Please take your time and read the blog rules

Apr 23, 2013

Waffenträger E-100

Hello everyone,

today, we're going to have a look at the upcoming Waffenträger E-100 tier 10 vehicle. First and foremost, unlike the Jagdpanzer E-100, we do know this vehicle is completely unhistorical. There never was a Waffenträger project based on the E-100 hull, just as there was no GW Typ E vehicle. The heaviest self-propelled artillery vehicle projected (apart from the railway guns, the ultraheavy artillery such as Karl-Gerät and the navy coastal defense guns) was the Grille 17/21, implemented into the game under the name GW Tiger.

What is a Waffenträger?

Waffenträger - german for "weapons carrier" is roughly equivalent to the term "Selbstfahrlafette" (self-propelled gun carriage), with both terms being somewhat interchangeable. Basically, it's a (usually serially-produced, but sometimes custom made or even captured vehicle) hull with a gun mounted on top of it - a gun, that usually has a wide horizontal arc and very light (if any at all) armor protection (usually just a gun shield, or a very thin turret/casemate).

Essentially, it's supposed to be means to produce as many self-propelled heavy guns as possible. In order to clarify the division mentioned earlier: Selbstfahrlafette usually refers to ANY gun carrier project (including artillery gun carriers and anti-aircraft gun carriers), while the term Waffenträger is generally used for anti-tank (or direct fire howitzer) projects.

The original weapons carriers were various captured tank hulls or improvised constructions, made from real tanks, that got knocked out in battle. Of course, it's not that simple, but the original Waffenträger history I already mentioned in this article, feel free to check it out.

The basic idea

So, as mentioned, the basic idea behind a WT is a (preferably cheap and simple) hull, used for nothing else than to carry an anti-tank gun around. These things were meant to be massproduced cheaper Jagdpanzers, essentially just moving anti-tank guns, nothing else. As you can see, putting a HUGE gun (we are now talking about something bigger than the Jagdpanzer E-100 gun) on an E-100 chassis just makes no sense whatsoever.

In other words: we will be getting an E-100 hull, with a big gun, but (apart from the hull itself) very thin armor. For armor model, think about the Valentine AT we have in game: it has a tough hull, but the gun part (specifically the gun shield) is thin as paper and with the crew models hidden "behind" the gun shield, we can expect crew deaths often. Something like that. The vehicle will no doubt have:

- very limited mobility
- thin turret/casemate armor
- a big gun

Now, there are basically four combinations as to how the vehicle can look. It can either have a thin superstructure (with a limited horizonatal arc), or a fully traverseable turret. It can also have a less-destructive but more quick-firing and accurate gun (basically, a rapid-fire sniper), or some slow-firing gun monster (if the developers will go this way, we might see possibly the most powerful non-artillery gun in the game on such a vehicle).

Casemate structure

Here, you can see an artist's impression (not a real ingame model, just a fan-made render) as to how this vehicle could look like with a casemate structure. As you can see, it's a flimsy, essentially open-topped structure with very thin armor (if we are to compare it to the Grille 17/21 project, the casemate part would be 30-50mm thick). Is it a retarded concept? No doubt. In real life, mating a heavily armored (yet slow) hull with a paper superstructure would be utterly pointless. Yet - if I was to bet, this is what we are going to get. Please note that while the casemate structure is much lighter than the Jagdpanzer E-100 casemate, the gun will likely be heavier than that of the Jagdpanzer E-100, therefore the vehicle will most likely NOT be any more mobile than the original E-100.

Another possible look is for example here:

Please note that the line has not been confirmed to be completely open-topped, so it's fairly possible the vehicle will recieve a thin, but closed superstructure. I believe this to be quite likely, as on such a slow vehicle, artillery hits would be absolutely devastating.


Rotating gun

This is another approach (perhaps even more realistic one) to a Waffenträger. Basically, the weapon is mounted on a rotating mount and either uncovered completely (as seen on this picture) with only a crew-protecting gun shield, or enclosed in a thinly armored turret. The advantage is obvious: no casemate means possibly even a bigger gun. This approach raises even bigger questions however.

