One of those is about the VK 45.02 (P), Porsche’s failed bid for a Tiger successor, represented in WOT by two tanks that are both way above their historical counterpart, especially what they call the “Ausf B”.

Today we will use Special Panzer Variants by Spielberger, Panzer Tracts 20-1, Kingtiger Heavy Tank and Germany’s Tiger tanks – VK 45-02 to Tiger II by Jentz & Doyle.

The roots of a Porsche Tiger improvement starts in early 1942, with the very first proposal of a “Typ 101 Verstaerkt” (strengthened), soon changed into Typ 180 (Electric transmission) and 181 (Hydraulic), designated by Wa Pruef 6 as VK 45.01 (P2), VK 45.02 (P) and finally Tiger P2.
On 30 January 1942 Dr. Porsche proposed that the Tiger P chassis from N° 101 onwards were to be produced with armor sloped at 60° from vertical, with Krupp reply in early February asking for the sloping to be reduced at 55° to ease manufacture, compatibility with frontal machine gun mounts and a large enough turret ring.

It was to be powered by twin Porsche Typ 101/3 engines, rated at 300 HP each (for a total of 600 HP), with a planned maximum speed of 35 kilometers per hour for the 65 tonnes panzer.

Several upgrade proposals were made in October 1942, installing either twin Porsche Deutz Typ 180/1 generating a total 740 HP, a single Porsche Type 180/2 700 HP engine and even a rear layout configuration:

Armor was set to be 80mm sloped at 55° from vertical frontally, 80mm sloped from 0 to 15° in the sides and 80mm vertical in the rear.

A new turret was designed initially to house the 88mm Flak 41 under Hitler’s strict request , which was later on switched to the 88mm KWK 43 used in the Henschel Tiger II, with specifications for it to be to turn at 15 degrees per second under electric power.

The sample was pretty small (15 players), but then I wanted opinions rather than statistics so don’t take it as a huge poll capable of influencing WG.
The players ranged from Bad WN to Unicum levels with an average of 1294 according to noobmeter.com so relatively skilled players (not unexpected given that active forums posters usually are the better informed and skilled part of the community) and definitely better than yours truly, which is average at best.

So, what did those players think about it?

The main concerns seems to be view range and match making, one being seen not enough of an edge VS high tier mediums and TDs and the other too punishing for some tanks.
Mobility and camo rating are also seen as insufficient especially compared to high tier mediums while some players would also like improved firepower.

How much of this would be possible in WOT considering historical requirements?

View Range:
Top tier light tanks have comparable or worse view range to many other tier X vehicles, making them as disadvantage when it comes to active scouting and allegedly not enough even for passive in some cases

Would this be possible to improve? Yes and no.
The maximum view range in WOT is 420m and reserved to open-top vehicles, while enclosed ones usually top at 390-400m. As trying to push WG into changing mechanics is pretty hard, let’s see the historical route to circumvent the problem and look for open-top designs.
Those are indeed available at least on the German side but they have two downsides:

1) They were usually SPG/AAA turrets
2) They look bigger and aren’t exactly made to be pleasant to the eye, let’s take the top German scout hull as example:

Not exactly what you could call camo-friendly, right? This is also one of the reasons why I always argued against a scout Panther but even other choices would entail big turrets detrimental of camouflage, so possibily not an ideal solution.

Mobility:A mix of soft stats and power to weight ratio is what gives agility in WOT and this is a field where much is possible.
Aside from considering making light tanks better on most terrains, I think more powerful engines could be available for most high tier lights, worst case bending history a little bit.

On the German side, AFK Panther could for example mount the 1150 HP GT-102 gas turbine although that would mean a much bigger engine module and a very vulnerable one at it, while the lower-tier VK 2801 could be upgraded to its heaving variant, mounting the Maybach HL-230 in a slightly larger, 34 ton chassis.

Firepower:
The topic is pretty tricky as in most cases all light designs already topped their historical designs or went over them.
A potential solution could be to take the compromise route used in the Panzer II and let the flak cannons be used in AT role or alternatively lift partially the smooth bore cannon ban for the low velocity HEAT guns such as the PAW series on the German sides and similar guns for most post war designs, although the downside would be a flood of requests for designs such as the Sheridan which is likely over the top.

Game mechanics:
This part is trickier as WG seldom listens of mechanics proposals.
Here the most frequent request is a return of the strong environmental camo (translated as bushes can hide them better) for light tanks or lessened activation times for camo net and binoculars.
Match making for lights is also a very strong issue as it’s seen as being too harsh in many cases (and I personally agree for some tier IV lights at least), both for bringing unskilled players into battles where they have no idea on how to influence the outcome and in high tier lights seeing too often battles where they are out-matched by tier X mediums in the active scouting role and many heavies are also seen as too agile to be outmaneuvered by light tanks.

All in all, rebalancing light tanks won’t be an easy job for WG, especially as their original task of artillery hunting has decreased in priority.
Still, I personally highly appreciate when a light driver does a proper spotting job as it can seriously bring the upper hand in a fight.

I cannot count the matches where I was forced in a TD or heavy tank to do the spotting by myself (often with very bad results), so a proper revival of a class that promotes team-play more than most would be highly welcome.

The Germans of course were aware of the consequences of loosing air superiority and developed several solutions, of which we will cover only the ones based on tank hulls, ranging from sensible battlefield modifications to daring paper tanks that never reached the battlefield, using mainly “Gepard” by Spielberger and “Panzer Tracts 20-2” by Jentz & Doyle.

