources to build, even to the detriment of the fighter aircraft program which was

priority one. In retrospect, at the design competition stage the Germans had picked the wrong vehicle. The

Army wanted a direct copy of the Soviet T-34 but this was not possible as it used materials that were rare in

Germany, such as an aluminium alloy engine. It was also politically impossible because Hitler and the leaders

of the Reich would not contemplate a copy of a Soviet design for ideological reasons.

The firms of Daimler-Benz of Stuttgart and MAN (Maschinenfabrik Augsburg- Nurnburg) were chosen to

design tanks which were then tested against each other. The Daimler-Benz offering had a fuel saving dieselengine, rear gearbox, simple external leaf spring suspension and practically the same armour disposition as the


11/22

vehicle it was meant to defeat, the T-34. It would have been cheap and easy to manufacture and relatively

simple to up gun, even though it had quite a small turret. The MAN designed tank that reached production was

big, fuel guzzling and so complicated it was unreliable. The turret was a redesign of an earlier attempt at a 7.5

cm armed turret by Rheinmetal-Borsig for the Henschel Tiger. There were plenty of teething troubles, mainly

due to Panther being underpowered and far too heavy: in service the gearboxes were not strong enough to take

the engine power, the engines themselves over heated causing fires and the wheels were too weak, resulting inthe rims breaking under load.

Although they lost the original design contract, Daimler-Benz were eventually brought into the Panther

production group and became heavily involved in later development of the series. Panther was refined on later

models but still gave lots of problems right up to the end of the war. By then it was undergunned as well when

compared to its Soviet counterpart the IS-2, taking into account size and weight. (I suppose the mail box will be

full of letters to the Editor with the usual stuff about "Panther was finest medium tank , etc, etc", but I stand by

my statement) Compared to contemporary Soviet and American designs the Panther was just too large and far

too complicated for the gun it carried.

There is always a lot of confusion about Panther wheel types so perhaps a quick run down on them would be in

order here. Late Panther Ausf G would have been identical to the standard G except for 860 mm steel tyred

(Gummisparende or "rubber saving") wheels. Ausf F would have had the G hull and 860mm steel wheels, withthe Schmalturm armed with the 7.5 cm gun. Early and late 860mm Panther wheels were interchangeable on the

vehicle and in fact the steel ones were meant to be a direct replacement as the rubber tyred ones wore out.

German industry tried to make an improved and simplified version in the Panther II, fitted with the Schmalturm

armed with the 8.8 cm gun, but the revised chassis was still too complicated for the Heereswaffenamt, even

though the number of torsion bars in the chassis had been halved by using the single bar layout of the Tiger II. It

was to have 800mm steel wheels and would have used many components from the Tiger II such as gearbox and

final drive as well. The Panther at Aberdeen Proving Ground in Maryland is the prototype chassis for the

Panther II but it is fitted with a standard G turret armed with the 7.5 cm gun.

Note the difference in wheel size between the late Panther Ausf G/Panther Ausf F and the Panther II/Tiger

pattern: they look just about the same but were 60 mm different in diameter, made from different parts,

bearings, etc, and thus were not interchangeable between Panther and Tiger.

SCHMALTURM

Schmalturm had been developed as a joint effort by Daimler-Benz and Skoda for the late Panther F and Panther

II, to be armed with the new KwK 44/7.5 cm gun developed by Krupp and Skoda. Panther F and Panther II

would probably never have reached production because of the work on the E series, but it was decided to keep

the Schmalturm as, during tests, it was found to have excellent armour protection, could be fitted with either the

7.5 cm or 8.8 cm gun and was cheaper, taking 30% less time to manufacture than the original turret. Frontal

armour was raised from 80 to 120 mm with corresponding increases in the sides and roof armour as well. Note

that the turret roof was flat, whereas Panther, Tiger I and Tiger II all had sloping front roof sections to allow the

commander to have better forward vision. It had a good stereoscopic range finder made by Zeiss and

incorporated a gyrostabilizer, copied from (or at least based on) the stabilizer mounted on the AmericanLee/Grant and Sherman tanks. There were even plans to mount Schmalturm on the hull of the Panzer IV, using

the 7.5 cm KwK 44 L/70 gun (Spielberger vol 5: Der PzKfw IV und sein Abarten, pp 78/79). For the E-50/E-75

series the 7.5 cm was dropped and replaced with a development of the 8.8 cm KwK 43 L/71, the 8.8 cm KwK

44 L/71. The breech was redesigned to take new ammunition which used a shorter, fatter cartridge to ease

handling in the reduced space. Ammunition stowage was all in the hull, unlike the Tiger II where some was

stored in the large turret bustle. The gun was mounted forward so the breech did not protrude into the turret too

much.