For one, the whole concept of E-100 hull and uncovered rotating gun is simply ridiculous, but even if we apply suspension of disbelief, the question is: could the gun fire when rotated away from the main axis of the vehicle without ripping the mount out of the hull or tipping the vehicle over? Don't laugh, this actually happened with some superheavy guns (even with lighter ones). There is a reason FV215b (183) planned for limited traverse.

Second - perhaps even more important - question would be: "how the hell do you balance THAT?". I can't simply see this working. The gun might be insane (and believe me, there are some pretty insane choices in that respect), but the vehicle could be knocked out by one artillery shot. Gunner dead, loaders dead (yes, it's safe to assume that unless the top gun has an autoloader, the vehicle will have 2 loaders), gun destroyed, bye bye. Plus, no matter how you twist it, E-100 hull is huge as hell, you won't hide this beast and if you do, its first shot will demask it so badly even a half-blind grandma will spot it across the whole map.

As I mentioned, I think the casemate option is more likely. We'll have to see.

What will it be armed with?

Well, this is the big question we have been waiting for, isn't it? There are several options, which can be - as mentioned - divided into the "biggest boom possible" and "rapid-fire sniper" categories. We have to assume that since the vehicle will certainly lack armor in comparison with Jagdpanzer E-100, it will have more punch (or rather, more DPM).

Now, we'll look at the options we have.

The basic choices are the historical guns, intended for the Sturmgeschütz E-100 and Sturmgeschütz auf Fahrgestell Maus, which are the 150mm L/63 and the 170mm L/53 (which is the ingame Jagdpanzer E-100) guns. Possible? I doubt that. The 170mm is more powerful, but I doubt Wargaming will want to introduce the SAME gun for the other tier 10 tank destroyer, with tweaked performance. What would be the point? To play the same vehicle (albeit with a buffed gun parameters, such as rate of fire)? Of course, we do have a precedent (T110 tank destroyers), but I doubt Wargaming will want to repeat that approach.

The 150mm L/63 is not a bad weapon either, but... no. It's going to be something else I think.

Now we are getting to the good stuff:

The 150mm KwK 44 L/67 was a historical weapon, considered for the Sturmgeschütz E-100. Compared to the 170mm, it was probably more accurate and the rate of fire was better. My estimates on its statistics:

DAM - 750, PEN - 300 (400 gold), ACC - 0.34, ROF - 3,8.

I think this gun is the most likely candidate on the vehicle armament. Can we get better though? Yes we can. You see, the Germans actually developed an autoloader for their 150mm guns. Originally it was intended for Flak cannons, but I assume (well, I have no proof for that, but let's go with that) it could actually be mounted on the L/67 - there you have it, an accurate and rapid-fire weapon (4 shot autoloader for balance should suffice).

Can it get better? Sure. In 1940-late 1942, an experimental anti-aircraft 150mm gun (well, 149mm really, but all the German guns were marked this way) was developed by Rheinmetall-Borsig. It was designated as Gerät 65 and it was an autoloaded 150mm L/102,5 cannon, capable of shooting nine 42kg rounds per minute at 950 m/s. You can surely understand how nasty such a thing would be (with a - say - 4 round autoloader). The gun weigheted 26 tons, so we are still in the vehicle limits I believe.

Can it get even MORE ridiculous? Yes. There was a 1942-1943 project for an autoloaded 240mm gun (!!!), called Gerät 85. This 38 ton (weight of the gun itself) monster was basically a naval Flak cannon capable of firing seven 180kg shells per minute. Can this appear in WoT? No (mounted fortress version weighted 450 tons), but it's here to demonstrate, how crazy hardcore some of the German projects were.

Back to "reality":

I think that the Waffenträger E-100 will have either a rapid-fire (relatively) long 150mm (I doubt the autoloader will be implemented, but theoretically it might appear), or some sort of 210mm howitzer/mortar with properties comparable to the current artillery vehicles. I sincerely hope for the first option, as vehicles under 2 RPM are not exactly fun to play.

Either way, I fear this vehicle will end up as a massive fail. Heavy hull and thin superstructure, I don't see that working. But maybe I am wrong. I sincerely hope I am.


