How historical is the upcoming 8.9 line?

Hello everyone,

today, we are going to have a look at the historicity of the new upcoming German tank destroyer line.

Tier 4 – Marder 38T


As you can see on the picture, this vehicle is clearly based on the Marder III Ausf.H. Of course, most Marder pictures are taken from the ground by a photographer, so few people know about how the superstructure really looks (that it has that small “roof” and spent shell collectors):


So, why is it called Marder 38T and not Marder III Ausf.H in the game? Well, that’s a good question. First off, the designation Marder 38T is not historical – even IF it was to be called like this, it would be called 38(t), but generally, as far as I know, Marder III was referred to either by its Sonderkraftahrzeug number, or simply “Marder” or “Marder III” (or – in one case – Panzerjäger 38(t) ). If you are interested in the Marder III history, I wrote an article about it some time ago.

I suspect that the developers chose this name because a) it’s short (much shorter than Marder III Ausf.H anyway) and b) because of the weaponry. You see, historical Marder III Ausf.H carried ONLY the 75mm PaK 40 (which will probably be buffed in terms of accuracy, aimtime and rate of fire for tier 4). It never actively carried the Marder II 76,2mm coverted Russian gun. Thus, if they wanted to add more weapons to Marder III, it wouldn’t be Marder III Ausf.H anymore, but some sort of hybrid. In this sense, it’s probably guaranteed for Marder III to carry some unhistorical weaponry (despite the L/70 Marder III actually being available – it was a paper project by BMM). And since it’s an unhistorical mashup anyway, they might name it 38T as well.

Overall, I suspect this vehicle will be quite historical (in terms of engine, armor etc.), with a bunch of unhistorical guns added.

Historical stats:

Crew: 4
Weight: 10,5 tons
Armor: 50mm frontal
Engine: 125-150hp Praga
Max.speed: 35-40km/h
Gun: PaK 40/3 L/46,5

Tier 5 – Sfl.IVc


Ah yes, the infamous “bang bus”. Yes, in case you are wondering, this is a historical vehicle. Doyle and Chamberlain clearly tell us in the “Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two”:


The picture above contains all that we do know and need to know about the vehicle. Basically, the Flak version (that is in game, see the gun choices – the top being the L/74 Flak 41) was NOT designed to drive around and kill tanks, it was a mobile heavy AA vehicle with fully traversing turret. As for the Flak 41 gun itself, I think we can expect somewhat worse parameters than the PaK 43 L/71, but how much worse, that we can only speculate. Original FlaK 41 parameters:

Barrel length: L/74 (6548mm)
Recoil: 1100mm
Elevation: -3 to +90 (this goes for static mount)
AT shell velocity: 980 m/s
AT shell weight: 9,8kg
Subcaliber AT shell velocity: 1125 m/s
Subcaliber AT shell weight: 7,5kg
Rate of fire: 23 rounds per minute (again, this is for static mount, it won’t be nearly as much in game)
Penetration at 100m: 194mm (237mm with subcaliber rounds)

By having the bang bus drive around with its superstructure up, this vehicle moved from the realm of reality to the realm of fantasy somewhat, but I suspect the vehicle will be viable, if fragile. Please note that the ENTIRE superstructure acts as regular armor, not spaced armor: if it gets penetrated anywhere, tank HP goes down.

Tier 6 – Nashorn


This is probably (along with Marder III and Sturer Emil) the most known vehicle of the entire branch and many people waited for it. And for a good reason! Massive firepower of the L/71 makes it a hot contender for the most awesome tier 6 vehicle out there. For historical background, the wiki article suffices – of course, there are some small issues with it, but nothing groundbreaking. With its great gun, decent mobility and possibly good camo factor, I suspect it will be an awesome vehicle, if a bit fragile.

Crew: 5
Weight: 24 tons
Armor: 20-30mm hull, 10mm superstructure
Engine: 300hp Maybach (12,5hp/t)
Max.speed: 42km/h
Gun: 88mm PaK 43 L/71 (I suspect the previous vehicle’s Flak being the stock gun)

Tier 7 – Selbstfahrlafette V, or Sturer Emil


128mm K40 at tier 7? Yes please! Sturer Emil is a historical vehicle and possibly the most awaited tank destroyer of the whole line. It is a special hull, based on the VK3001H suspension, housing the massive 128mm gun. Again, for history basics, the wikipedia article will suffice. As for the gun itself, what can we expect? Well, basically it was a Flak 40 conversion, so don’t expect TOO much. But for its tier, the firepower will be awesome. Also, note the -15 historical depression. The traverse (7 to each side) is going to be a bit worse though.

Barrel length: L/61 (7808mm)
APC-HE shell velocity: 880 m/s
APC-HE shell weight: 26,35kg
Rate of fire: 10 rounds per minute (this is for static mount, it won’t be nearly as much in game)
Penetration at 100m: 201mm

Overall, this vehicle has potential to be completely historical.