There are references to a semi-automatic loading system designed and built by Skoda and trialed in

Schmalturm. The 7.5 cm KwK 44/2 gun may have been fitted with a recoil operated automatic loader/rammer

operating with a four round cassette, which the crew just had to top up. It was expected to produce a firing rate

of 40 rounds per minute, but it is doubtful if the poor loader would be able to keep up! There was probably notenough room in the 8.8 cm armed turret for this apparatus.


12/22

A large circular hatch was fitted at the rear of the turret for crew access and ammunition supply. Adjacent to it

was a port for firing weapons, probably the MP43/StG44 Sturmgewehr which was possibly fitted with the

Krummerlauf attachment, a bent barrel which allowed the gun to fire around corners. Another anti-personnel

weapon fitted as standard was the Nahverteidigungswaffe (close defense weapon), mounted in the turret roof on

the right hand side. This was basically a breach loaded gun similar to a signal pistol. It threw a small grenade

about ten feet into the air where it exploded, scattering lethal ball bearings and shrapnel. It was very effective atclearing the decks of enemy infantry.

The commanders' cupola was fitted on the left hand side of the turret roof and was a low profile design quite

similar to the one on the King Tiger, except that the hatch was set to hinge up and out, rather than be pushed up

on a pillar and swung sideways. The production vehicle cupola would probably have been fitted with a skate

rail for an anti-aircraft machine gun as well.

By modern standards the turret is very small, but it still housed the best gun of the era. Head on it was very

narrow and would have made a difficult target to hit. Schmal does not actually mean small in English but

narrow or thin, refering to the small front compared to the original Panther. Coupled with the new Saukopf

(pig's head shaped) mantlet, this eliminated the shot trap formed by the original Panther turret's wide curved

mantlet and the top of the driver's compartment. An example of the turret was brought back to England post war

only to have pieces cut out of the sides and then end up as a hard target on the ranges. At the time of writing itcan be seen in its current shape on the grass in the corner of the car park at the Tank Museum, but it is of little

use to the modeller as there isn't much of it left.

EINHEITSLAUFWERK

It was decided that torsion bars were difficult and costly to make, and as the larger factories were getting

bombed round the clock something was needed that could be simple enough to hand to small engineering

concerns to fabricate under sub- contract. The new bogie carried 800mm steel rimmed "rubber saving" wheels

from the Tiger II. This type of wheel is often refered to as "silent bloc". (A similar design was also seen on the

late Jagdpanzer IV chassis, albeit a much smaller size. Also Spielberger vol 9: Der PzKfw Panther und sein

Abarten pp 71 has a photo of a new Panther G at a showing for the top brass. In the background is a Hummel

munitions carrier with six medium size silent bloc wheels, designed by Krupp. To the best of my knowledge

this design did not enter service, nor have I seen any other photos of it) The wheels were mounted on geared

swing arms suspended against springs made of simple Belleville washers held in tubes, with a hydraulic shock

absorber down the centre of each. The suspension unit was designed by MAN of Augsburg, and was small, due

to the high loading it could take, and easy to produce. The washers could be churned out on most stamping

machines. The axles for the swing arms still needed machining on a lathe, but they were nowhere near the size

of torsion bars. The complete bogie was refered to as "Einheitslaufwerk", or standardized running gear. A

lesson learned from the American Sherman suspension was that none of the components was handed. The

wheels straddled the track guide teeth, but the same length axles were used: the wheels had a bearing spacer on

one side which could be reversed, setting one wheel in and one wheel out. An escape hatch could be fitted in the

hull floor now, almost impossible with torsion bars. Mine damage would be much easier to fix as the complete

unit could be unbolted and replaced, where as mine damaged and buckled torsion bars often had to be removedwith a cutting torch, after the interleaved wheels had been removed first of course.

