StuG E-75 – possible tier 10 German TD?

Hello everyone,

today, we’ll have a look at one of the more controversial, yet also more interesting designs the Germans produced. Please note that Zarax is the author and the overseer of the project, while the drawings and calculations have been made by Silentstalker.


So, what IS the StuG E-75 – is it even historical?

Yes, yes it is. At least in the way that it was planned. StuG E-75 (as its name suggests) is an assault gun project, based on the E-75 heavy tank we all know and love from World of Tanks. The E-75 project itself was in real life a program to replace the German heavy tanks (E stands for Entwicklung, “development”) and it was mostly under the supervision of the automotive head of WaPrüf6, Ing. Ernst Kniepkamp. Both E-75 and E-50 were supposed to be so called “standard tanks” (Standardpanzer), that were to be mass produced and were designed in order to save material and manhours, compared to the previous heavy tank designs, such as the Tiger and Tiger II, while sharing as many components as possible – including suspensions, roadwheels, engines and transmission. Here is the picture of the E-75 hull, as drawn by Mr.Doyle in his Panzer Tracts (20-1):


For the E-50/75 suspension design and construction, the company Adlerwerke (furthermore referred to as Adler) was selected. Probably the most renowned German tank expert along with H.Doyle, Walther Spielberger, refers to it in his Special Panzer Variants book. Thanks to him, we know the dimensions of the Adler E-75 suspension:


What else do we know about the E-75? It was to be powered by either a supercharged Maybach HL230-based engine of unknown horsepower, but because that engine was not yet developed, an alternative was proposed: Maybach HL234, rated at 900hp. Another engine (Deutz V8 diesel) was also considered, along with Voith torque converter and Mech-Hydro transmission. Fritz Hahn (another author, dealing with German superweapons) states that this vehicle was to be armed with a 105mm L/68 gun. Either way, all that remained only on paper. Some components for the E-series were designed on the drawing board, but before any serious effort could be made, the war was over. No production was ever considered.

So, that’s all nice and good, but where does the StuG come in? Well, that’s the fun part: it was proposed along with the E-75 itself. Walther Spielberger confirms it in his Special Panzer Variants book:

stuge75 spielberger

And so, from Spielberger, we know it existed and it had over 80 tons and a 60 degrees sloped frontal armor. Notice how Spielberger does not mention any casemate, but frontal sloped armor of the E-75, sloped at 60 degrees. It can be theorized that what he meant by the StuG E-75 was a Jagdpanther-style design, with frontal casemate. Interesting, is it not?

Fritz Hahn, a German author (another one, who actually lived through the war and was a part of German arms research branch) goes even further: he mentions the Sturmgeschütz variant of the E-75 ín his book “Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945″:


Here, he mentions the assault gun based on E-75 having 85 tons and being armed by the proposed new 150mm L/52 StuK (gun). Did such a weapon proposal exist? Well, it’s reasonable to assume so, as it is known that the Germans also proposed a 150mm L/67 (drawing by H.Doyle):


So, with that all kept in mind, the StuG E-75 design could have looked something like on the picture above (please note it’s not a real historical drawing or anything, I made that picture myself, based on the E-75 suspension and hull design by Hilary Doyle).

As you can see, the solution we decided to follow is the one of the Jagdpanther with frontal casemate structure, angled at 45 degrees. The proposed vehicle on the picture is armed with a 150mm L/52 gun on a cradle, based on the historical L/67 cradle design. The 150mm L/67 was proposed for the Jagdpanzer E-100 most likely (that’s one of the hints at the fact the historical Jagdpanzer E-100 would really have rear casemate).