Crew: 5
Weight: 35 tons
Armor: 50mm hull, 15mm superstructure
Engine: 300hp Maybach (8,57hp/t)
Max.speed: 25km/h
Gun: 128mm K40
Elevation: -15 (!!!)/+10
Traverse: 7 to each side

Tier 8 – Waffenträger Rheinmetall-Borsig


So, this looks weird, doesn’t it. Did such a thing actually exist in real life? Yes, yes it did.


This was one of the heavier Waffenträger proposals by Rheinmetall-Borsig. The Waffenträger history is kinda complicated, there were tons of various projects, mostly from Krupp, Rheinmetall and Ardelt. If you are interested in more details, please check my “Devil wears Praga” article.

The 150mm installed in the game (150mm FH L/29,5) is historical (as artillery piece, it was designated FH18 – FH in this case means Feldhaubitze, field gun). The penetration of this gun will not be very high (apart from the HEAT shells), but there almost certainly will be an option to mount a 128mm gun. That alone is also historical, as quite similiar chassis was planned for an unspecified 128mm gun (we can here expect the K40 to be stock and L/55 or its equivalent being an upgrade):


Armor – as you can guess – will be VERY thin:


The engine for these Waffenträgers however was originally the Praga AC/2, with the 220hp Tatra 103 being an upgrade. Overall, the turret could be rotated 360 degrees (confirmed by Storm), but please note that historically, this chassis could rotate the gun 360 degrees ONLY when equipped with the 88mm L/71, the 128mm and 150mm version could rotat ONLY to 30 degrees to each side, so this might still change.

Crew: 4
Weight: cca 13 tons with a 105mm mounted, which means cca 18 tons with 150mm
Armor: 10-20mm hull
Engine: 220hp Tatra 103 (12,2hp/t)
Max.speed: 35km/h
Gun: 150mm FH18, possibly 128mm K40 or L/55 PaK
Elevation: -0 (!) with the 150mm, -5 with the 128mm
Traverse: possibly 360, but historically 30 to each side

Tier 9 – Waffenträger auf Panzer IV


So, this is weird, isn’t it? Who’d put a Panzer III/IV hull on tier 9, is it even historical?


Unfortunately it is. These drawings come from Doyle’s “Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two” and were the only thing I was able to find on this strange design. With that being said, I suspect the developers took a lot of liberty, when designing this ugly vehicle in game. That unfortunately also means that we can only guess, what the vehicle will be like in game.

It is known it will have a 6 man crew, top gun is known (150mm PaK L/38), but the L/29,5 from tier 8 will most likely also appear, as will some sort of 128mm, like the L/55 (it’s historical, planned with 128mm K80 – a PaK44). We also know that the gun will be in a fully revolving 360 degree turret and that the hull is not well armored, probably 50mm or so. The gun shield will also be quite thin.

A lot of people are concerned about the mobility, but I wouldn’t be. This vehicle was leaked with a tier 5 engine in top configuration. Current Panzer IV actually has no tier 5 engine option, but Panzer III/IV does (and this vehicle was based on heavily modified III/IV chassis). That tier 5 engine has 580hp, so if we take a very wild guess and define its size as roughly similiar to that of the tier 8 (at least that’s how it looks from the drawings), we might be looking at a 25-30 ton vehicle. 580hp for 30 tons is not that bad, but it won’t be a race car. The elevation is going to be possibly quite decent.

As a last note: you might ask, why there is no 38d design on tier 9 too (there could be). Well, that’s because the 38d suspension is allegedly saved for something else (4th German TD branch, the 3rd being the assault guns, “crowned” by the Sturmtiger).

Tier 10 – Waffenträger E-100


Well, we waited for it and here it is in all its “glory”.

Waffenträger E-100 is a completely fictional design, so we might as well take a wild guess about how it will behave. The armor was confirmed to be thinner than the one of classic E-100. It’s very hard to guess the gun superstructure thickness, my guess is 100mm, but we’ll just have to see. For its weight (it’s most likely to be much lighter than the Jpz E-100, my guess: 80 tons?) it will possibly move much faster (keeping the same ingame maximum speed: 30km/h, but accelerating quicker) with the same engine. Note that the engine compartment is in the frontal part, which means more engine fires. This vehicle would be very vulnerable. The gun will be an autoloaded 150mm L/38 (with the autoloaded 128mm L/61 as an option possibly). Yes, E-100′s gun with an autoloader (the amount of shots per drum is not confirmed, I expect 4 for the 150mm and 6 for the 128mm). The turret was confirmed to be fully revolving (360 degrees). I harbor deep suspicions that this will be another E-100 in terms of gold ammo spam. Personally, I will most likely prefer the 128mm. The crew will be 6 men.

Okay, now we know it’s not historical, but how realistic is it?