  1. Well they still can make it similar to Ob263 - open casemate, but very heavily armoured.

    1. In theory yes, in practice it would go against every known german WWII design principle.

    2. The difference is, Object 263 is mobile - at least relatively. E-100 chassis is not running anywhere. Plus - Object 263 doesn't actually work too well, does it? The whole branch is not very popular.

    3. Except 263 is agile enough to move around.

      If anything "Wafflefrager E-100" could use underarmored GW E hull (80mm front, 40mm casemate and sides) with 1200hp engine to make it quite mobile. And TBH limited traverse turret as shown with two gun potions could be ok - some 210mm (?) direct fire derp gun and long barrelled 15cm with accuracy and RoF.

    4. why should it be popular, it doesnt have the Bl-10;
      on topic

      i would hope for fast fireing gun with good pen and rof but what is the last time germans got such a gun ( ignore the leo gun) on a high tier vehicle

      so if they are going to put a 210 gun i would apretiate 3 loaders and increased rof to around 2-3, but it aint going to happen

    5. Removing so much armor from the hull? I don't know. I find that unlikely, very unlikely. Keep in mind that regardless of the lowered weight, the suspension has its limits. Realistically, you could never archieve the Object 263 mobility with the E-100 suspension and drivetrain, that would not only be unhistorical, but against laws of physics.

    6. and again the vehicle is the problem, why did the germans instist on useing I/moblie houses as gun base?

    7. Because germans preferred the mobile bunker approach.
      Fear not though, I've found an E-75 based STUG that could work nicely as JagdTiger II.

    8. Only to some extent. WT E-100 never existed, nor it was proposed. But one of the main reasons was Hitler's chronic megalomania and the fact he tried to micromanage everything, leading to such ridiculous projects as the Maus.

    9. a TD based on a E 75 oh no not now i`m .... ahh
      JT is a beautiful TD a would dread and love the upgraded version

    10. i was also touthceh with your Maus II, too bat it wont get implemented

    11. Still, such shitty combo (wtf big, lol armored chassis with still unimpressive mobility) gives reason for WG to slap some 200mm+ boomstick on it "for balancing reasons". Apparently its new WG way of creating tanks, shitty and frustrating to drive yet "so OP" for random derps.

    12. its funny how everyone here forgets that the players wanted jpe-100 to have that crappy 17cm gun instead of a fast fireing 15cm or upgraded JT 12,8 gun... And wg did the stupids thing ever: They listened to the players...

    13. The players wanted the 17cm yes, but they never agreed having a rear mounted model

    14. and what would have been the difference between front and rear mount?
      armor close to the same, gun the same crappy thing... mobility same... camo close to the samo only the transmission would have been move to the back... what a big improvement *facepalm* (Ok the front mount would have looked awesome)

    15. Players wanted the Krokodil, which is a) a complete fake b) unhistorical c) unrealistic (it wouldn't work on such weight) and d) copyrighted (by some modelling company). The way JPE-100 looks is at least somewhat realistic.

    16. I agree with you man, but what do you think of a JT-like E-100 with a 128mm L66 ?

  2. Hmm nice analysis i think they will go french on WTs-no armor, open(that's unfortunate :( ) but a nice long accurate(more than fochs) 150 with autoloader.

    SerB said they will be a nightmare anyway :trollface:


  3. if hull plates would be thinner, as it is with e50/e75 hulls, it would make sense. if it will be second jgpz e 100 with paper top, it would be slashed with tier V derp or any hesh ammo.

  4. I disagree with your interpretation of German terms in paragraph 2 of your piece. Note that I'm not a native German speaker, so I might be wrong here, but your interpretation (I'm trying to avoid the term "translation") still doesn't seem quite right.

    Lafette = gun stand, by that I picture a traversable mount (not the kind of carriage of early 1800 era artillery). Selbstfahr = self-propelled ("self-driving"), so in essence a mobile lafette.

    Waffenträger = "weapon trawler/carrier", so far less traversable mount, ergo not a piece with "wide horizontal arc and very light" as you put it. I imagine WG will put heavier guns on this line, albeit with less armor on the carrier vehicle. They will likely suffer in horizontal arc travel for that same reason.