There is another option of course, to have a mid-casemate design, that would essentially look like a buffed up Jagdtiger, but for several reasons we decided for the frontal casemate design. These reasons were:

- obviously, it’s more attractive
- there is no evidence supporting the claim it did NOT look like that
- on lower weight scale, it’s relatively realistic, when it comes to weight distribution of the vehicle
- the gun itself is partially historical, having probably (roughly) the same dimensions as the 15cm K39, having L/55 (instead of L/52) barrel and hurling 43kg instead of 42kg shells, while weighting (“only”) two tons more than the original Jagdtiger gun
- on Foch 155 we can see the front heavy vehicle actually works

If we look at it in more detail:

Weight is known: 85 tons. Armor might resemble the original E-75, but in order to keep the weight (despite saving some weight on the turret rotation mechanism), I assume the superstructure would have to be a bit thinner. So what I will go with is this:


The armor schematic is mostly based on weight, as noone really knows how thick exactly the E-75 armor was supposed to be. As you can see, frontal 150mm armor, sloped at 60 degrees, will give the vehicle reasonable protection in frontal combat, while keeping the weight low. The sides are obviously weaker, but 120mm should do the trick. Lower frontal plate is 120mm too.

The gun itself is the 150mm L/52. Now, we can roughly guess at its properties in the game. Since the initial velocity was probably not that awesome, we can use high caliber HEAT as gold ammo. Based on the properties of other guns in game, I see the gun having the following properties:

Penetration: 289/350/90
Damage: 850/850/1100
Accuracy: 0,33
Aimtime: 2,5
ROF: 3,55

Traverse: due to the breech size, we can expect limited traverse. Calculated from the breech and casemate size of the Jagdtiger, I think with some effort we can have -8/+8
horizontal, with an elevation of -5,+15.

Ammo capacity is of course a balance issue. There are alternative guns that could be used, for example:

- 150mm L/40, analogue to E-100′s gun
- 128mm L/61, the good old JT cannon with increased ROF
- 128mm L/66 or even the awesome 128mm Flak 45 L/75 (more on that in “Enzyklopädie Deutscher Waffen 1939-1945″- thanks, Thor_Hammerschlag)

Engine – here we have four options, but only one historical is mentioned:

- HL234 (850-900hp)
- supercharged HL233 (possibly 950hp)
- MB-507 (850HP)
- GT103 turbine (1150hp)

Of course, the turbine is never mentioned in connection with the E-series anywhere and its use would be highly speculative. But it’s an option. The 900hp engine would give it 10,58 hp/t, which in fact is not that bad. Coupled with decent terrain resistance, this vehicle could be fairly mobile. Of course, the turbine would give it 14 hp/t, but that solution carries all sorts of problems with it (amongst other things it would be a “1 hitpoint” engine – in game terms, it would burn ALL the time).

Also note that this vehicle still has frontal suspension.

All in all, turnrate and mobility could roughly equal the E-75.


In World of Tanks, this vehicle could fulfill the niche between “fragile” and “moving fortress” tank destroyers. Unlike the Waffentrager E-100, this vehicle is at least partially historical. What follows are the summary characteristics of how it look in World of Tanks. Furthermore, the vehicle is not as big as the Jpz E-100 and could profit from reasonable camo factor.

Tier: 10
Hitpoints: 2000
Weight: 85 tons
Hull armor: 150/120/120
Maximum speed: 40km/h
Maximum reverse: 15km/h
Hull Traverse: 30 deg/s
Terrain resistance: 1/1,3/2
Engine: 900hp HL234 (950hp supercharged HL230, 1150hp GT103)
Viewrange: 405
Signalrange: 720

Gun: 150mm StuK L/52
Penetration: 289/350/85
Damage: 850/850/1150
Aim: 0,33
Aimtime: 2,5
ROF: 3,5
Traverse: -8/+8
Elevation: -5/+15

Shells: PzGr 46(150), Gr HL46 (HEAT), SprG 46(150)

And now the most important question:

What to do with it?

Well, it’s like this: some of you might remember the time Daigensui and Zarax promoted the Weserhütte Tiger. That one’s dead – by the changes in the E-50M (namely the armor and the mantlet), it has become superfluous. Elements of the Tiger W plan were in fact implemented into the E-50M in the 8.8 German change.