 2cm Flak 38 auf Panzer I A

2cm Flak 38 auf RSO

A relatively simple modification of the “Ost” tracktor, it was developed as AA/Ground support vehicle for mountain troops. Given similar experiments with the heavier PAK 40 the design seems reliable enough, especially given the dismountable gun specification.

Developed in 1943, it never entered service.

 Early modifications based on Panzer 38(t)

Between 1943 and 1944 over 150 of those tanks were produced, putting yet again the 2cm flak 38 in a Marder-like configuration. By then though, their firepower left a lot to be desired but as in late war everything that could be used was fielded, they ended up serving until the very end.

The very same studies were conducted on the VK2801, likely as waffentrager as the same hull configuration was planned to carry the 75mm L/70, although limited to an traverse angle of 15° to each side until the chassis development was aborted in 1945.

Being disappointed with earlier attempts, in 1943 Krupp was called in to develop a better solution based on Panzer IV chassis.
The very first solution was to still use the 2cm flak 38 but now in a “Vierling” or quadruple configuration.
This gave a much more intense barrage capability although still relatively short ranged.

Unfortunately the tank was not without drawbacks, resulting in very tall sides when enclosed (earning the nickname of “Mobelwagen” or furniture wagon) and in an unprotected crew when in firing position.

Additional requirements such as entrenching tools and a big supply of hand grenades for close defense (imho this was useless, the main guns could mince meat anything the grenades were meant for at much longer ranges and that close the crew would have been dead meat long before exhausting the grenade supply) meant that insufficient ammo was carried and thus the vehicle never left prototype stage.

A derivative prototype was made out of Panzer III chassis but it never reached production.
Another design was an enclosed turret with twin MK 103 cannons using a turret derived from U-boat AA, called the Kugelblitz, or ball lighting with about 80 of those being produced:

Of course, being nice designs with reasonable features wasn’t enough and like everything else it was brought to the extremes late in the war.
In order to gear up the Wibelwind, the “Zerstorer 45″ program was started, bringing a slightly larger turret to mount this:

Quadruple 30mm MK 103 cannon, enough to make minced meat of even the vaunted IL-2 and most light tanks on ground. Only two of those prototypes were made but the hail of fire must have been impressive.

At the same time, Ostwind was planned to be upgraded to “zwilling” or twin, 37mm Flak 43, basically going akimbo:

This was again upgraded in 1944 to make use of the new 5.5cm Gerat 58 still in a twin configuration.

Developed by Krupp and Rheinmetall, this impressive weapon could be elevated from -5° to +80°, firing its ammo at over 1000 m/s and 120-140 rounds per minute per gun.

The heaviest modification however regarded using the 8.8cm Flak 41 in an open turret, proposed in 1943 by Rheinmetall and discarded in 1944 as Panther chassis were direly needed for heavier tasts and 8.8cm cannons in fixed positions were felt more than adequate for the task.

Development of a light flak/ground support chassis by Porsche in collaboration with Rheinmetall started in 1943 as resources for heavier designs were drying up, using the 3cm MK 103, 5.5 cm MK 112 and the 10.5cm LEFH 43.
60mm frontal armor and a top speed of 58 KM/H would have made this tank double wonderfully as light scout and support, although that role would have been better covered by its enclosed turret version.

All in all, the germans developed quite a few interesting designs of varying effectiveness, especially as planes got faster and faster.
As with similar designs from other nations, the germans basically focused on sheer rate of fire for closer ranges, while using heavier guns was rapidly becoming the chosen option in later vehicles.

As analogous designs to the soviet ZSU 37 and 57 they could have lasted as anti helicopter/light ground support tanks even after the war, until being ultimately supplanted by a mix of SAM and Radar-equipped SPAAGs.

The “Buff my tank!” articles are meant as an historical way to look at some tanks considered underpowered in game and ways to improve their combat abilities discussed by the original german engineers.
Beware that while being sometimes ironic in tone, the article treats about both costs and benefits of every choice and it most likely will never be listened by WG as suggestion.

A true workhorse of the Wehrmacht, the Panzer II was initially conceived as an interim design until the heavier and more capable Panzer III and IV were ready but its development was still very long, with plenty of proposed upgrades.
To properly explore this, we will draw our information from Spielberger’s “Panzers I and II and their variants” and “Gepard”, while also using ” Panzer Tacts 20-1” and “Panzer Tracts 20-2” from Jentz & Doyle.

First series: ausf A to G

A design for a 10 ton class vehicle was requested and in 1935 the first prototypes were shown, with the 7.6 ton MAN design winning the competition.

Firepower

The initial model carried a 2cm KWK 30 and a MG 34, good enough versus similar light tanks but quite lacking against anything heavier.
Some tanks were upgraded later on to the slightly better 2cm KWK 38, while an ausf F “Flamingo” variant was equipped with a flame thrower.

Protection

The initial design called for all-around 14.5mm armor, useful against MG fire but pretty vulnerable against everything else.
Ausf C brought frontal protection to a decent 30mm, enough to stop similar auto-cannons from distance and some AT rifles, although still pretty light protection in tank terms.

Later versions added bolt-on plates of 14.5 to 20mm tickness frontally, while ausf F used solid plates of 30mm for turret front, 20-35mm for hull front and 20mm sides, increasing vehicle weight to 9.5 tons.
In 1941 Hitler proposed to give Panzer II spaced armor plates, in a similar layout to ausf F, with extra plates varying from 14.5 to 20mm thickness, although at likely quite a price in mobility.