Well, there are two aspects: economy and construction realism. Economy-wise, it’s complete garbage. Why on earth would you build a huge and complicated chassis (E-100 chassis was VERY manhour-requiring and shaving off some armor won’t make it that much better, on the contrary – you’d have to produce armor plates of similiar dimensions, but different thickness for example) in order to put an open-topped gun on it? Utterly pointless, especially when you have the 38d suspension planned, that can carry the same gun! (see tier 8). The appearance of this design makes me wonder, if it’s a Wargaming inside joke: “Hahaha let’s make German tanks look like the German engineers were idiots and see how much we can get away with” – I bet Mr.Doyle would have a lot to say about this “design” and a lot of it would be NSFW,

Realism wise, it’s probably marginally better. The engine is somewhere in the middle as you can see, which is possibly the most reasonable thing you can do maintenance-wise (on a rear-turret vehicle at least). The gun is extremely vulnerable (any such vehicle would be used for long-range fights anyway, so in real life it wouldn’t matter) and the design AT LEAST takes into account the reality of 1945 and protects its crew from air MG attacks by extending the gunshield. But that’s about it. The gun is also strange (casette reloading looked a bit differently), but I’ll tell you once the model is out/test goes live.

The only “saving grace” of this design is the fact that for all its faults, it’s STILL more realistic than the infamous fake Krokodil, especially weight-distribution wise.

147 thoughts on “How historical is the upcoming 8.9 line?

  1. I suppose the biggest and the brightest highlight of WT E-100 would be it’s auto-loader only… even that might lose it’s charm if WG eventually finds, if they have not already, a way to gimp it.

      • If it has 235mm pen it wont be worth anything. You”d have to get really close to penetrate with such a gun at tier 10, and with that armor and camo, no way.

        I hope it gets some sort of subcaliber or HEAT shells as normal ammo to buff normal pen. otherwise it will be rubbish.

      • This TD honestly is bullshit. No other TierX TD has less than 290mm Average Pen, all hover around 300mm. And then WG comes and gives this maybe actually quite good vehicle the E-100 Howitzer and claims it to be a TierX TD. This thing is nothing more than a TierIX TD, if even. Fuck the Autoloader, Foch155 has an autoloader, frontal armour (who knows if a vehicle that frontal heavy wouldn’t break down once it engine starts?), a good camo value, and guess what – 290+mm average pen with standard rounds.

        Now they come and try to tell us, this vehicle, less armoured, less mobile, less capable of hiding, with less penetration, is our new TierX TankDestroyer?

        Am I here to hear 4x ‘That one Didn’t go Through!’ If I don’t shoot HEAT-only? Is that the fate of the german heavies and TDs? Because my JPz E-100 does already have some ridiculous bounces and ‘didn’t penetrate!’-hits (frontal turret of PzV/M10 on point blank, didnt go through, anyone?), I use only HEAT on it. Maus and E-100 are obviously obvious.

        And now they come and try to convince me that a 15cm L/38 was all that german engineers would’ve ever brought running on a TD? If they can bring a 12.8cm L/61 and a 17cm converted Howitzer onto a tank chassis, i’m guessing that they might ALSO be able to put something like a more useful 15cm L/?? gun on the WT E-100.

        Sorry Wargaming, but if the WT E-100 really has only 235mm Pen with AP, and not 290+mm, then you failed on all levels.

        And then WG is wondering where all that ‘german/soviet bias’ rumours are coming from and what might’ve caused them.

          • The germans Were deving a 35cm recoiless gun for planes. Based on the Cios On the Rhienmettall proving grounds. Skoda Design had finished a 14cm dual mounted Flak cannon accord to another Cios Report also Show the Autoloading System I think a 15cm Gun would have been the one The Jentz refers to in the Panzertracts Maus.

        • Have you seen the stats? No? Then shut up and wait, then say it’s rubbish. And if it is rubbish, don’t play it.

            • I’m perfectly aware of that. And yet I don’t know hot it is going to be balanced. Hell, I hope they make it with a huge RoF and HE ammo. And I mean Huge RoF, damn near unbalanced RoF. That would be awesome. But then again I don’t know what they will do with it yet so I just keep my mouth shut. I know they could have done things differently and mostly I agree. But there’s no sense in whining so just cut it…

            • But if you dont speak up in some way, WG might really just give it 235mm pen and think its totally fine.

          • You don’t understand.
            Among all the guns planned for the platform there never were long 12.8cm, while a 15cm L/67 was designed, alternatively there would be the 15cm K39 L/55.

            The only tank for which autoloaded high caliber cannons were planned was the Panther, the missing REAL waffentrager design.

            • To be honest after a Panzer IV chassis, more logical would be a Panzer V chassis, instead of E-100 chassis.

            • Oh, I had a very nice Panther II based waffentrager design with a long 15cm stored somewhere that would have fit perfectly…

            • If they were in the realms of fantasy why not continue the trend of lightly armoured chassis TDs with a Leopard 1 variant? Entirely fictional of course, like a Gepard with those twin 35s having 300mm pen.

              I should stop now, I want a tier ten Pz1C too much.

        • >Compares new Tier 10 TD to current Foch. Foch will be nerfed the same patch this comes out.

    • They don’t need to; true, the hull will likely be quite tough to penetrate if one angles their armor, but all one has to do is aim at the gun shield and they’ll be able to damage the tank and probably disable the gun, kill the gunner and/or one or both loaders.

      • I don’t care about that, But I do want it! Because I am playing German tank only… So, this will be first >>>AXIS<<< with auto-loading for tier 10. Then it will be equal with American and French's auto-loading at T10!