This vehicle could serve as a reward/branch tier 10 vehicle as well. Germans certainly do have enough tank destroyers to fit another TD branch with. It might even fit better as tier X for the current TD branch, with JPz E-100 as alternate tier X (the soviet line will have something similar soon for their mediums), or as a reward for CW’s or some supertough random missions? Why not?

Of course, posting this here is just… you know, entertainment. To even have any devs look at it, it would need some serious publicity. I am a realist – the chance of that is extremely low. Still, it’s a thought for some of you guys.

Oh and don’t call it “Krokodil” please, that name is made up. Zarax suggests “Schwerer Jagdpanzer V/VI” or simply StuG E-75.

Polls to ask for the tank are now available:

EU Server:

US Server:

SEA Server:

If anyone would like to start similar polls in RU and CH it would help us to reach the objective of 300k players support!

About Zarax

Wot: Zarax999 (EU Server)

134 thoughts on “StuG E-75 – possible tier 10 German TD?

  1. Jagdtiger II, Panzerjäger E75
    15cm StuK L/52 auf Panzerjäger E75

    Zarax and SS, good articile today! I’ve always been interested as to what a ‘real’ E75 TD would look like. This is pretty much what I’d expect.

    In my opinion, a more realistic weapon would probably be the 128mm (given the fact that the E75 series was more of a slight improvement/standization of the Tiger II platform) although having two guns (say, a high pen/accuracy 128mm, and a lower pen, lower accuracy, higher Alpha 150mm would be ideal)

    • Well, all in all the gun weighs more or less like the 128 L/66, which is at the limit of the chassis.

      • Oh, I bet, but generally those 150mm designs were more of HEAT-throwers anyway.

        Also, why not have it’s armor values being similar (or the same) as the E75? (160 UFP, 130mm LFP) It seems a little bit odd that this design would have radically different armor values up front (particularly the lower plate and upper front plate) than it’s “standard” cousin, particularly the fact that it’s LIGHTER.

        Also, on a related note, is there any issue with (from a design standpoint) a E50 (or E50m) TD of a similar design? (JadgPanther III =D)

        • Muzzle velocity would be around 850m/s as the gun is based on the 15cm K(18) or K(39) which fired at a very respectable 865 m/s.
          As for the armor, the vehicle is quite a bit front heavy, it’s still around 300mm effective against HEAT, so angling with 120mm sides will make it quite good at side scraping.

          No mention of E-50 designs are available, take into account it’s the same chassis as E-75 and it differed only in armor…

        • normal StuG design would follow some weaker sides. I can follow your decisions, but would argue taht the german would have used only 80mm side and a even greater casemate for a greater ammo capacity

          • It’s a weight distribution issue.
            There is no space for a bigger casemate as it would go over the engine compartment so we used the extra weight for side and rear armor to keep the tank balanced.

      • I suspect that 120mm on the commanders copula is a bit much. If I were building it I would take the easy route and take one built for a Tiger and weld it on rather then design something new. So 80mm instead of 120mm. There was after all a war going on and things should be as simple as possible.

        • Take into account that some later war projects used Maus cupola instead of the Tiger one, Sturmpanther being the easiest to find example.

  2. A very great article. It would be really awesome that the Minsk devs or at least the EU branch of WG would look and read this article and at least give them something to think about. It would be awesome to have this baby in the game :)

  3. I’d rather have more realistic Jagdpanzers at tier 10, like a tier 10 Kanonenjagdpanzer with 105mm L7 clone with better soft stats than the leopard gun.

    Small, really good camo, fast, basically a tier 10 StuG 3.

      • So is leopard 1 then? Armor is not everything, SS.