Mobility  

The initial Maybach HL  57 TR engine was rated 130 HP, giving a pretty respectable power to weight ratio of around 17 HP/ton and a top speed of 40 KM/H.
Ausf B introduced the Maybach HL 62 TR rated at 140 HP, not a big upgrade but much needed for later versions as the ausf C brought the weight up to 8.9 tons.

In 1938 a MAN175-200 HP Type HWA 1038G engine was also planned.
Type D brought a new gearbox and transmission that allowed a top speed of 55 KM/H.

Later developments: VK 901, 903, VK 1601 and Luchs

Between 1938 and 1941 a new 10 ton class panzer with increased speed and protection was planned, with an initial design of a 10.5 ton Panzer II with a new engine and armor layout, called VK 901 or Panzer II Neuer Art.

Firepower

Initially the standard 2cm KWK 38 and MG 34 design was kept, although by then it was clear it was insufficient against armor.
In 1941 it was proposed to mount the Czech 4.7cm cannon in a Panzer II turret but the project wasn’t pursued.
Later series of the VK 13.01 Luchs mounted a 5cm L/60 in an open-top turret, produced until 1943:

A third turret was also developed by Daimler-Benz, posing the basis for later designs:

Protection 

The initial layout called for a 30mm frontal armor and 20mm sides.
A very limited series 17 ton assault design with 80mm frontal armor and 50mm sides was the VK 16.01, soon dismissed due to limited tactical usefulness with a top speed of 31 km/h.

Mobility 

The first chassis was finished with a 145 HP Maybach HL 45 engine for a top speed of 50 km/h, but soon a new 180P Maybach HL 66P engine was designed to propel the vehicle up to a quite fast 65 km/husing new suspensions derived from the Panzer 38(t).

VK 16.02 Leopard

In 1941MIAG received a contract to develop along with MAN the VK 1602 design, also called the Leopard, while Daimler-Benz designed the turret.
It was designed into a 21 ton light variant and a 26 ton heavy one and planned to be developed into an entire design family (wooden mock-ups of a Leopard Waffentrager existed), but ultimately canceled by Speer himself in favor a recon variant of the Panther tank.

Just like the late Luchs variant, the design mounted a 5cm L/60 cannon, later on an open turret derived from the Luchs waffentrager, 37mm FLAK 43, 5cm FLAK 41, 55mm MK114 or Gerat 58 and the 10.5cm LEFH 43 were also proposed.

Protection

At 26 tons, the heavy variant was quite well armored for a recon vehicle, with an 80mm sloped hull front plate, 60mm sides and turret thickness from 50 to 80mm.
The 21.9-ton lighter variant was initially designed with 60mm hull front and 20mm sides and rear, then redesigned into 50mm front and 30mm sides and rear.
The universal open turret was supposed to have 50mm front and 30mm sides and rear.

Mobility 

The 550HP Maybach HL 157 was the planned power-plant, giving the tank a top speed of 50 KM/H. 

VK 28.01: The multi-purpose light tank 

In 1943 a new heavy reconnaissance tank was proposed under the VK28.01designation.
It was planned to be a multi-purpose tank with an air-cooled rear engines, with Daimler-Benz in charge of the project.
Several drafts were made to accommodate different engines, until the project was cancelled in May 1944 in favor of a design using Panzer III components.

Just like VK 16.02 it was designed into a lighter 28 ton design and an heavier 33 ton variant, although no differences are stated aside from engine power.

Firepower

The only planned gun for the tank was the 75mm L/48 in a turret derived from that of the Panzer IV ausf G, while an open top variant was proposed with a quadruple 20mm FLAK 38 mount or with a similar armament as the Leopard.

 Protection

The armor scheme was generally in line with that of the Leopard, again using 50mm sloped frontal armor and 30mm sides plus planned use of side skirts against AT rifles.

 Mobility 

Initially the tank was planned to have a newly designed525HP Diesel engine, but since it didn’t go further an alternative 450 HP DB 819 engine was planned.
A final choice was made into the Argus 12LD330H 550 HP engine, reaching 19 HP/ton.

The heavier variant was born out of the need of a larger engine, due to the fact that the MB 819 ended up giving reliably only 400 HP, thus the larger MB 507 rated at around 600 HP was proposed.
The changes brought the weight up to 33 tons, for which at this point the 700 HP Maybach HL 230 was proposed.

Conclusions: 

Most variants are already present in WOT, some components might be brought to fine-tune the grind.
Some possibility of having stronger firepower is present but the cost would be invariably an open turret and likely some mobility.

The “Buff my tank!” articles are meant as an historical way to look at some tanks considered underpowered in game and ways to improve their combat abilities discussed by the original German engineers.
Beware that while being sometimes ironic in tone, the article treats about both costs and benefits of every choice and it most likely will never be listened by WG as suggestion.

Often forgotten and underestimated in the shadow of its mightier successors, the humble Panzer I was mainly meant to be a training tank but ended up being a pretty important part of the early Polish and French blitzkrieg campaigns.

During its service history several modifications and evolutions were developed and proposed, sometimes greatly changing the tank’s role far away from the puny vehicle that didn’t exactly shine during the Spanish civil war and versus later opponents.
For this article we will use “Panzers I and II and their variants by Spielberger, “Panzer Tracts 1-1” and “Panzer Tracts 1-2” by Jentz & Doyle

 Firepower

The staring projected armament of two MG13 clearly designated the tank to be used mainly against infantry and soft skinned vehicles as their penetration was too lackluster against most armored vehicles.