The standard Panther had eight axles per side, requiring eight precise holes in each side of the hull. These had to

be cut and machined with the hull in a huge special rig. Add sixteen chrome steel torsion bars (in reality 32 as

each bar crossed the hull then was geared to cross back over the hull again), complete with machined bearings,

specialist heat treatment, etc. Compare that with six small housings filled with plain steel washers and a couple

of shock absorbers, fixed by bolts. I don't have a cost breakdown but a similar exercise was carried out by

Porsche on the Jagdtiger and the savings were 50% in material costs and tooling, a 40% weight reduction and

60% on labour time (again, the Porsche suspended Jagdtiger can be seen at Bovington). Another way of saving

money was to have only one wheel on each axle - the normal interleaving was two per axle - two axles per

bogie and three bogies per side. This arrangement gave the E-50 twelve road wheels as opposed to 32 on the

original Panther, alone a massive saving of time and effort.HULL


13/22

The E-50 hull was to be longer than the Panther, in fact it was practically identical to the King Tiger in overall

dimensions except for the glacis plate layout. This large hull combined with the Schmalturm gives the

completed vehicle a somewhat pin headed appearance. As mentioned above the amount of drilling and

machining was reduced drastically. The plates would have been interlocked and welded as on other German

vehicles, giving great strength and rigidity. Like the Panther and King Tiger hulls, lifting and shackle points

were all cut into the flat plates rather than bolt on items like the earlier Panzer IV.The hull of the replacement for the King Tiger, the E-75, was going to be almost identical to the E-50, except

the armour would have been thicker. Two extra bogies, one each side, would have been fitted to compensate for

the extra weight. The bogies were re-spaced as well giving the E-75 a track to ground contact length of

4095mm, compared to 3850mm for the E-50. The whole drive train would have been the same for E-50 and E-

75. As they were both to be armed with the same gun, ammunition stowage and overall internal layout was to be

identical.

German scientists and engineers were working on infra-red lighting and sights for the Panther as the war drew

to a close. An assembly of infra-red sight and 200 Watt lamp could be fitted into the commanders cupola

opening to be used by the vehicle commander with his head out. This could certainly have been fitted to E-50

with minor modification only. It was to be used in conjunction with UHU and FALKE. UHU was a large 60 cm

6 kW infrared searchlight mounted in a Sd.Kfz. 251 half track (conversions are now available from Verlindenand MB Models). FALKE was a standard Sd.Kfz. 251 APC with infra-red drivers' scope and lamp and a roof

mounted MG 42 with infra-red scope and lamp (see Sturm und Drang 3 for good photos). The individual

infantrymen were to be armed with the MP43/StG44 Sturmgewehr which was fitted with a smaller infra-red

sight; the batteries and electronics were carried in a large back pack. Nowadays all fighting vehicles have some

form of night fighting equipment, but it must be remembered that it is all derived from these early attempts by

the Germans.

ENGINE

The engine chosen was an improved version of the Maybach HL230 as fitted to the Panther and the Tiger II.

Called the HL234, it developed 900 HP using fuel injection, and was expected to produce up to 1200 HP with

supercharging. The improvements included sodium filled valves to withstand the higher exhaust gas

temperatures. The location of fuel tanks, radiators and fans was similar to the Tiger II. Maximum speed was to

be 60 KPH for the E-50 and 40 KPH for the E-75. The idea was to assemble both types on the same production

line, using identical production machinery and brought in sub assemblies.

As mentioned earlier the final drive for the whole series was meant to be at the rear of the vehicle. However

none of the drawings of E-50/75 make any space allowance at all for a rear gearbox and final drive except for

adding teeth to what was the idler. For instance the turret would probably have to be a couple of feet further

forward on the hull top. Also they all show the standard Tiger II sprocket at the front of the vehicle as well! I

think that the E-50 probably had the gearbox at the front: the E- 100 certainly did. I believe the projected rear

drive motor was to have been the Maybach HL233P with ZF gearbox but my German isn't that good!