        LIVE LONG! AXIS! (don't take me serious and I am glad that Allies won the war…)

        p.s. I want more Axis tanks than Allies… ONE Axis v.s. FIVE Allies! Come on! Oh, right Japan tanks are coming soon… Two Axis v.s. Five Allies… Aw more more more Axis tanks please!!!

        • And the Italians might show up eventually as part of a pan-European tree (consisting of other European nations that didn’t have enough tanks to make up their own trees), so that would sort-of be 3 vs 5, in a sense.

  2. to be ohest instead of e100 they could give us WT based on panther chassis ehh but its german tank so dont need “small” and agile tank on top ;/

      • i dint see any problem of panther chassis on t10… now we have pzIV on t9… this wte100 will be lighter version of e100 chassis but we all know how WG balance german tanks vmax 40 and turn rate 20 so it wont be agile like for example object 263 where u have tons of armor mixed with speed and agile of “medium” tank.

      • Tier X Panther waffentrager would use the planned 21cm howitzer, enough gun to replace any lack of armor…

  3. SS, you mention an 4th German TD branch. Well, is this a personal guess? In my opinion, there will be probably no more than three German TD branches:

    1. Standard branch:
    Jagdpanzer IV -> Jagdpanther -> Jagdpanther II … etc.

    2. Open-topped branch:
    Nashorn -> Sturer Emil -> Waffenträger … etc.

    3. Heavy Assault-Gun branch:
    Stug IV -> Brummbär -> Ferdinand ….. till the infamous Sturmtiger or Jagdmaus.

    What could the 4th TD branch look like, are there enough vehicles for that branch, which differ from the other branches?

  4. You guess that the 12.8 cm FlaK 40 L/61 will have only 201mm penetration with standard ammunition. This corresponds to an answer of Overlord ages ago in his Q&A thread, if I recall correctly.

    But the damage should nevertheless be 560 (just like the 12.8 cm PaK 44 L/61). What do you think?

  5. Marder 38T was among the last “offical” names of the vehicle in RL. Of course the “offical” names seemingly changed every other week, so I don’t know how long until Hitler/Guderian/Skoda or someone else decided to call it something else.

  6. No armor, no penetration on big gun, no speed, no camo, no depression. What an awesome vehicle at T10.

  7. “Well, that’s because the 38d suspension is allegedly saved for something else”

    Or an Euro/Czechoslovak TD branch, in the same vein as marder I being a french tank?

  8. Few question that come to my mind:
    - where will be the hitboxes of the crew ? For backward opened turret, if you shoot in it, do you immediately kill the crew member ?
    - how to play these tanks, especially as I’m afraid that they might be extremely fragile and be a choice target for any opponent ?
    The good news is that it changes us from the fortresses as the Object, JgE100 and T110Ex

    • -Behind the gunshield at either side of the breech most likely, as is the case of the current gun carriers in game right now. The difference is that with the WT you might have an actual chance of killing the crew member without blowing up the whole thing.
      -Do as much damage before getting blown up I guess?

      • Does it matter, from the armor values anyone will be able to pen them anywhere with HE rounds.

        • The armor is the price to pay for better gun depression and higher DPM (due to rate of fire). The earlier TDs were “Mighty Glaciers”, while these ones are “Glass Cannons”.

    • You’ll probably have to play these like direct-fire artillery. Provide fire from the back line and if someone spots you, GTFO.

  9. for a td that has to rely on camo, the 15cm gun would be the worst choice since it wont really shine on 300+meters.
    12.8cm of the jagdtiger or this thing can go to hell… really.

    and if what you said is true about the 6 shot autolaoder with 560 damage, im gonna love it (hopefully)

    its all or nothing :)

    • It would officially give the WT E-100 the highest DPM in the entire game if it has a 6-shot autoloader (the current highest DPM belonging to the Tortoise at somewhere in the 3,000 range)

  10. Why the fuck didn’t they invent a tier 10 base on Panther chassis? Easy to imagine if tier 9 is based on Pz4. Fucking WG! Tier 10 German needs to be a useless huge piece of shit tank!

      • I expected something more mature than ad hominem attacks from you. If his point is “ignorant” isn’t there a better way to refute it? with facts maybe?

        The only reason I can think of that you didn’t use facts is that, shocker, he has a valid point.

        • Thats true, WFT Panther with the jagdtiger gun, autoloaeder and 50kmh max speed would have been awesome. but yeah, because it would have been awesome we get the WTF E-100
          I hope they buff the he ammo of the 15 cn, then it could be worthfull

        • Yeah. It would be way better than this monstrosity and it would look a lot better too. Not to mention it would be a lot more historical and at the very least realistic.

  11. 150mm FH L/29,5 Penetration is likely to hit into the lower 200s mm. I’m thinking around 238 mm for the regular AP and over 300 for the premium round.

    • so the same as the big gun on the e100? premium ammo would be Heat i assume. cant imagine how apcr should work on that

        • Wot td’s mostly has ok+ pen. i guess they can balance it with reload time and other gun stats, but keeping the e-100 pen..
          The fact that you can choose between the 12.8 and 15cm guns is nice, 12.8 for snipers and 15cm for alpha lovers.