        Give it good speed and a better version of the leopard’s gun and its a perfect tier 10 candidate.
        There were plans for Kanonenjagdpanzer with 105mm L7 Royal ordinance gun. And the vehicle is historical.

        • Not to mention with that size it would have the most insane camouflage of every tier 10 TD in the whole GAME. A HUMAN is taller than this thing.

            • But you gotta admit the idea for such a tier 10 TD is good. There is nothing like it ATM, except the Leopard Itself….

            • T6 – JagdPz IV (branch origin)
              T7 – E25 (already a premium, but whatever)
              T8 – KanJagdPz prototype
              T9 – KanJagdPz production version
              T10 – KanJagdPz 105mm

              And that’s just off the top of my head. I’m sure there are other options.

            • Thats actually pretty cool indeed.

              But nothing beats the Stradisvagn. Strv 103 in WoT is my wet dream.

            • But an FV 4401 Contentious prem tank destroyer would satisfy me aswell. Would be very nice if it was a prem brit TD.

            • What about something like this:

              Tier6 (JagdPzIV)
              Tier7 (Jagdpanther)
              Tier8 (JagdpantherII)
              Tier9 (Versuchsträgerscheitellafette 1 – VTS1 – 105mm L7 Tank Destroyer Prototype on Leopard1 basis –
              Tier10 (Versuchsträger 1-1)

              The ‘Versuchsträger 1-1′ (‘Experimental Carrier 1-1′, furthermore referred to as VT 1-1) was a turretless main battle tank developed in the 1970s as possible successor of the Leopard 1. It mounted 2 105mm L7A3 guns and used a shortened MBT-70 chassis, which is, unlike some may think, still using Spaced Armor, no sign of composite armor or anything close to it. The VT 1-1 was planned to be using a MTU MB-803 Ra-500, which delivered 1,500hp sustained and 2,400 hp for short periods of time, at a weight of 43.5 tons this tank had a sustained 34.5hp/ton and was capable of reaching 55hp/ton for a short period of time. It was/is 9.06m long, 3.54m wide and 2.04m high.


              The fact that multi-gun TDs that look practically similar to the VT 1-1 (1 gun left, 1 gun right) are already in the game (AT-8, AT-7) should make this a possible Tier10 TD and due to the fact that very little is known about this tank project, leaves room for a lot of tweaking. And unless the multi-gun support is finally implemented, this thing will be nothing else than a Leopard1 TD and probably by nothing better than the VTS1. Also the fact that a vehicle of this size with conventional steel-armour is weighting 43.5 tons practically ensures a poorly armoured vehicle. Probably even poorer than the Object 268.

  4. “(that’s one of the hints at the fact the historical Jagdpanzer E-100 would really have rear casemate).”

    Minor hints don’t trump the reality that Doyle pointed out in his Q&A with Overlord: it would never have been a rear casemate because of the logistics. Rear would mean rearranging the interior of the chassis and defeat the stated purpose and advantage of the Standardpanzer design and production process.

    Wargaming’s JpE-100 is just as made up as the Krokodil, the only difference is that if WG had wanted to implement the (admittedly popular) Krok design, they would have had to pay out royalties to the model designer. As usual, the real deciding factor the design is not its historicity but the financials of the business behind it.

    Good article though, would love to see this beast in-game, reward tank or otherwise.

    • Err, not exactly.
      Jpz E-100 was pretty much based on the Sturmpanzer Maus design, only using Krupp/Henschel parts.
      Also, there is the issue of the design being nose heavy, with respectively a 10m or heavier 8.5m guns on a 10m tank it means a huge overhang which wasn’t desirable.

      Also, given that those super-heavies were pretty much hand made it wouldn’t make much of a difference on a manufacturing stand point, as it was already determined no production savings were to be made, which determined the cancellation of the project.

          • Probably it wont have many, but i think it wont have any project-breaking disadvantages either.

          • No need to remove the gun when you need to fix the engine for one, better logistics.