E-50 and E-75 were to have been the backbone of the German army, with most other fighting vehicles such as

self propelled guns, etc, on either Waffentrager or Panzer 38(d) chassis. The E-25 was quietly dropped in favourof the 38(d), a wholly German, greatly simplified and enlarged development of the Czech Panzer 38(t). Panzer

IV chassis production was to be phased out completely as all the weapons it carried in its various guises could

be taken by the 38(d) which was two thirds the weight and size. With that sort of rationalisation of the ground

forces in equipment, logistics and training combined with new automatic personal weaponry such as the

MP43/Sturmgewehr 44 and the traditional tenacity of the German soldier, the Wehrmacht would have been an

even harder enemy if the war had gone on into 1946/47. The Army would have been complemented by an all jet

Luftwaffe and strategic forces using long range ballistic missiles, such as developed versions of the V-2!

As a point of interest a vehicle with all the requirements of the German Army was about to appear as the war

came to a close: external suspension, rear gearbox, big gun, heavy armour, lots of room for expansion, etc. It

wasn't German however, but the British A41 "Centurion", which is another story altogether.

POST WAR


14/22

The engineering behind the E-50 did not die with the end of the Third Reich. Development of some of the

features of the E series was carried on elsewhere. The idea of external Belleville washer suspension resurfaced

on the Swiss Panzer 61, where it was put to good use as the tank was quite small and needed all the interior

space it could get. Kniepkamp, now head of his own design bureau, made a significant contribution to this

programme, and later to the Standardpanzer Leopard as well.

The French designed and built the AMX-50 series which used a lot of the Panther/E- 50 ideas. It still usedtorsion bar suspension and overlapping roadwheels like the King Tiger, swivel hatches like the Panther A and a

1000HP Maybach engine with rear drive, just like the E-50 was meant to have! The engine deck layout was

practically identical to the Panther/Tiger II type, but the rear hull was longer and re- shaped to allow for the

gearbox and final drive. From the photos I have seen the drive sprocket was from the Panther, or very similar,

as was the track. This was not too surprising as the French Army used a couple of regiments of captured

Panthers well into the late forties. The AMX 50 turret was an oscillating design like a rather large AMX 13

turret, mounting either a 100 or 120 mm cannon. Later developments look like they had Tiger II track, needed

to reduce ground pressure as the armament and armour size and weight rose. The AMX-50 was not developed

past the prototype stage as the new generation of Main Battle Tanks was appearing, France's being the smaller

and lighter AMX-30. If anyone has more info on the AMX-50 series, especially photos and drawings, I would

be very pleased to hear from them.


15/22

Panzerkampfwagen E-100

Typ: Czog ciki

Dugo: 10.27m

Szeroko: 4.48m

Wysoko: 3.29m

Masa wasna: 140t


Moc silnika: 789hp

Prdko maksymalna: 40 km/h

Zasig: 120 km

Zaoga: 5

Uzbrojenie: 150mm KwK44 L/38, 75mm KwK44 L/36.5,

km 7.92mm MG34

Radiostacja: FuG5

The E-100 was originally designed as an Waffenamt alternative to the Porsche-designed superheavy Maus tank.

It was authorized in June, 1943 and work in earnest continued until 1944 when Hitler officially ended

development of superheavy tanks. After Hitler's announcement, only three Alder employees were allowed to

continue assembly of the prototype, and the work was given lowest priority. Even with these handicaps, the

three workers were able to virtually complete the prototype by war's end at a small Henschel facility nearPaderborn. The prototype lacked only a turret (which was to be identical to the Maus turret save in armament).

For it's initial tests, a Tiger II Maybach HL230P30 engine had been fitted. This engine, of course, was far too

weak to properly power the 140 ton E-100. The production engine was to be the Maybach HL234. The HL234

developed 800hp, which is only 100hp better than the HL230P30. Some sources indicate that a Diamler-Benz

diesel which developed 1000hp would have ultimately been used.

The Maus mounted the 12.8cm KwK 44 L/55 found in the Jagdtiger. Using the same turret, the E-100 was

initially slated to use the 15cm KwK44 L38, but provision was made to eventually up-gun the vehicle with a

17cm KwK 44.

The E-100 was very conventional in its architecture. The standard rear-engine / front-drive layout was

maintained. The engine deck of the Tiger II was also carried over into this design (rather than the updated

designof the E 50/75). The suspension was characteristic of the E-series, however, in that it was of theexternally-mounted Belleville Washer type. While the engine-deck layout of the prototype was taken directly


16/22

from the Tiger II, it is entirely possible that it would have been changed to match the E 50/75 had production of

the E-series actually began to allow for maximum commonality of components.