During the Spanish civil war the 20mm Breda auto-cannon was installed, giving it some punch against similar light tanks.
The VK 6.01(ausf C) upgrade brought the EW 141 MG that allowed better penetration, although using precious Tungsten.

Protection

A measly 13mm all-around protection was enough to protect against SMK, but anything heavier would pierce it easily. Bolt-on 15mm plates were often added, giving it decent protection against weaker auto-cannons and AT rifles.

Panzer I ausf C brought frontal armor to 30mm (at the price of bringing weight to 8 tons), although it was the VK 18.01 (ausf F) that in December 1939 brought a serious upgrade to 80mm frontal and 60mm side armor, though at the price of bringing the weight to 18-19 tons with evident effects on mobility (a top speed of 25 KM/H was planned):

The Krupp M 305 engine at 60HP was nothing to write home about although at 11 HP/ton it still allowed a maximum speed of 40KM/H for the ausf A on roads.
One of the very first proposed upgrades was the 80HP Krupp V-8 engines during design phase in 1932, while also of note is the 85HP air-cooled Krawa engine tested in 1934/35.

In 1935 the Maybach NL 38 was added, which at 100HP was a definite improvement in mobility.
In September 1939 the 150HP Maybach HL 45p was to be installed in the ausf C, giving the vehicle a top speed of 65km/h (18,75 HP/ton) although the drive train was rated for an extreme 81 KM/H.

An even more extreme upgrade was planned in 1942 for the VK 6.02, installing a 200HP Maybach HL 50 engine which would have given an amazing speed of 80 KM/H with a power to weight ratio of around 25 HP/ton.

Conclusions:

Although a viable design in 1939, Panzer I was always quite under-gunned and modifications given to keep it in par with competition never brought it above decent.
WOT already shows most upgrades (aside from the Ausf F/ VK 18.01-02 which could be an interesting tier IV if used with limited match making).

All in all: No further buffs possible unless using a pretty much new design

Late war Germany found itself lacking capable light recon tanks amongst its many shortages. There were a few obsolete light tanks pressed into the role but by 1945 they were mostly worn out, with the few working remains hopelessly outmatched by Soviet and Allied fast medium tanks. One answer to this was the usual flurry of paper projects, which however proved to be too complex and expensive (VK 16.02), using precious chassis and making little sense (Recon Panther) or being underpowered from inception for the role (early turreted Jagdpanzer 38 (t) with Panzer IV turret and to a lesser extent the Panzer 38D). Spielberger briefly mentions that the E-25 proposal included a recon tank version but gives no further details, leaving us still into obscurity. There is however one further, unlikely source that might bring us further details, although usually regarded as something very different altogether: Hahn’s “Klein-Tiger”.

The project as described by Hahn might seem a fantasy nonsense and indeed it doesn’t seem to match anything Tiger related, as very well described in this article. That is, as long as we consider the Klein-Tiger as a Tiger related project, however what if it was something entirely different in design and purpose?

We should start with the assumption that Hahn isn’t a tank specialist at all (he worked on Penemunde and V-2 related projects), while having excellent access to  raw data thanks both to war experience and undoubtedly good personal connections or his very own secret document cache.

On this base, it’s reasonable to assume Hahn found very scant data about a tank project and tried to reconstruct it with limited technical knowledge. Given this, we can trust Hahn on raw data but we should be careful on his reconstructions as he commits some grave mistakes on details like abbreviations ( for example, PWK may mean high pressure or high performance) so that we get nonsense description like a planned 10,5cm L/68 cannon for the E-25, where in reality the 10H64/PAW 1000 was meant.

So, what can we extrapolate from his tank description?

- He was talking about the Panzer program for 1945, which should exclude anything Tiger I related, while we know Tiger II proposals were made by Krupp and rejected.
- He did find a 33 ton project with 80mm armor heavily sloped (to be effective 160mm but a 60° slope is very rare in contemporary designs and we should assume it was just steeply sloped)
- A 600 HP engine was to be installed
- A 10cm cannon  was to be used and the description matches the 10H64.
- The tank was likely dubbed somewhere as “Klein-Tiger”.

Every single other detail has to be discarded as his reconstruction as specifications cannot match a 33 ton tank. One platform by one particular plant would however provide a pretty fitting match, if we rule out some sources of confusion.

I will now quote Spielberger on the E-25:

- “Argus was not unknown in tank building, for many brake aggregates, especially for the Tiger, were developed by this firm”.
- “The specifications of the tank required a 25 ton platform for recon and pursuit”.
- A 600HP Argus engine was planned, however in the end Tiger’s Maybach HL 230 was installed
- Both the 75mm L/70 and the 10.5cm PWK were planned as main weapons.

Panzer tracts 20-1 mentions the E-25 as a 25 ton tank destroyer armed with the 75mm L/70 with a 50mm frontal plate sloped at 50-55°, while Spielberger mentions the tank was planned to have both engine and transmission at the rear to allow for the heaviest armor and weapons at the front. No specifications for the recon role emerges from either Spielberger or Doyle but the tank hull matches quite closely the E-25, which Hahn rates as a 26.3 ton heavy tank in his description of the E-series.