    1. ***Lafette = gun stand, by that I picture a traversable mount (not the kind of carriage of early 1800 era artillery).***

      You are wrong here. A 'Lafette' is just something to mount a gun on. This is a 'Lafette' already:

      A 'Lafette' can be as simple as a rod to ram into the earth to put a gun onto because it is heavy, while only pointing in one direction. Rotatable mount? Not implied by the basic term 'Lafette' at all.

      SS' interpretation does not seem too far off. Imagine the following: You have a LAW or Panzerfaust or whatever rigid gun. You are tired of carrying it around, so you ram two rods into the ground and tie the LAW between them. If you use your rope wisely you can eben create a basic hinge allowing you to aim up and down with it. This is pretty much the simplest way of making something pivot because creating a joint that keeps something above the ground while allowing it to rotate left and right is much harder: because you cannot use counterweights for stabilisation purposes the way you can do when you only allow it to rotate up and down, so for actuating a movement through the joints you have to overcome forces of different direction and magnitude. Joints that reduce these required forces become more and more complex the easier they are to actuate.

      Since you can pull the rods out of the ground and carry them with the LAW, these rods fit the term 'Lafette'. Attach some wheels and electrical engines to the rod and you have a 'Selbstfahrlafette', because you do not have to carry them yourself.

      Notice how I used the term 'carry around' when talking about the LAW in the beginning? That's because carry is 'tragen' in German, so when you are carrying a weapon around, you are a 'Waffenträger'. That's the origin of the term: A human's carrying a gun around. When mechanical contraptions do the thing a human could do (in principle), then the term applicable to the human in that situation is applicable to the contraption as well. Many, many mechanical creations are named that way, even outside of Germany.

      Now, image you are carrying a LAW, being a 'Waffenträger'. What can you also do with the LAW? You can put it on your shoulder to aim and rotate it much more freely than when you improvised a mount. I can understand someone using that term to imply more freedom of movement than what the simple term 'Lafette' implies.

      To describe a 'Lafette' with more degrees of freedom of rotation one usually specifies which kind of 'Lafette' it is. For example the gun turrets on a battleship are usually described using a 'Drehscheibenlafette' to show that they can be rotated left and right in addition to up and down.

      tl;dr: 'Lafette' is a term used to describe a gun mount that started out as a mount offering less degrees of freedom than if the gun was carried by a man ('Waffenträger'). To describe a 'Lafette' with more degrees of freedom one usually uses a word that combines the term 'Lafette' with the description of the device allowing it the additional degrees of freedom. Therefore 'Waffenträger' sounds about right to describe a vehicle offering more degrees of freedom to its mounted gun than a device simply called 'Lafette'.

      Of course, naming conventions may change because the guy in charge of the project said so. But simply going by the way other things are named, this here makes sense.

      Native German here, mechanical engineer. Sorry for the bad English, I need more sleep :(

    2. Danke, that was quite informative.

  5. I'm still waiting for this

  6. In WoT we miss the fighting ranges, all those unarmoured TD were meant for.

    Thus I expect (insist on) high camo values and perfect sniping abilities.

    A mediocre mobility (esp. speed) might be helpfull too.

    1. High camo value for anything on E-100 chassis? Oh, lol...

  7. If those things are going to be fail then dont play with them. Maybe WG would understand - dont put shit in this game that nobody wants.

  8. just wondering, is it posible some WT got created by units in the fields? given the fact many units where very eager to get more armour in any way posible.

    about this one, if wg wants to go completely unhistorical again, they might want to implement a dual gun mount for this one. Because personaly i feal like many tanks are to much the same these days. I'd say dual 128mmL61 guns could make a good niche as nothing would have this tactical flexebility (ofc combined with other drawbacks to balance) But if we do get WT line this year, it wont be like this i supose because multigun-mechanism wont come anywere near i tought

    1. Highly unlikely and for a reason. Multiple gun mounts of the same caliber were needed only for stauration fire - mainly AA fire. For all other purposes a single higher caliber gun is always better, far better than twin guns of lower caliber.