        • Middle casemate is no easier to make then this angled frontal design as the gun placement is effectively the same, but with less room. Considering that by this time so were angled armor a known advantage so would there be no reason to make a middle casemate over the angled front one.

      • That is correct, however we must say WG interpretation makes sense from an engineering perspective.

    • Do keep in mind that the E-100 was not, AFAIK, part of the late-war “Standardpanzer” family concept; it was more or less something drawn up as a saner alternative to the Maus should Hitler have persisted with his short-lived mid-war fascination with superheavy tanks.

      This would rather seem to render the logistics-based argument moot.

    • I have no idea why people constantly brings that ridiculous ‘copyright’ idea when talking about front casemate JP E100. Unless it’s a direct 1:1 copy of that model kit it’s all okay. You can’t copyright such a general idea as ‘ front casemate jagdpanzer based on E100 chassis’.

      If you do however then i am cipyrighting at the moment an idea of ‘tracked combat vehicle with turret, armor and a gun’. Wargaming you stole my idea!

  5. Excellent job.
    Bit off-topic: Did I misunderstood something, or both E-50 and E-75 were suppoused to have identical turrets?

    “Als hauptbewaffnung war die 10,5 cm KwK L/68 in dem für den E-50 entworfenen Drehturm geplant.

  6. Isn’t the Jagdpanzer E-100 also technically supposed to be called the StuG E-100?

        • STUGs and Jpz were separated only in late 1944 or early 1945 IIRC.
          Prior to that they were all STUGs and often assigned to the same units, there were reports of very satisfied commanders using Ferdinands and Sturmpanzers IV in unison.

  7. Nice to see the e75w kinda got implemented with the e50m changes. It shows these projects aren’t in vain, but now there needs to be a good e75w skin for the e50m. :)

    It would be more difficult to get the Stuge-75 implemented like the e75w, since it would require a new tank to be implemented.

    If you want it to become more popular we can spread the word.

  8. Very nice article, just like the Tiger W one. Now just to get buttload of active players say they want it… Good luck with that…

  9. Oh wow.. that Trumpeter Krokodil model isn’t looking so unreal afterall… /sarcastic surprise

  10. I do not endorse this, but at the same time I do not condemn it. I think a bit more calculations are needed.

  11. Another massive amount of nonsense based on a single line from a book, you guys are incorrigible.

    • We’ll eagerly await for your alternative proposals. In the meantime, we tried our best to reconstruct the tank based on our best sources on german panzer development.

    • While I somewhat agree with the 2 line thing.. its still much better than JgE100 (killing one is like butchering a lame elephant). Hope WG will add it one day as an alternative t10. Them super-duper E100/Maus heavies are just too impractical.

      Dont see any point in JgE100 when U have small mobile shits like Foch155 with just as much armor.. even as a soviet fanboi I’d be fine if they added Stug E-75 with an auto loader for balance reasons or w/e, still more historical than say E4 or T28 prot.

      • Take into account that both Maus and E-100 sturmpanzers had exactly the same amount of design data (we know just the hull), with the difference of a bit more discussion on armament and armor available.

  12. SS, did you do any specific calculations for how the load would be spread across the suspension? I ask because this to me is the limiting factor. It looks to me as though the front two road wheels will be taking a lot of load, and this will give inconsistant performance if you drive cross country.

    • Basic ones, yes. It is an issue. Then again, the weight does not have to be spread completely evenly, there are ways to compensate for that, for example strenghtened frontal suspension.

      • Yes, but you are still going to have incresed wear on the front road wheels. I don’t know if you remember but during the E-50 split, SerB posted the suspension calcs. I’m about to go on holliday for the rest of the week and don’t have time to go through them, but I’d be interested to see how they compare.

        • The Germans seemed pretty willing to accept a permanently overloaded front suspension on the late-model Pz IVs, mind. Granted they didn’t really have much choice – it was that or giving up too much armour and/or firepower – but for a fairly specialised and limited-run assault vehicle like the StuG E-75 would presumably have been it might have been considered acceptable.