Let’s now do some dirty calculations:

Removing the 75mm L/70 would allow for a pretty much unbroken glacis plate, bringing the hull weight back to 25 tons.

The turret design has no cupola (but welding one wouldn’t have been a huge production issue) but it as the advantage of being easy to produce and offer great protection: 80mm frontal armor plus a large, flat 80mm mantlet, all sloped at 10°. Such a turret would weigh roughly 5-6 tons, leaving us with 2-3 tons to be distributed, of which the 10H64 woud roughly take one ton of weight. What’s left can be given to protection. A bolted or welded extra 30mm glacis plate would take most of the weight, while it’s very likely that Hahn’s “multi-layered armor” wouldn’t be anything else than the common side-skirts already used on Panzer IV. Not exactly 160mm effective front or Tiger sides but more than adequate for a light tank.

SilentStalker kindly prepared a draft drawing, however let me stress this out:

This is an extremely speculative draft, take it with a pinch of salt.

Could this tank really be Hahn’s klein-Tiger? Perhaps, we will likely never know.
Would it be feasible at the time? This would require more measurements and a mechanical engineer, however Ernst Kniepkamp (Head of Wa Pruef 6 and the man behind E-series and most German tank suspensions) was behind a later tank which used suspensions and transmission very similar to the E-series.

Sources:
- Panzer Tracts 20-1, page 42 (Jentz, Doyle)
- Special Panzer Variants, pages 71-72 (Spielberger, Doyle)
- Waffen und Geheimwaffen des deutscher Heeres 1933 – 1945, part 2 page 66 (Hahn)

Those of course were far from being the only armored beasts that grazed (or better, clawed their way through) the battlefield but the drawing boards were busy with even more projects, as usual going from the pragmatic to the downright unpractical, giving excellent precursors to Hitler’s megalomania.

Still, this was the technological cutting edge of the era, with both sides pioneering into armored warfare operations and experimenting original solutions.
While only one german tank design ever saw the battlefields of WWI, designing and prototypes were going strong behind the lines.

A7V

On November 13, 1916 the War Ministry commissioned a tank (the nomenclature Sturmpanzerwagen came only in 1918), disguised under the name of “A7V”.

With a planned gross weight of about 30 tons, the design was planned to be able of running cross country, spanning ditches up to 1.5m wide and to reach a top speed of 12km/h.
The armament was planned to include a cannon and several machine guns, while an 80-100HP motor was initially thought to be sufficient (2,5-3,3 HP/ton, could maybe propel the tank to walking pace), while the running gear was based on the popular Holt tractor, which was the base of most early tank designs.

On December 1916 a draft was published with two 100 HP engines (for a more acceptable 6,5 HP/ton), while constant changes in design happened until spring 1918.
Initially a 2cm decker was proposed but proved ineffectual against armor, so several cannons including the at the time dreaded 7.7cm FK96 field gun, which however proved too heavy for the chassis.

In the end, 57mm the belgian Maxim-Nordfeld QF cannon was chosen due to its low recoil.
This gun might seem puny by WWII standards, however it was able to defeat contemporary armor at fairly long distances, although it’s also fair to say that bulletproof would be a more appropriate description of WWI tanks.

After the “Cambrai shock” the German army started evaluating to imitate the concept of British rhomboid tanks, as they were seen a superior cross-country design.
This ended up in the A7V/U project, which looked fairly similar to the British Mark IV and was armed with 2 5.7cm cannons in side sponsons.

Larger than the entente tanks, 2 110HP engines were far from enough for propelling the nearly 40 ton chassis and led to a front-heavy tank, while the tracks were easily fouled with sand.
Deteriorating war situation and resource scarcity led to the abandonment of the project in September 1918.

This however wasn’t the only planned A7V variant and some more original design were made.
One of those was the A7V-flakpanzer:

Armed with 2 captured Russian 76.2mm cannons, it was parter of a broader effort to motorize anti-aircraft artillery and it might very well be world’s first SPAAG.

Other variants included a battle supply carrier, motorized trench-digger and a radio carrier, but ultimately the chassis mobility was seen as insufficient for German stormtrooper tactics (a problem shared with entente captured tanks), so new designs were prepared for Plan 1919.

K-Wagen

Even before completion of the first A7V, an even larger tank was planned.
Called the K-Wagen, it was intended to be an heavy breakthrough tank to be ready for 1919.
The precursor of WWII super-heavy designs, requirements included 4 cannons (or 2 cannons and 2 flame throwers), several machine guns and the ability to cross trenches up to 4 meters wide.

The worsening of the war situation led to a radical change in german tank design.
Instead of heavy assault tanks lighter designs were favored, using simpler automotive designs derived from Daimler cars and engines in order to create cheap and simple to manufacture tanks, not unlike the late WWII E-series.

The first Vollmer LK I prototypes were rejected on January 1918 due to insufficient armor protection, as the paltry 8mm were often insufficient to resist even close range rifle fire.
The 8,5 tons LK II fared better, with armor up to 14mm and armed with a quick firing 5,2 or 5,7cm cannon in a rear casemate design.

 Weak suspensions found in testing halted the development, although it was also proposed to rearm the tank with a 3,7cm KWK. This design was to become the basis for the Swedish Stridsvagn M21.
Improving on this, Vollmer proposed a LK III design, with engine and transmission at the rear, using purpose built parts and sporting a front turret, which due to the end of the war remained only on paper.