          An tier x autloader, why more then 3 shells like the Foch, only reason for giving it 4 or more is to balance the fact that it has no armor and will most likely die after the first clip is gone if it cant kill a tank with its clip.

        • Size of the propellant charge is kind onf wasted on a short barrel though, as it won’t have time to combust before egress and will merely produce an almighty muzzle blast. Which is why carbines tended to get flash suppressors as default equipement almost from the beginning.

          Similarly shell weight isn’t going to change squat unless you start monkeying around with their structure (think APCR), since their various other dimensions are rather fixed relative to the diameter unless you want to seriously screw over the ballistical performance.

  12. Bahhh if theyre making up a tank, why do something as stupid as the wftE100… and even if its supposed to be a long range sniping glass cannon, whats the point of a gold derp gun then :/
    If PzIV chasis can mount a 1.5cm gun, then they prolly could conjure up some waffensomethingtragger using E-50M/panther/VK4501 or what ever, just not the impractical maus/e100.

    Maybee now im starting to dislike WG a bit after sorta looking at tenks thru the eyes of german/british tech players.. even if they have a downtier planned for German heavy lines and a replacement for FV420X (the medium) it must be late 2014.

  13. I think the tier5 td was in reality more a mobile flak than a tank destroyer. It remembers me of the “Möbelwagen” which superstructures suppose was only to protect the crew from handheld firearm while moving and was lowered ones the destination had been reached

    • No duh, Captain Obvious. Though given how much the Luftwaffe AA crews found themselves pulling antitank duty that’s not much of an argument.

  14. Regarding the tier 5, doesn’t it make sense that it is implemented with the superstructure up? For anti air use it needs to be down, ofc, you need the full traverse to track fast moving airplanes, but in a short range anti tank role, the crew would be terribly exposed to small arms fire and shrapnel in that configuration. I’m not familiar with the vehicle, but it just strikes me as a sensible thing to do if you aren’t parked “safely” behind a screen of friendly forces.

    It just doesn’t seem to me like this thing was meant to move around with the superstructure down.

    • I don’t think it was meant to do so either. But that doesn’t mean it couldn’t if it needed to.

      • The collision modeling would be the most inconvenient thing ever, though, unless the lowered platform was made purely cosmetic. In which case it’d look pretty stupid.

        • Oh, yeah, you’d get stuck in small valleys,no doubt, but… yeah, I guess there would be ranting from the potatoes getting stuck all the time. I guess it’s easier this way…

  15. on the tier 8 isnt that gun the same as GW panther?… should we expect the same dmg as that? 900 dmg for 240 pen?

      • nvm yeah i realized that after i typed it. its just the guns looked similar :)
        it would make sense its the stock (hummels gun)
        750 dmg but 185 pen?!!! thats kinda bad… i mean even if its a different gun how much can the pen go up?
        i was hoping for something in the 240+

  16. “Hahaha let’s make German tanks look like the German engineers were idiots and see how much we can get away with”
    Pretty much this.

  17. ninteresting comment on the E100, SS.

    imo you hit the nail, as because WG wants to keep the ~100 ton german T10 policy up they rather make a E100 WT up instead of using the GW panther without skirts in the (also alongside planned) WT role as T10. iirc it would also be able to host a 128 l61 or a bunch of 150s.

    but rather give the germans some crude box designs to make em look dumb in their designs , thats the spirit…

    btw. without camo and speed and armor, how epic does the gun have to be to make u for it?

    • There are at least 4 alternative 15cm Panther waffentrager designs, instead they picked the worst possible choices at tier IX and X.

  18. Some “corrections” regarding “Tier 7 – Selbstfahrlafette V, or Sturer Emil”.

    The official name was not “Selbstfahrlafette V” but “Selbstfahrlafette L/61″. Max.speed was 20km/h, not 25. The armor wasn’t 50mm but 40mm front, 30mm sides and 20mm rear. The suspension was based upon a VK3001H but lengthened by adding one running wheel.

    • I can confirm there is enough material for even 5, the last one would have some pretty hard to balance and connect tanks though.

  19. I have to agree to with you. “Historically” or rather looking at it from a practical point of view (if one can use such terms in conjunction with an E-100 Waffenträger) mounting a 15cm sFH, even with an autoloader, on a chassis like the E-100 would have been a gigantic waste. But as they have clearly chosen the path of pure fictional designs they could at least have gone all the way and put a 15cm automatic Flak 65 on this thing:

    • Finally! How many times did I find myself wanting to shoot the city on lakeville from the valley!

    • Then again the E-100 itself was a gigantic waste, merely meaningfully less so than the Maus – which was its whole raison d’être anyway.

  20. Holla SS, i think there was a article about the tier 9 td in the book “Spezial-Panzerfahrzeuge des deutschen Heeres “, might be worth a try.

  21. Official designation for this Marder was “Panzerjäger 38(t) für 7.5cm PaK40/3 Ausf. H (Sd. Kfz. 138) ‘Marder III” according to Doyle.

  22. The tier 9 Waffenträger auf Panzer IV is mentioned in Spielberger Walter ‘s book “Panzer IV and its variants “. It’s a modified chassis use Panzer IV and III/IV components. It also saids the design requirement for max speed is 17km/h.