          • From where are you pulling this information? I’m asking because I’d be interested in reading more about this kind of info.

            • It is a known fact that the late model Panzer IV was difficult to drive because it was overweight in the front.
              This was brought up when discussing about the up-armoring to 80mm but was considered an acceptable price.

            • I’d really be interested in reading more about problems in development and this kind of stuff. Any chance you can tell me where I could find more info about how these machines behaved with problems and all? Or better yet, any chance you could write an article about them? I’ve looked through the archive on FTR and didn’t really find something like this. Then again, maybe I missed it.

            • Try looking for “Panzer IV & Its variants” by Spielberger, it’s one of the best sources on the topic.

  13. Awesome article! keep this stats in mind folks xD we will talk in the not to distant future about this again.

    Btw i think should be T9 as E-75 and T10 should be taken by JagdMaus! oh and remember when SerB said they have enough german TD material for like 3-4 new lines. Something like that. Wont be surprised about a THIRD german TD line featuring : StuG E-75 as Tier 9 TD and JagdMaus as T10 TD.

    • Jagdmaus will be at the top of the Porsche line.

      My personal estimate:

      Porsche Typ 245/2

      Porsche Typ 250

      Porsche Typ 255


      Sturmpanzer Elefant

      SturmPanzer Maus

  14. Yes, hell yes for an alternative 128mm

    Why must all tierX TD have big boom sticks?
    The JT’s 128mm is an almost unique gun (o263′s is very similar) that’s an almost perfect compromise between alpha and rate of fire.
    You don’t even have to mess around with it too much, just give it the gold APCR shells as standard on the tierX version for penetration, and boost up the other stats to make it tierX worthy.

    Instantly, you have a viable and fresh new concept for a tierX TD.

  15. Good article SS and Zarax. Was a good quick read. WG won’t put this in though, as something similar was asked for a long time now. Maybe when they start hemorrhaging customers to War Thunder they’ll start listening to their fans.

  16. Hey Guys Hey SS,

    i’m a bit of topic but anyone noticed the Depressionchange on the E50/E50m? q-q

  17. I have not read every single comment above, so don’t hate me for repeating things.

    I do not understand the logic behind thinner casement. Not only hydrolic system was removed to preserve wieght, note that the turret also have more armor. Since the wieght of extra armor was saved, wouldn’t it make sense that the wieght will either decrease, or stay the same? In addition, E series was developed to save cost and man power. If the armor of frontal is not equal, wouldn’t it make production more complicated, which is against its intention. Third, the upper casement is traditionally equal, if not thicker than lower casement. See Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger for reference. Overall, I believe that it makes more sense for Stug E75 to have a uniform 160mm armor.

    • Weight distribution. In short, putting too much weight on the front would make the vehicle too nose-heavy, which in turn will lead into too many drivetrain breakdowns, or – in worst case – the frontal suspension wouldn’t be able to support such weight.

    • First of all, there are no historical specs for E-50 or E-75 armor, authors just say one would be heavier armored than the other.
      The second aspect we discussed with SilentStalker is that the vehicle would be quite nose heavy, meaning armor couldn’t be too thick at the front, so we gave thicker sides and rear.

      Lastly, we’re talking about 300 effective armor VS heat and over 250 against AP IIRC, which with some angling means quite good protection, especially with 120mm thick sides.

      Of course, if any mechanical engineer would try to do some more calculations we’d be glad to correct our estimates.

  18. Stugie! Funny, that’s what I call my StuG and there will now be an actual StuG-E. Well, maybe.

    As for the JagdPanzerkanone, 70kmh. That’s all I gotta say. Yeah, it’s armor is like no armor at all, but it would be fast and nimble and be as a pain in the ass as the E-25 is, but at tier 8 if it gets a decent ROF if not 9. I guess it depends on gun depression. Which I did just look up before posting this. -8′, hmmm, yeah. Not a Tier 9.