  9. I had really high hopes for this line of TDs since i'm a big TD fan, but i have such a bad feeling and i think it's for a reason that this branch will be MASSIVE and i mean massive(even more than JgpzE100 if that's even possible) fail and unplayable. It will be slow as shit, no armor and a big gun that in no parallel universe will have good stats since it is, well, a german tank...if i had to choose i would go with smaller caliber and high RoF and good accuracy...if it coincidentally get autoloader than it might be at least playable but still no more than that...what i think it would be like...well i think it's gonna get some ridiculous extremly high caliber gun, that will aim for 3 years, will be nowhere near accurate and it's RoF would be shit bcs it would have abnormally alpha dmg...

  10. I'm kind of hoping for a vehicle somewhat half way between the current JP E-100 and GW E with a partially rotating turret and a long, 'fast' firing 150mm. Since the superstructure is going to be thin anyway, strip off a bunch of the hull armour but keep the same engine. Suddenly the vehicle is many, many tons lighter thus faster and more manoeuvrable, though can't take a hit.
    Then again the whole concept fits its unofficial moniker, the WTF E-100.

  11. It should end up with a very high dpm gun and not completely useless turret armor.
    Odds are this could easily be another big WG fail, if this TD line turns out to be clearly crap i probably will just give up with the game entirely since its getting more and more obvious of WG plan.

  12. It will use an unarmored hull, 80mm like the type E, and therefore much lighter. I would bank on the 1200 HP engine, it will have decent mobility.

    Many doomsayers about german tanks. Majority of wot players still believe the leopard 1 was released under strength.


    For its gun I am betting a rapid fire 17cm. 1050 alpha, same pen as JPE, .34 accuracy. 2.7-3.0 ROF. Mark my words.

    Also, wasn't the E100 also proposed (perhaps not blueprinted), but proposed as a Anti aircraft vehicle, SPG, and Tank Destroyer? It's getting a little annoying with the increasing regularity of your posts saying "stupid WG another made-up design".

    It's not unreasonable to believe an adhoc waffentrager style E100 would be pressed in to service in the desperate moments if the war had dragged on another year or two. Obviously the germans would not blueprint a waffentrager style (essentially adhoc solution to a damaged vehicle) e100 before the actual e100 was put into production.

    - Lord_Commander from NA server

    1. xCaptainObviousxApr 24, 2013, 8:48:00 AM

      I came here to say the same.

      Imagine it being based on the GW Typ E hull with the 1200 hp engine from the regular E-100. It would weigh around 90 tons giving it a resonable hp/ton and it may ever retain the GWE's 40 kph top speed. In that case we'd actually see a fairly mobile gun carrier.

    2. Nope, the E-100 was proposed as super-heavy tank and heavy assault gun (aka TD/bunker buster).

      There were no plans of using a super-heavy chassis for SPG, the Tiger/Tiger II chassis was well-suited enough with a few road wheels added, while the only-thing AAA related would be a discussion about adding a 20mm gun in a small turret for AA purposes, which was dropped as it interfered with the loading of the main gun.

      I'm sorry if this kind of posts are becoming boring for you, the other side of the coin is that anyone who has an interest in history or practical military applications just keeps facepalming at many WG nonsensical implementations based on misrepresentation of real projects.

    3. I know that the GWE is made up completely by WG. I'm just saying that people expect the WT line to be mobile with crap armor and this fitted the bill perfectly.

      Hitorical accuracy doesn't seem to stop WG from introducing this kind of contraptions.

      I'm not trying to claim that I know anything about real history but I like to brainstorm "what if"s. I'll leave the historical accuracy part to people like you who ACTUALLY know something about it.

    4. Well, let me put it this way:

      Waffentragers were basically a "let's bring the biggest guns we have on tha battlefield on the cheapest chassis that can move them reliably, so if it's lost it's not a big deal" concept, so a super-heavy tank hull pretty much goes against the idea, doesn't it?

  13. Well this whole WT line seems to be very boring... fragile and slow tanks with über-guns...

    the idiotic designs kill also the camo value, so i ask you: which part should they take in a regular match?

    for me it´s almost the same playstyle like the existing line offers + a big disadvantage, you can´t be a roadblock with this big and fragile monsters... all in all nothing new and very boring for my taste

  14. 1. Mobility - it can have overall armor comparable with GWE so with 1200hp engine we could see around 15hp per ton for the vehicle, closer to the Object's 263 17.5 hp per ton. Matching 200 mm hull armor with light armored superstructure would be a fail anyway.