  23. As of now still want because I have played nearly all the German Tree but that WTE100 is a fugly duckling. It will probably be more trouble than it is worth but the tanks leading to it should at least be interesting.

  24. The only “saving grace” of this design is the fact that for all its faults, it’s STILL more realistic than the infamous fake Krokodil, especially weight-distribution wise.

    Why? There are many front-heavy TD designs that worked: jagdpanther, foch, several soviet ones (e.g. 122-54). Of course I’m not talking about Krokodil with 17cm cannon and 300+mm front armour option, but I think that heavily sloped (as sloped as upper front plate) 200mm armour (or even less, 150mm like in KT would also be enough) and long 15cm gun + rear mounted engine would probably work.

    • The gun in the front will really be bad for the suspension, and while replacing the suspension on other nose heavy tanks such as PzIV was easy, for an E-100 it would have been really hard and expensive, and impractical.

    • The problem I see is that it does not fit in the theme of this TD branch, which is glass cannon with powerful gun.

    • The jagdpanther design was very very hard on the transmission and final drive. And the final drive was already a POS due to the way it was designed. Not that much could be done to the design of the final drive due to several conflicts. (gear cutting equipment and the need to make a large number of them quickly)

  25. the WT e-100 is going to have 150mm autoloaded epic fail as a gun…
    i mean, srsly: every single tier 10 td ingame tend to have around 300mm pen with standard ammo, and this one gets a gun with 235mm penetration? the gun is already the worst for a tier 10 heavy (keeping in mind the pen and accuracy it has) imagine how it will be on a tank destroyer…

    “it is having an autoloader, it is gonna pwn!” given it’s accuracy, there are really good chances you will reload for a minute, just to ding 4 times in a row

    IMHO, this is gonna be the worst tier 10 tank introduced in this game, ever, ever, ever

    • keep posting bullshit about tanks you didnt see in the game. jesus ppl whats wrong with you

      • sadly i have to agree with him. Only the long 128mm gun is worth it because i refuse to play tanks were you have to use premium ammo to be effective.

        HE shells from KV2, Su 152 and above will be devastating and i wont spent a huge amount of xp and credits just to get this WT E100 crap. slow, no armor and rearmounted turret wich means you have to expose urself alot to fire over hills and stick ur entire hull out of cover in order to fire around corners.

        i was saving some freexp for this line but now that i know what it will be like i decidet to grind the british mediums instead

  26. russian derbguns will enjoy penetrating those things with HE
    I lost all hope when i realised that they will have some kind of flakguns isntalled or that 15cm L29 joke … worse penetration than E100 on a gun that takes probably more than 15 seconds to reload?!

    Dont forget there will be another arty rebalance and my guess is that arty will get a bit of its power back as its now SHIT. Only the british tier 10 arty is worth the effort because if itis trajectory

    • That I can see happening; here’s my idea for a rebalance:

      -Increased damage for a DIRECT hit
      -Increased rate of fire
      -DRASTICALLY-reduced accuracy for indirect fire (accuracy remaining the same for direct fire, or as some call it, “TD Mode”)

      This is meant to simulate the fact that to hit ANYTHING with indirect fire on an artillery piece back then, you needed a BARRAGE by MULTIPLE guns sustained over a period of time.

  27. I think wargaming should start to consider adding an TD mode for all arty and a SPG mode to some TD’s, mostly because we know from some articles written by SS that some ingame TD’s were actually meant to be SPG’s

    it’s also known that some SPG’s had the equipment to enable them to perform “direct fire” tasks, something similar to what a TD can do
    one example was the M7 Priest during the first or second “El Alamein” battle

  28. The tier 9 “Waffenträger auf Panzer IV” has its own data table. You can search for Spielberger book about Panzer IV (a red book).

    He says the “Waffenträger auf Panzer IV” would have weight 17 tons with a motor of 180HP.

    I hope WG buffs that tank.

  29. Did you noticed they wrote “affenträger” on those “documents” showing the Waffenträger auf Panzer IV.
    Affenträger means Monkeycarriage translated :DDD

  30. I don’t know about the Flak 40 on the Sturer Emil having issues, considering that the ones on the Zoo Tower in Berlin were able to completely lock down a fairly large area almost single-handedly during the Battle of Berlin (not to mention the Zoo Tower being one of the last locations to surrender).

    • Damn things were designed to withstand pretty much anything short of a direct “earthquake bomb” hit so that’s no wonder – the Soviets apparently experimentally shot at it a few times with their big 203mm howitzers and when that didn’t do squat pretty much gave up and left the tower alone.

      Don’t see how that’s relevant to the game though, the most formidable AFVs the Soviets had at hand were IS-2′s and ISUs.

      • It’s relevant because it shows that at the very least the gun can make short work of a target of the same tier and maybe a tier above.

  31. If you look closely on the Waffenträger auf PzIV picture, you can see that in the very top line near the end it says “affenträger” which is funnily enough even making sense in german meaning “Monkey Carrier”.