 Oberschlesien

  The poor battlefield performance of A7V led to the design and development of a new generation of assault tanks.
Along with the lighter designs a new heavy tank was proposed under the name of Oberschlesien, or Upper Silesia.
The drawings showed a very modern design for the era, with driver upfront, separate fighting and engine compartments, raised weapons in rotating turrets.

Great care was placed on battlefield mobility, leading to a very light ground pressure of 0.5kg/cc.
The 20 tons tank was powered by a 180HP engine for a top speed of 16 km/h, armed with either a 3,7 or 5,7cm cannon and 2 machine guns, while 14mm of armor gave it decent protection.

All in all, the central powers found themselves hopelessly trying to catch up and the end of the war led to total stasis for several years.
Still, had the war went on for longer the central powers showed that they could eventually field designs able to match anything fielded by the Entente.
1919 and 1920 would have shown a much changed battlefield but this would be a topic for a pretty different article…

Being the classical late WWII German swiss-knife tank, the Panther had many planned evolutions.One of the most interesting and obscure of those was its Waffentrager (gun carrier) configuration.

As shown by this specifications, a Panther based Waffentrager armed with a 8.8cm FLAK 41 and most of its armor stripped out would weigh only 31 tons.
From this start Krupp went ahead with draft W1734, using a SFH43 heavy howitzer with -8 gun depression and the estimated weight rose to 34 tons, provided the apparatus for separating the gun from the carrier was not included in the chassis.

In the end, a wooden model was created, with an open top rotating platform and a gun shield:

The model shows a 128mm L/55 but the same platform was planned to carry the 15cm SFH 43 plus a 21cm howitzer was planned on 18 march 1944.

All in all, the Waffentrager Panther could have been another real German feline from hell: agile like a leopard, with the bite of a lion but the soft skin of a kitten with 30mm maximum armor.

Disclaimer: 

This is a purely speculative article that takes into account WOT German tech tree and uses historical tanks to speculate possible new tank additions.

While trying to keep the articles faithful to history some room for inaccuracy is allowed within these rules:

1) No tank or tank part will be 100% made up, at least a mention about tank role and vague specs are needed

2) Components not planned for the tank are allowed, provided it wouldn’t create grotesque inaccuracies like putting a gun that would obviously cripple a tank under its weight

3) This will be limited to WWII plans, anything post war risks to be too arbitrary to properly balance

No serious expectation of anything listed to appear in WOT as described is applied, but as we’re discussing about implementing history into an arcade game some items will be controversial.
This is unavoidable as WOT tech tree rules need a tank to be better than the previous one and ergonomics are not exactly cared about, meaning that most designs are over-performing their real counterparts.

After the recent general german tank rebalance made by WG which left some players rather disappointed, I think it’s a good time to look at historical developments and how they could fit in WOT.
As the Henschel line is slightly better researched this will be more of a rebalance and less of a revolution than the Porsche rebalance proposal, although again the focus will be on bringing better armor for tier, although I’m sure the proposed changes will stir controversy as they touch many community favourites.
The historical sources as usual are Spielberger, Jentz & Doyle with a few lines from Hahn.

Henschel heavy tank development can be traced back to January 1937, when Wa Pruef 6 asked Henschel to develop designs for a 30 ton tank armed with a 7,5cm cannon.
Although not the first development for an heavier design (Großtraktor and Neubaufahrzeug were produced in early 1930s but could be regarded more as parade tanks than battlefield ready designs), Henschel focused on the breakthrough tank role, with focus on all-around armor and guns intended to deal with machine gun nests and small fortifications rather than tank to tank combat, although the experience of France first and Russia later on radically changed this.

Tier III:  Durchbruchswagen

Most soft stats could be picked from the current tier IV DW (after all the two tanks were very close relatives) although the improved firepower would mean no preferential match-making.
Strong against the same tier but also only moderately well-protected, it would set the tune for the rest of the line.

 Tier V:  VK 36.01 (H)

Although pretty balanced as tier VI heavy, the VK 36.01 (H) is yet another over-gunned design as historically it was unable to carry the 88mm cannon.

At tier V it would bring great armor for its tier (on par with the feared KV), still excellent firepower as the current VK 30.01 (H) gun selection plus were its historical guns.
Mobility-wise we could expect similar performance as the KV tank (which isn’t too bad for an heavy) to which it would be an excellent counterpart, with less damaging guns but better penetration and better frontal armor but worse sides.

All in all, it would be a good breakthrough tank, able to take some punishment to the front but also punishing for reckless players as mediums of the same tier would easily exploit the weak sides.

Tier VI:  Tiger (H)

Great gun, good mobility but paper armor was pretty much the Tiger’s description.In recent patches this has been brought to the extremes, to the point that the tank resembles very little its historical counterpart except in looks.
Bringing down the tank to tier VI could give armor that lower tiers would find difficult to penetrate with a bit of angling, while HP and soft stats would suffer.

As strange as it may seem, we have no data on planned armor thickness for E-50 and E-75 other than one had stronger armor than the other.
This, connected to the fact the design was never planned to use anything larger than the 10.5cm L/68, would make the tank rather underpowered at tier IX but very possible to be balanced at tier VIII.

The main complaint in WOT would be that the tank is too well protected for tier VIII, and it would be true keeping the current armor. At the same time, that layout is not very realistic for a 75 ton tank.

IMHO armor would have been only marginally better than Tiger II (I’d say 150mm UFP, 120mm LFP, 100mm sides) and most weight would have gone into a larger turret, able to properly house the 10.5cm L/68 and a 2nd loader. A 5 tons margin is not that much considering this factor, even with the promised lighter suspension and optimized layout within the E-series.