    2. As for the camo ("no matter how you twist it, E-100 hull is huge as hell, you won't hide this beast") - perhaps that is why the Wargaming is planning to twist the camo mechanism in game ;)

  15. I can't understand why they make tanks like this. If they are going to start pulling tank designs out from their asses, why not make Jagdpanzer E75 instead, or something fun that might actually be interesting to play in every game instead team / map dependent niche tanks.

    1. Jpz E-75 would be basically a JagdTiger II, with either rear casemate, front transmission and a bigger gun or central casemate, rear transmission and a slightly smaller one.


    3. Unlikely to happen that way, there are no drawings so I'd consider more likely central or rear casemate if we go by similar german late war projects.
      My personal hope would be a Jagdpanther II on steroids.

    4. That drawing is a complete fake and the Krokodil is actually copyrighted by some modelling company. Not this shit again...

    5. Is it copyrighted as a forward superstructure tank destroyer based on a german heavy or medium tank? Why not copyright Jagdpanther then?

      Ideas cannot be copyrighted.

    6. Actually, they can. Whole concepts can. Now, I don't Krokodil stuff for sure, but it was mentioned in the RU forums.

  16. The term "auto loader" is widely misused for guns/vehicles that can rapidly fire a series of rounds and will need a longer time to reload after that. That's not what an auto loader does. An auto loader simply replaces the loader. It may lead to a higher rate of fire, but it will not enable the gun to burst fire several shots; that would be a drum (or magazine) feeder. The correct term therefore would be "drum feeder" or "magazine feeder".

    1. Yes, you are right technically, but the thing is, this blog is oriented at WoT players and an "autoloader" is a game term for the "magazine/drum feeder", because it has been estabilished as such by use. Not exactly historical, but it's better than to confuse the players even more.

  17. Contrary to what WG says, all the arty changes and new lines will mean more high tier arty around, so think about what the juiciest target on the battlefield will be. The open topped, "gigantic" (according to WG) German vehicle with the 2800 instead of 2400 DPM gun that makes a big boom sound.

    It will fail, spectacularly, but who cares? German lines are a dead end and only morons would use them any more. Oh, the E-100 gets up to 4th place sometimes, woo hoo, with all premium rounds! (in before said moron says the E-100 is the best tank ever).

    1. I'll use your logic for a while.

      Low/mid tier derp guns aren't OP, they were perfectly balanced, now they are seen as overpowered woo hoo, with premium rounds.

      Can you see why your logic is flawed?

      E100 was used in CW's before they allowed to buy premium ammo for creds, the problem was - the clan needed tons of gold to sustain it - now the problem has gone, and this tank IS one of the best tier 10 vehicles, just noobs can't accept that they don't have loltractor-sized tank with is shape and maus thickness of armour, 183 gun with 10 RoF and 20 hp/ton.

  18. SS are there any data about the "150mm L/102,5" and "150mm KwK 44 L/67" guns performance? Where they build or just drawings existed?

    btw in which book can I find the source on these?

    1. I think I know where to look, I'll get back to you on that in a day or two

  19. A Waffenträger E-100 with the 15 cm Gerät 65F would be insane. The gun itself was gigantic.
    In fact the scale is somewhat off, the gun would be even bigger.

  20. why wargame doesn'T bring the stug E-100 ? stug E-100 is more historical and more carismatic really in my opinion.

    OR there will be a third german tank destroyer tree( maybe a forth German TD tree in the far future ) ?

  21. WT auf E100 was a proposed Anti-Aircraft gun on the chassis of the E-100 which is kind of stupid
    Why use a Autoloading 128mm or 150 when you can use autoloading 88 or 75 on a smaller chassis and more room for ammo. Also, the recoil from the 150 would be too much yet alone being autoloading..

  22. I bet all you people thinking this tank was going to be a fail POS before it was released feel silly now.


Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.