  32. According to German documents obtained from the German National Military Archive, the Marder III was a TD based on the Panzerkampfwagen 38(t). Production started on 24th of March 1942, as a stop-gap solution, because at the time (when development was started) the existing AT-guns (operated by infantry) with calibres of 37mm and 50mm proved to be too weak when facing russian T-34 tanks.

    For the Marder “III”, captured Russian 76.2mm field guns (!) and AT guns (designated “7.62-cm-PaK 36 (r)”, velocity : 740 meters/sec. – with regular AP rounds able to pen. 82mm of armor at an angle of 60 degrees and a range of 1000 meters, 990 meters/second with tungsten core rounds – able to pen. 112mm at 1000 meters) were then mounted on the Panzerkampfwagen 38 (t) chassis. The official designation: “Panzerjäger 38″ or “Sd. Kfz 139″. The loading chamber was modified so that the 76.2mm AT guns could fire captured Russian rounds OR the 75mm rounds also used by the German 75mm-PaK 40 and German tanks. With the regular German 75mm AP round, the gun could penetrate 94mm of armor at a range of 1000 meters (60 degrees). This version of the Marder III could carry 30 rounds.

    On 27th of February 1944, Hitler ordered to add and use the nickname “Marder III”, so it was then designated Panzerjäger 38 “Marder III”, officially.

    The armor around the gun mount (protecting gunner and loader) was 14.5mm on the front and only 10mm on the side. This meant that both gunner and loader were protected from rifle or machine gun AP rounds (called “SmK” bullets in the German military, 7.62mm) fired at the front/sides, but Russian AT-rifle rounds (14.5mm) could pierce through easily, already.
    Around 344 Marder III had been produced until the end of October 1942, where 176 of these tanks were based on the Ausführung G model of the PzKpfw 38 (t). Another batch of 19 Marder III based on the Ausführung “G” was produced by converting Panzerkampfwagen 38 (t) tanks that were in need of repair (and pulled back from the front) to the Marder G standard in 1943.
    The “G” version had a top speed of 42 km/h, the gun could be traversed 21 degrees to each side (42 degrees field of vision), but the turret could be turned as well (not sure by how much, but the additional traverse was notable, as the gun/”turret” was mounted on a traverse pod)

    In November 1942, the production was shifted to equip the Marder III with the “75mm-PaK 40″, a very capable German AT-gun, and the Marder platform was now built based on the Ausführung “H” models of the Panzerkampfwagen 38 (t).
    Even though the order for the PaK 40′s development was issued as early as 1938, as the Army ordnance office had figured in 1938 already that the 50mm-PaK 38 would not be able to deal with well armored French tanks of the time, the first 15 guns started to be issued to Army infantry units as late as February 1942, at a point where infantry units were in desperate need of capable AT guns, due to the appearance of the T-34 on the Eastern front.

    One reason for shifting to the 75mm-PaK 40 on the Marder III as late as November 1942 may have been the possibility, that – at the time of development of the Marder III – the 75mm-Pak 40 was either still in development or its delivery priority set to infantry AT units, so that only after the production had reached sufficient output numbers after summer 1942, the Marder III could be equipped with the gun as well.
    The Pak 40 delivered a velocity of 770 meters/second with regular AP rounds (Panzergranate 39) and 990 meters/second with tungsten rounds, which eenabled it to penetrate 94 mm of armor using regular AP rounds at an angle of 60 degrees and a range of 1000 meters and 96 mm of armor at the same distance with tungsten/hard core round. Even though it might look like the russian AT gun had more punch than the PaK when using tungsten rounds, the German PaK showed way better results with regular AP rounds. Also, the Germans suffered of a lack of tungsten, so that they halted production and issuance of tungsten rounds around 1942/early 1943. Since a number of tungsten rounds were still floating around, German tanks would carry 1 or 2 tungsten rounds for “emergency” situations where regular rounds would not penetrate or not inflict succicient damage.

    A skilled infantry AT crew (5 men) could fire 15 rounds per minute with the Pak 40.

    The first prototype of the Marder III with the 75mm-Pak 40 finished in June 1942 had undergone modifications in order gain room for the new gun (redesigned baseplate section) and it also featured an improved “turret”/gun shield, where some batches of the serial production version had also received additional armor plates resembling a turret roof to improve crew protection, while the back was still open. As with previous versions, when firing, the only crew member being protected by the chassis (glacis) armor was the driver.

    The max. speed of the “H” model Marder III was now 47 km/h. The production of the Marder III based on Ausf. H phased out in Mai 1943 after 242 vehicles. Another batch of 175 vehicles was converted in 1943 by using damaged Panzerkampfwagen 38 (t) that were sent back for repairs.
    From March 1942 – May 1943, 761 Panzerjäger 38 (t) were produced.

    In May 1943 production based on PzKpfw 38(t) Ausf. M started, where some may have been equipped with a remaining number of stocked PaK 40.

