Note: much credit goes to Thor_Hammerschlag for noticing the hull size differences.
As usual, don't expect anything published here to be implemented in WOT.
Today I got an interesting message from Thor, saying that there was something unusual on page 75 of "Special Panzer Variants" by Spielberger (btw, did you know that he actually worked as engineer for Porsche and was involved in the Ferdinand project?).
The page shows the E 50/75 hulls, however aside from the two well known Adler layouts there is another, slightly different one by Weserhütte:
Not much is known about it other than the company was responsible for E 50 and E 75 but the interesting bit is that the chassis is about 15cm longer.
It is not known either if this was an early draft or a later development, however this extra space was likely to be enough to accomodate the planned rear drive transmission.
All in all, this is yet another shadowed corner in the already pretty obscure development of the E-Series.
I will further investigate but it's unlikely anything else will be found, especially as even Jentz and Doyle seems to have given up on this (or maybe Doyle is keeping any new data for the next issue).
It's probably just like what Mr. Doyle said: there were designs, but given that the ones who would had to make the power pack weren't keen on the idea due to time and resource constraints, that remained only a design.
ReplyDeleteWell, the aim was just to share an interesting discovery.
DeleteI'm not going to touch the E 50M debate.
I don't think there is much to debate about now. Mr. Doyle had shown us more detailed versions of the Adler hulls before, so he probably knew what he was talking about when asked about the transmission.
Deletehttp://overlord-wot.blogspot.ca/2012/06/wot-transmission-response-from-mr-doyle.html
Look at the drawing and look at the first two hulls in the page, they are exactly the same.
DeleteThe third one is almost the same, aside from the numbers giving a longer hull.
Like I said, it could be anything, from an early draft to a later rectification of wrong calculations to even a longer hull for the planned 80 tons assault gun.
Spielberger just gives us the drawing and nothing else.
It's probably just like what Mr. Doyle said: there were designs, but given that the ones who would have to make the power pack weren't keen on the idea due to time and resource constraints, that remained only a design.
ReplyDeleteOnly so much can be known about these paper panzers. It is a mystery what was exactly going on with the E-50/E-75 project, this is just another small piece of info of the puzzle. I wish someone finds a box in their attic that is full of documents about the E Series and decides to share them to us.
ReplyDeleteNow I'm confused! In the book "Panther & Its Variants" Spielberger wrote that he was a companie commander of a Jagdpanther unit and got taken out near Gifhorn on the 16.4.1945.
ReplyDeleteI must add, he wrote "at the end of the war"
DeleteIn AFV Profile 61 he wrote that he was a design engineer on the project and fought alongside the Ferdinand in 1943.
DeleteTake into account that it was replaced by JagdPanther, so it's likely he served in both tanks.
Thanks, for enlighten me^. ^^
DeleteHey, it is only 15cm longer, not 150 :)
ReplyDeleteSd_Kfz_186
Meant mm, must have slipped up something...
DeleteWeserhütte got hit pretty badly at Eastern '45
ReplyDeletewith it hitler yould have won the war :D
anyway, whos grandfather worked at the weserhütte?!
yep, thats right, mine did (after he came beack from his PoW vacation soviet russia)
E-75M right here, WG take notes
ReplyDelete15 cm isn't really enough room for a power pack without massive redesigning of the hull itself.
DeleteLikely not, but it's in addition to the room already placed in the first plan.
DeleteI think we need to compare with the Panzer 58 schematics to be really sure.
Notice on #2 and #3 that despite the extra lengths on #3 the weight is the same and the drawings on #3 are less developed and thought out by the lack of numbers defining other dimensions. (Top to bottom 1-2-3)
ReplyDelete5650-5496.5 gives us 153.5mm which is really unimportant. What is however is the contact area of the tracks. Notice also that the front plate is thinner on #3 then on #2. Since the weights are the same, plates are thinner, we can conclude that the goal is to shave off excess weight and to spread it over a larger area by virtue of the fact that the length of the contact area is 25mm in length more on #3. Which with wider shoes could help keep the tons per meter down.
Also notice that we are dealing with 8, not nearly, overlapped bogies vs the 10 on #2. Now a wider track, less armour and a longer contact area means many things but I see it as more weight on the individual wheel with a strong possibility of a lower ground pressure. In fact upon even closer inspection I would have to say that if all three drawings are to scale then the hull is way thin on #3. Yet the total weight is listed as the same as #2.
Here's a thought do the overlapped pairs of wheels remind you of anything? Perhaps the less technically advanced suspension design. Would Vertical volute spring suspension make sense with the wheel layout on #3?
NEMO.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christie_suspension
DeleteI am idiot. The wheels would fit a Christie Suspension style closest by how they are laid out but I suppose you could Torsion Bar them as well to get the overlap.
Which leads me to the unknown and I should have added it above. What do you do with all that saved weight if it does not go into armour? It says the weight is the same as #2 but is thinner on the hull armour (#3). Surely somebody has some ideas. I'll try hitting the book and see if I can come up with something.
ReplyDeleteNEMO.