Mobility wise we could expect slightly worse than Tiger II (same engines, 5 more tons) in HP/ton ratio, terrain resistance depends on WG as usual.

 Tier IX: VK 130.01(K)Tiger-Maus

The mighty E-100 was born initially as a Krupp project for a cheaper Maus using production components from the Tiger and Tiger II.
The first draft called for a prototype using an early Maus turret design and either a MB HL230 design or an optimized version boosted to 1000HP using high octane fuel.

Luckily we also have the turret design available:

Trouble is that it was quite a bit heavier than E-100 turret, pushing the total weight nearly 150 tons.
Even with a 1000HP engine we can expect Maus-like mobility but great armor and good firepower at tier IX.

On the guns side, we could expect the 10,5cm L/68 stock and a choice between Maus 12.8cm L/55 and likely the upcoming 150mm FH L/29,5 from the TD line, although it will likely not have better penetration than the 10,5cm.

This concludes the “radical” variant.
The other option involves leaving alone tier VIII and IX, while introducing a new tank at tier VII.

Tier VII:  VK 45.02/45.03 (H)

The project in itself was rather short lived as it was ultimately decided to uniform production as much as possible with Panther components, leading to the “Tiger III” project which ended up in the Tiger B we all know.

Performance wise we could expect a tank slightly lighter than a Tiger II using the same engines as Tiger I, so not stellar mobility, balanced by slightly better frontal armor (imagine ARL44 hull with Tiger turret) and the Porsche Tiger II turret as top.

Tier X: E-100

No introduction is really needed, E-100 is unlikely to change much.
Possible buffs are covered in the “Buff my tank! – E-100″ article.

I’m sure this article will raise controversy but given the constant WOT rebalancing I wouldn’t consider it completely impossible.

Hope you enjoyed reading this article and I will see you in the next one!

This is a purely speculative article that takes into account WOT German tech tree and uses historical tanks to speculate possible new tank additions. While trying to keep the articles faithful to history some room for inaccuracy is allowed within these rules:

1) No tank or tank part will be 100% made up, at least a mention about tank role and vague specs are needed

2) Components not planned for the tank are allowed, provided it wouldn’t create grotesque inaccuracies like putting a gun that would obviously cripple a tank under its weight

3) This will be limited to WWII plans, anything post war risks to be too arbitrary to properly balance

No serious expectation of anything listed to appear in WOT as described is applied, but as we’re discussing about implementing history into an arcade game some items will be controversial.

This is unavoidable as WOT tech tree rules need a tank to be better than the previous one and ergonomics are not exactly cared about, meaning that most designs are over-performing their real counterparts.

With the approaching Waffentrager tree, today we will see my personal take on the possible sturmpanzer tree.
SilentStalker recently had his own take on it, but I disagree on some choices and also prefer a shorter, more intense grind.

Historically sturmpanzers were basically direct fire artillery platforms, serving as mobile infantry howitzers or as assault guns depending on tank and situation.
Tactically conceived as a blend of artillery and tank destroyer later on specializing in urban fighting, they were very well described by Von Manstein:

The perfect root to start this tree in my opinion is the good old Hetzer. The first derp TD is a perfect platform to introduce the play style that will give character to most of the tanks in the tree, and is going to be followed by a derivative platform:

Tier V:  Selbstfahrlafette s.I.G.33 auf Bergepanzer 38 (t)

A close Hetzer cousin, the tank was born out of the idea of coupling a 15cm S.I.G. to a bergepanzer 38(t) chassis.

Open top and with very thin superstructure armor ( sources vary between 20-30mm front and 12-20mm side), but likely sharing excellent camo with Hetzer coupled with  a good view range, this tank was planned to be around 16.5 tons and powered by a 150HP engine, for a decent 13HP/ton ratio, it’s likely it would share the same engines with its lower tier cousin, making the tank pretty agile as well.

All this awesomeness is in turn balanced by pretty poor ergonomics, as gun traverse was limited to 7° per side and gun depression to 2°. Ammo capacity was also limited to 15 rounds, meaning every shot must count.

All in all, we can expect a stock experience with the Hetzer 105mm howitzer and a similar stock engine, ending with the mighty 15 SIG, giving similar but likely even less accurate firepower due to a much shorter barrel.

Tier VI: Sturm-Infanteriegeschütz 33B

The fierce battles around Stalingrad created the necessity to have an heavily armored assault gun.
In the urban context high muzzle velocity and long range accuracy were of little value, but armor was of the utmost importance. The resulting tank was a box-like superstructure on a Panzer III chassis.

Unlike its predecessor, the StuIG 33b was pretty well armored, with 80mm front, 50mm side and 15mm in the rear, which brought a total weight of 21 tons.
Ergonomics are again pretty restricted, with a traverse of a mere 3° per side as well as a gun depression of 3°.

Maximum speed is listed at 20kmh, although given weight and engine power it seems unlikely, so my personal suspect is that either the listed weight is wrong (likely and by at least 5 tons), or the speed is at least 10kmh higher than listed.

On the firepower side, we can expect stock the SIG 33, an intermediate upgrade to the SIG 33 model 1939 (slightly better aim time) and end it with the 15cm STUH 43, with improved accuracy.
Engine-wise we can expect the same selection as the STUG III, so no surprises there.