    Since the improved 75mm-PaK 40/3 became available around the same time, it could now be mounted on M models, so it seems like all following vehicles had received the new PaK gun.
    In order to be able to fit the gun, the engine and gear had to be moved from the rear to the front part of the tank, which then allowed for mounting the gun (with its turret) on the rear end of the tank. This allowed for faster reloading and easier access to the gun compartment, but also for a way lower silhouette. The armor of the turret/gun structure was now 10mm on all sides (front and side, and also roof if present). These vehicles were designated/considered to be Marder III as well, they just received the number Sd. Kfz. 138, to indicate that it was the Marder III with Pak 40/3 and changed turret position.
    Due to those changes this version of the Marder III could hold 27 rounds, only.
    975 of the Marder III with the 75mm-Pak 40/3 were produced until Mai 1944, when production of the Marder III phased out finally.

    Due to the production numbers, the Marder III with Pak 40/3 at the rear can be considered the main production version, and not the Marder III depicted in WOT.
    Also, it’s a pity that the turret of the Marder can’t be traversed in the game, whereas in reality it offered an extended field of view/gun traverse, adding to the 42 degrees simply offered by the gun (mount).

  33. “From March 1942 – May 1943, 761 Panzerjäger 38 (t) were produced.”

    Initially, the official designation was “Panzerjäger 38(t) für 7,62 cm PaK 36(r)” and was then changed to the shorter “Panzerjäger 38(t)”. But even official German documents would sometimes refer to it as “Panzerjäger 38″, without the “(t)” indicating its czech (“t” for “tschechisch”) origin, or “Panzerjäger 38 t”.

    Some German military historians indicate that the 75mm-Pak 40 Marder “H” version could carry 38 rounds.

    Some of these sources also state that the engine was not moved to the middle but to the front for the “M” version of the Marder.
    Whatsoever, the M version was not only the most produced version, it had also the most/best streamlined design, like the turret (which still could be traversed 21 degrees to each side) that now blended in with the turret side armor, which was actually fixed now.

    Scans of the original field manual for the Hetzer (24.6.44), approved and issued by Guderian, show that the Germans referred to the Hetzer as “Panzerjäger 38 t”.
    Original text: “Bedienungs- und Schießanleitung für die le. Panzerjäger IV und 38 t mit der Pak 39.”

    The “(t)” was indeed used for such tanks in some of the sheets documenting the required strengths for every unit (short known as “KStN”) and other documents, but (eg.) just the designation and a “t” behind it was also used quite often, as you can see in the Panzerjäger manual. Other agencies/officials used the designations Jagdpanzer 38(t), Jagdpanzer 38 t, or just Jagdpanzer 38.
    It was the same with the Panzerjäger 38 Marder III.

    The scans of the field manual for JgPz IV and 38 t:

  34. Forgot to add this:
    Until “Marder III” was added to the official designation, the platform was also referred to as “Panzerjäger 38(t) mit (= “with”) PaK 36″, “Panzerjäger 38(t) mit Pak 40″ or “für Pak 40″ (für = “for”) and similar designations to point out/identify with which gun the particular tank had been equipped and to avoid confusion with existing derivates or future versions, in some official documents.

    After the production of the Marder III had phased out in the summer of 1944, the new Hetzer was also referred to as Panzerjäger 38 t or “38(t)”, even though the official designation was Jagdpanzer 38 (with or without “t”). The same happened with the first version of the Jagdpanzer IV (Ausf. F, which was based on a shortened Panzer IV chassis, with the Pak 39).

    In order to avoid confusing the Hetzer with the Marder, the Hetzer’s Pak 39 L/48 gun was often included in the designation, when using the designation “Panzerjäger” for the Hetzer in official documents, (hence “Panzerjäger 38 t mit Pak 39″) as can be seen in the Hetzer’s field manual.

    The same goes for the Jagdpanzer IV with the Pak 39. While in general the germans had used vehicles designations or names rather consistently, some tanks received a somewhat confusing and less consistent treatment.

    Also, in reality, the Jagdpanzer IV with Pak 39 (also designated “Jagdpanzer IV/48″) had 60mm frontal armor and 30mm of upper and lower side armor. It could carry 79 rounds. Around 769 vehicles were produced. Officially, this design was rejected either by Hitler or Army Ordnance, but after Panzer IV chassis had been taken out of the production line and shortened for the TD production, the production went and issuance to troops went on until halted in 1944. Some sources indicate that +/- 769 vehicles had been produced.

    But the most produced version (more than 1200 vehicles, over 900 of them were VOMAG versions) was in fact the Jagdpanzer IV/70, though, which was produced by two different companies and had resulted in 2 differing designs, where then the first design by ALKETT (~300 tanks produced) was used as a stop-gap tall version that would allow for mounting a slightly modified Panther gun immediately, until the company VOMAG could free resources to modify and produce the lower silhouette version they had designed. Both versions, the Jagdpanzer IV/70(A) and the Jagdpanzer IV/70(VO) used a minimally modified variant of the Panther gun, now designated StuK 42/L70, and their frontal glacis featured 80mm of armor, while their lower sides had 30mm armor, but their upper sides 40mm of armor (30°), instead of 30mm on the Pak 39 version, now.
    The IV/70 could carry 55 rounds.

    That said, the Jagdpanzer IV with its different guns in WOT is a mash-up of 3 different historical versions produced by the Germans.