Author: Vollketten
Every now and then, you stumble across something extraordinary and this is one of those times. Filed 12th February 1969 by Bernd Schmidt, this very special patent is for a whole family of vehicles, using a common hull. The benefits of a single hull for a wide variety of vehicles are very obvious: the ease of maintenance, spares, repair etc. – and he even specifies that in an emeregency, one vehicle should be convertible into anothery. Numerous alternate configurations are specified and some come with a few unconventional features. And ALL of them are more ‘historical’ than some of the current ingame vehicles. Who knows, maybe a candidate or two for some high tier swaps or some premiums? So we’ll go through all 30 variants he specifies one by one.
The basic hull:
As you can see, the vehicle hull is low and wide and actually can lower its suspension so that the hull can sit on the ground. In this graphic, ‘8’ is representing the ‘load’, but the hull is based around an 7 wheeled (per side) rear driven armoured hull, using a 500hp engine with a desired top speed of 70kmh. Basic hull is 6.8m long, 3.2m wide, and 1.2m tall from the bottom of the hull to the top of the cab, housing the 1 or 2 man crew, which is 1.7m from the ground. Therefore the maximum ground clearance of 0.5m. The following are the variants of that hull:
Transportation Variant 1 armed with a single machine gun
Transport Variant 2 fitted with an integrated crane for loading ammunition etc. Armed with a single machine gun
Fire Control Variant fitted with fire control radar and at least a single machine gun.
Rocket Launcher Variant 1 equipped with 36 rockets and a machine gun.
Artillery Mover Variant – the crane part is hard to see but this variant has a built up cab to house 3 to 4 men and the flat bed and crane set up is intended for hauling light artillery pieces, such as the 105mm or 40mm anti-aircraft cannon.
Tank Destroyer Variant 1 turret mounted 105mm anti-tank gun and a single machine gun.
Anti-Aircraft (Flakpanzer) Variant fitted with twin 20mm or 40mm anti-aircraft cannon and a single machine gun. Unusually the guns are stacked on top of each other as opposed to being side by side.
Jagdpanzer, Tank Destroyer Variant 2 armed with either a 10.5cm or 15.5cm anti-tank gun (both options are specified) and two machine guns, one in the hull. It doesn’t say so, but I assume either the roof moves up with the breech or is open topped, because otherwise gun depression is going to be seriously disappointing.
Artillery Observation Variant with a system of angular mirrors, and a machine gun.
Mortar Carrier Variant fitted with either an 81mm or 120mm heavy mortar and a 3-4 man crew.
ATGM Tank Destroyer Variant fitted with 12 anti-tank missiles, a machine gun, 3-4 man crew.
Recovery Variant 1 with 15t crane and machine gun.
Recovery Variant 2 with 20t crane and machine gun.
Bridge Laying Variant with hull mounted machine gun.
APC Variant with space for 10 men and armed with either a machine gun or a 20mm cannon.
Artillery Tractor Variant 1 with space for 9 and equipment, fitted with a machine gun.
Artillery Tractor Variant 2 with space for 15 men, fitted with a single machine gun
Workshop Bodied Variant with raised body, and able to be fitted for radio communication use.
Ambulance Variant with space for 4 stretchers.
Field Kitchen Variant fitted with a machine gun (just in case the food line gets unruly)
SPG ‘Panzerhaubitze’ Variant 1 with a 105mm gun in 360 rotatable turret.
SPG ‘Bordhaubitze’ Variant 2 fitted with either a 155mm or 203mm gun (both are specified as options) in a casement.
SPG Variant 3 fitted with one of three optional guns; a 155mm field gun, 175mm field gun or 203mm howitzer and a machine gun for self-defence. States that these are mounted onto a 360 rotatable platform.
Rocket Launcher Variant 2 fitted with a rather large warhead on a 360 degree rotating launch platform. Machine gun for self-defence.
Rocket Launcher Variant 3 fitted with a very fancy looking multi-winged missile, also a machine gun for self defence.
And finally…
Anti-Aircraft Missile Launcher Variant fitted with 3 Surface to Air Missiles on a 360 degree rotating platform.
So there we are then, 30 variants, all on a single common platform within the 1970 nominal WoT time limit, some of which are obviously no use in the game (such as load carrier and giant rocket launchers), but what about that artillery? All of them are better than the GW E-100, which is just plain silly. Anyway, it’s nice to have a few more German options as always and in this case, the designer even posted dimensions and guns.
Those 2 arty would be sort of nice, 155 and 203mm guns? Makes me think of stock and top gun on M53/M55, sooooo, now we can have german M53 with turret :D. They do look kind of neat, and knowing that if they give the M53/M55 some extra hit points and 2s better reload it would be a good tier 10 arty, we might actually see something better than that GW E 100 weirdo tank
Fig. 27 looked alot like an m43… Nice stuff. Great work!