The armor on the E-100 was designed to withstand hits from just about any anti-tank round of the day. Armor

on the turret ranged from 200mm on the sides and rear to 240mm on the front. The turret roof was protected by

a seemingly paltry 40mm of armor. Unfortunately, the round shape of the turret front could have deflected shots

downward into the top of the superstructure. Armor protection on the superstructure varried from 200mm on thefront to a total of 180mm on the sides and 150mm on the rear. The top of the superstructure was protected by

the same 40mm of armor found on the turret. The hull had 150mm of armor on the front and rear and 120mm

on the sides behind the suspension. Protection on the bottom of the hull was good at 80mm.

Given the armored protection of the E-100, most tanks would have needed a shot to deflect into the top of the

superstructure from the turret front to knock it out. The vehicle would have, however, been highly vunerable to

air attack as the angles presented to dive bombers or fighter/bombers would have been protected to only 40mm.

This protection is comparable to the Tiger II in the same areas.


17/22

Niemiecki superciki czog E-100. Prace nad prototypem supercikiego czogu prowadzono od koca 1943

roku w zakadzie produkcji dowiadczalnej Henschla w Haustenbeck na poligonie Sennelager niedaleko

Paderborn (pnocna Nadrenia-Westfalia). Prace szy powoli, poniewa program nigdy nie mia najwyszego

priorytetu, a tempo zmalao jeszcze po czerwcu 1944 roku, gdy Hitler zdecydowa o przerwaniu prac nad

czogiem E-100. Mimo to zakady Adler prowadziy je na wasn rk do samego koca wojny. Czog nigdy nie

zosta ukoczony. Wiekszo cz bya gotowa ale montaem czogu zajmoway sie tylko 3 osoby. E-100 mialotrzyma zmodernizowan wiee zastosowan w czogu Maus ale uzbrojon w 150 mm dziao oraz sprzone z

nim dziao 75 mm. Plany zakaday e gdyby czog trafi do seryjnej produkcji to planowano wyposay go w

potne 170 mm dziao. W kwietniu 1945 roku poligon Sennelager zosta zajty przez wojska alianckie, znalaz

si pod kontrol armii brytyjskiej. W rce Anglikw dosta si bdcy na ukoczeniu kadub prototypu czogu

E-100 oraz wiele gotowych elementw.

dane techniczne:

masa bojowa: okoo 138 ton

opancerzenie: od 60 do 240 mm

uzbrojenie: dziao 150 mm KwK 44 L/38, wersja seryjna miaa otrzyma 170 mm, dziao 75mm KwK 44L/36.5 i karabin maszynowy MG-34/Mg-42 kal. 7,92 mm

jednostka napdowa: 12-cylindrowy Maybach HL 230 P30 o mocy 700 KM (prototyp), 12 cylindrowy

Maybach HL 234 o mocy 800 KM (wersja produkcyjna)

prdko maksymalna: do 40 km/h na drodze, 20 km/h w terenie

zaoga: 6 osb


18/22

Leichter Waffentrager

Waffentrager armed with 88mm Pak 43 L/71 gun.

Ardelt Prototype - Production Model.

Weight: 11.200kg / Maximum Speed: 30km/h / Crew: 4

One vehicle saw action in April of 1945, near Berlin at Brandeburg

with 3rd Panzer Jaeger Abt. attached to Infantry Division "Ulrich von Hutten".

Second photo was taken in May of 1946 at Kubinka during tests of captured vehicle.

Today. this vehicle is on display at the museum at Kubinka.

Leichter Waffentrager armed with 88mm Pak 43 L/71 gun.

Rheinmetall-Borsig / Ardelt I Prototype.

Waffentrager armed with 88mm Pak 43/3 L/71 gun.

Krupp/Steyr Prototype.


19/22

Waffentrager z haubic polow 105 mm

Modyfikacje Panzer III

Czog torujcy - przeciwminowy.

Samobiene dziao polowe SIg 33 kal. 150 mm


20/22

Somua S-35


21/22


22/22

panzerkampfwagen e.doc

Documents