A decent armor upgrade overall, with some loss of agility.
Tier VII: Sturmpanzer IV Brumbarr

 As the Panzer III chassis proved to be inadequate for the fierce fighting around Stalingrad, the Sturmpanzer IV was originally born as a replacement for the Ferdinand Sturmpanzer variant (another awesome design, which planned to use a captured 22cm french howitzer).

A vast improvement over the StuIG 33b, the Stupa (as it was nicknamed by troops) was very appreciated especially by infantry, which often called upon them and also fought in a TD role at Kursk in support of the Ferdinands.

A decent 100mm sloped at 38° gives slightly better frontal protection than the mighty Tiger, while sides were 50mm at  15° and rear 20 at 10° so getting flanked is a pretty bad idea.
Top speed is listed at 40kmh, although 265HP for 28 tons gives a mere 9HP/ton, although we can safely estimate Panzer IV top engine will bring the ratio to a decent 15 HP/ton.

On the firepower side, stock we can safely expect the 15cm STUH 43 while upgrades here gets a bit tricky, as historically a very short 21cm howitzer was planned but would be impossible to balance at tier VII, so instead we could play with the 15cm SFH 13 L/13 (a short variant of the Grille top gun), which would improve accuracy.
Ergonomics are vastly improved though, so we can expect 7° traverse on each side and a decent 5° depression.

Nothing revolutionary from the previous tier, it’s still a decent answer to SU-152 and sports decent armor versus lower tiers.

Tier VIII: Sturmpanther

 Following Stalingrad, a new Sturmpanzer design was requested, this time on a Panther chassis.
Krupp quickly created a draft of a 15cm STUH 43 in a Panther turret, using Tiger’s commander cupola and Maus’ gun sight.

Panther’s chassis and turret were otherwise left untouched, so we can expect a fairly agile TD, with a turret nonetheless.
Upgrade-wise the same shortened 21cm howitzer as for the Brumbarr was planned, but of course it’s unlikely it would fit in a turret.

Here we have two possibilities: either we abandon the turreted chassis and we use the Jagdpanther-based proposal of which no drawings are available or we find a turret able to fit a bigger gun, not a schmaulturm for sure.

Luckily for us, a larger turret is available from the Waffentrager designs:

In this picture you can see the tank with the 15cm SFH L/29.5 howitzer which will be featured in the Waffentrager line (why wasn’t this design picked instead of overburdening the Panzer IV waffentrager or the fantasy WT E-100 is a mistery to me), something big enough to hold a long-ish 15cm or the mentioned short 21cm howitzer.

As there is no actual design mentioned, one could think it was basically a sawn off version of this baby, the 21cm Morser 16 (which would have been retired from main line use so in surplus):

Such awesome firepower would be balanced by horrid soft stats, however in skilled hands this TD would be a truly deadly tank, although still an appetizer in firepower compared to what will follow.

 Tier IX: Sturmpanzer Bar

 Awesome firepower comes with awesomely horrid sacrifices in every other area.

The Sturmpanzer Bar comes from a March 1943 requirement for a Sturmgeschutz able to mount a 305mm L/16 howitzer, two months later a conceptual design simply called Bar (Bear) was completed.
Planning to use a mix of Panther and Tiger components, this behemoth of steel would have weighted 120 tons, 8.2m long, 4.1m wide and 3.5m high.

Historically, the tank project was discarded on the same day as its completion, as Alkett/Henschel’s Sturmtiger plan proved to be much more effective and economical just at first glance.

Poorly armored at 100-130mm sloped front and 80mm side, the planned Maybach HL 230 engine would have given in an anemic 5.8 HP/ton, for a maximum speed of 20kmh.
Ergonomics were also rather poor, with 0 gun depression and a traverse of mere 2° on each side.

All of this would be compensated by the gun. A 305mm HE shell is more than enough to ruin even a super-heavy tank day, supplemented by an HEAT beton-grenate which would penetrate at least 300mm armor, for nearly guaranteed one-shot capability regardless of the target.

Still, this tank would represent a true test of willpower, a tank requiring the patience of an artillerist, greatly depending on proper positioning and good team-work.
After all, how good could be something discarded so quickly?

 Tier X: Sturmtiger

This classic steel beast needs very little introduction.
Coming from the very same requirement that resulted in the Bar draft, Speer himself contracted Alkett to develop a project to mount a 38cm marine rocket launcher on a Tiger chassis, after the earlier proposal of mounting a 21cm Morser 18 proved too heavy for the chassis.
Alkett initially proposed a rear casemate/frontal engine design which was quickly rejected, followed by a design of a frontal casemate with the 38cm launcher in a ball mount.

Frontal armor was 150mm at 47° with 80mm sides, lower front plate was 100mm often reinforced by an additional 50mm plate, not exactly stellar as top tier.
The MB HL 230 P45 engine gave it 700HP for 68 tons, which gave a power to weight ratio of  around 10 HP/ton, for a top speed of 40kmh.
Ergonomics are decent but nothing stellar: 0/ +70 gun depression and a traverse of 10 degrees on each side.

380mm with both HE and HEAT shells gives it the most devastating punch one could imagine, accuracy will be pretty abysmal though, worse than most howitzers (10m dispersal at 1000m, so in game something close to 0.8-1.0).

In conclusion…

Awesome firepower requires extreme patience and skill to be properly used, imho the mid tiers will be the places where most fun is to be had.
Still, any of these babies in Himmelsdorf will be a sight to be feared!