I like Fig. 26 more, looks simillar to current G.W. E-100 and could replace it while being a legitimate historical project :)
Just one problem… Where is the engine located in these things? O_O.
there seems to be no space reserved for one. Two crew in the front leave little room for anything else…
Engine goes underneath is the rectangular section in the hull.
Look at fig.10 for example… Is there enough room for engine + transmission?
Like the Ardelt waffentragers, the engine may well be placed in the front to the side.
http://www.aviarmor.net/tww2/photo/germany/waffentrager88mm_ardelt/waffentrager88mm_ardelt_2.jpg
http://www.fahrzeuge-der-wehrmacht.de/Bilder/Ardelt_Waffentr_Ku_01-1.jpg
As for the transmission, well, with torsion bars and adjustable height it’s more complicated to fit but might me doable.
Well they could be pushing them.
Vollketten, if you ever see this. Where can I contact you to further discuss some matters about this design?
wg pls
this is like 2 entire tank lines you can use.
I vote for Fig. 18 so that I can drive around the battle field and lay bridges! :-D
>1969
>not using fig.29 to destroy half the enemy team while they’re trying to leave cap
dammit.
Zis is fery good tanks jaaa ?
Dont fucking touch my GW E.
Easy tiger!
I demand field kitchen branch for every nation!
Field Kitchen Variant fitted with a machine gun (just in case the food line gets unruly)
You never know when them soldiers get hungry.
“An army marches on its stomach” – Napoleon
I thought they marched on their feet?
/sarcasm
Gib Fig. 29 plis ?
WG logic in future:
- Sturmtiger impossible to balance, will not be in the game
- Introduces Figure 29 as a TD
So what is the absurd part here? I think this proposal has some good ideas in it. Is there no room for engine or what? Is there anything known about comments of some bureau that handled these proposals? What were the problems of this design? Was there ever any development on this chassis?
The ‘absurd’ thing is just to follow the Patent design tanks from some of the more outlandish ones. This one was special simply for so many design.
As far as I know these designs went nowhere although the logic of a common platform is without doubt a very sound one.
Ah ok, now I see. Thanks for these drawings, they are interesting nevertheless. Keep up the good work!
Fig. 29 missile looks like MGM-18 “Lacrosse” http://www.guntruck.com/Lacrosse.html
…aaaand a machine gun. You forgot to put it on some :P .
That machine gun was very important in his designs, he was sure to mention it. I felt obliged to do the same.
Apart from the ambulance obviously.
If your field kitchen is in combat something has gone wrong though.
yeah, he must have had the resale rights for that machine gun too :p
Waffentraggers to the next level!
That Machine Gun must be so happy
That “with a machine gun” turned out to be a great recurring joke. I actually laughed at the food tonks part lol.
Btw, anything mentioned about the flaw of the proposal?
No, it’s just his patent to secure rights to the concept
Is there a field toilet variant too?
if there was it would certainly have a machine gun
Final three things remind me Dune 2 missile tank/launcher
Regarding anti aircraft version and the position of the guns – what’s the advantage of having guns one on the top of the other? Or, is there any disadvantage of such solution? And finally, what about the “classical” side by side, any pros and cons to consider?
Well, with side-by-side guns, depending on what they are ranged to, the shells could be crossing before/after the target, missing them. With over/under, its not as much as a problem, plus you dont really need to zero both, just the lower one. But depending on the gun, o/u could cause feeding difficulties or just be harder to load. It is a better system, but its harder to maintain and operate usually, and in this time of laser-range-finding, its cons outweigh its pros compared to side-by-side guns.
Best idea for a German tier 10 SPG I’ve seen.
Mobility? Finally?
Oh yeah baby…
and bigger. WG loves its calibre increases with tier
I point out that these systems are too simple to act like a giant stimulus package distributed across many voting districts, and therefore would be unpopular politically (unlike the turd that is F-35 trying to replace the good old A-10). That is why these are unacceptable. On the other hand, if you were an automotive firm and made these to sell to third-world nations trying to save money on their militaries unlike a certain warmongering partly-neo-Nazi country I could name (Its mainland is in North America, and is the meth lab that the very nice apartment of Canada is situated over) you could make decent money.
Figure 10 to replace WT-E100
Figure 26 to replace JpgE100
Figure 27 to replace G.W. E100
Or just replace the GW with a Version of the Karl Gerat
What’s so absurd about this? It looks quite versatile, which is always a benefit when it comes to military equipment.
The ‘absurd’ thing is just to follow the Patent design tanks from some of the more outlandish ones. This one was special simply for so many design.
As far as I know these designs went nowhere although the logic of a common platform is without doubt a very sound one.
I did three combat tours in the US Army; trust me, those chow lines can get VERY unruly!
So, the same principal as the CVR(t) family of British vehicles? Take a common chassis and powertrain, bolt whatever you think appropriate to the top. The CVR(t) had 9 variants in all;
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Combat_Vehicle_Reconnaissance_(Tracked)