  19. - “Of course, the turbine would give it 14 hp/t, but that solution carries all sorts of problems with it (amongst other things it would be a “1 hitpoint” engine – in game terms, it would burn ALL the time).”

    would be nice if this tier 10 tank would have not two guns to choose, but engines, wchich make playstyle completly different

    • I wouldn’t mind “high risk-high reward” options in the game, would give some spice…

  20. 10cm track thickness? That’s pretty thick – or there’s an error in that drawing.

  21. Just sayin’ but I find citing the Foch 155 as a comparative example a mite dubious. For one thing that thing never historically received a gun bigger than 120mm, the 155mm proposal never making it past that stage. For another the Foch basically just stuck the gun in the front of a somewhat heightened AMX 50 hull, whereas this design adds a whole casemate that nearly doubles the height of the vehicle instead (with due increase in armoured surface area).
    Seems like it’d add *far* more burden to the suspension, both relatively and absolutely, methinks…

    • It would be interesting to have an engineer doing some calculations into it, I prepared a central casemate draft as well.

      • The current draft’s casemate extends far enough back to more or less amount to that already, arguably. ;p

        Anyways, just thought I’d point out the comparision didn’t seem entirely valid.

  22. 又是幻想…….E50 ,E75的设计连底盘都没完成。(这也是为什么几本权威的书籍上,E50,E75都没有炮塔)。德国坦克爱好者为何总是喜欢幻想?

    • It’s not a fantasy.
      We know the hull projects and we know the weapon specifications from Spielberger, Jentz, Doyle and Hahn, the sources have been posted in the article.
      All is missing is the armor profile (which isn’t specified anywhere) and casemate shape.
      The former can be approximately obtained by projected weight, while the latter was extrapolated from known german casemate designs.

      This one is in fact the Jagdpanther mit 12,8 Pak casemate brought to the front, it fits perfectly with the bow plate angle.
      So some parts are extrapolations yes, but very careful ones.

      (Warning, google translation)



      • i can understand in some degree,but the translation which tranlate by google, most of chinese cant understand

        so the Jagdpanzer E75 is a feasible assumption?

        • Yes, it is based on reputable authors.
          If Jagdpanzer E100 is feasible then Jagdpanzer is feasible as they have the same level of information available.

          “Special Panzer Variants” by Spielberger
          “Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutschen Heeres 1933-1945″ by Fritz Hahn

          Both were military engineers in WWII Germany.

  23. Very nice and well thought through. I wish would replace the Jagdpainzer E-100 with your design.

  24. “Also note that this vehicle still has frontal suspension.”
    I think you meant to say “frontal transmission”.

  25. Am I the only one who noticed that it is bigger and slower than Foch, yet has less front armor?

    • French are subject to looser realism checks than germans plus we’re talking about 10 years earlier engineering standards.

      • I was thinking more about gameplay. This looks like a “balanced” T10 TD, while those in game are usually OP (too fast, too well armored, etc…).

        • Soft stats can help balancing a great deal.
          In this case, it doesn’t look too strong on any side but it will be a sidescraping monster…

      • It also helps that the Foch was actually built…

        More to the point, it also used space more economically by having the gun in the front hull as opposed to separate superstructure. That makes for less frontal surface area ergo thick “main belt” glacis plate which, obviously, saves weight, as did leaving the sides very thin.

        Still by no means a small or light vehicle though; Chars-Francais gives ~60 tons, 2.7m height (presumably including the cupolas) and 3.1m width. (Lenght is listed as 9.5m, but since that obviously includes the barrel it’s not terribly useful.)
        It merely wasn’t as huge as the massive steel bricks the Germans liked to draw up in the final years; the in-game weights of the E-50s already, presumably at least in the right ballpark, are already 60+ tons…