Source: Kankou, Zarax and me (list of sources below)

In recent Q&A, Storm stated that while they are looking for some tier 10 vehicles to serve as reward tanks to be obtainable thru random battles, but haven’t found any. Well, here’s one they could use. Presenting: the Weserhütte Tiger!

What is it? Well, basically, to quote Kankou: Basically, a rear transmission E-75 with originally projected speed (40 km/h) and armed with an upgraded 10,5 cm KwK 46 L/68 (preferably without the muzzle brake).

History

Yes, it is (somewhat) historical – by somewhat however I mean more than GW E-100, or GW Tiger P, which are for example completely made up. This is its main advantage. Both Kankou and Zarax have been writing on the topic of Weserhütte Tiger for some time, for example here and here. Zarax tends to focus more on the truly historical side, while Kankou made a post specifically with the intent of having this vehicle introduced into the game. I will therefore quote her on this:

For those following Silentstalker or Zarax might have seen the following picture:

Long story short, Eisenwerk (steel mill) Weserhütte of Bad Oeyenhausen was a participant in the E-Series Project, and apparently was tinkering with a design for what we call the E-75. Those with sharp eyes will notice the 153.5 mm difference between the distance of the leading and end wheel for the Adler and Weserhütte design, and also a 25 mm difference between the distance of the first and last roadwheel (never mind the E-50 style suspension of Weserhütte, which is very interesting, to say the least). Zarax had written a bit on this topic (linked above), and I have studied the issue, focusing on measurements on various tanks. In this re​sc​ri​pt, we shall be looking into conflicts between requirements, concepts, blueprints, and reality, as the purpose of the mysterious Tiger (Weserhütte) is pondered upon. The result is interesting, to say the least.

Shall we begin, Kameraden?

Dream: E-Reihe

The E-series designs were to be simpler, cheaper to produce, and more efficient than their predecessor tanks, yet their design involved only modest improvements in armor and firepower over the designs they were intended to replace. In addition, they were to utilize common interchangeable parts, thereby reducing the load that came from the extremely complex tank designs that had resulted in poor production rates and mechanical unreliability. The five requirements given by Wa Prüf 6 were the following:

1) To achieve a very strong frontal plate, move all possible weight to the rear
2) Unify the drive train unit to simplify maintenance and service
3) Standardize all panzers into four weight classes
4) Attach all suspensions from the outside and no fighting space encumbered by through torsion bars
5) In case the front idler or any road wheels were destroyed by mines, the vehicle must be capable of proceeding by adjusting the track around the remaining wheels.

Ultimately, the E-series would represent the final standardization of German armored vehicle design.

The program used the design offices of engineering companies which had no previous experience of tanks, under the belief that this will help bring about the most original approach to the problems at hand. These companies included Klockner-Humbolt- Deutz of Ulm, makers of the Diesel powered RSO/03, Argus of Karlsruhe, Adler of Frankfurt, and Weserhuette of Bad Oeyenhausen, all mainly component manufacturers, making things like engines, gearboxes and brakes for the larger concerns such as MAN and Daimler-Benz. It is worth knowing that not only could the ideas that formed from this project be considered the peak of German technological thought, but also that many of the components and ideas from E-50 were inherited by French tanks and also incorporated into the Indien-Panzer, eventually leading to what we know as the Leopard 1.

Of particular interest concerns the placement of the transmission. At least at the “experimental” level designers were considering rear mounted final drives as part of power pack concept to simplify maintenance. This is based on the preferably having the gearbox and final drive at the rear of the hull (as mentioned in the second requirements given by Wa Prüf 6). The technical superiority of forward drive was recognized (tests by the Germans had shown that tractive effort was far greater with front drive), but the military advantage of having the drive at the rear where it was not endangered by anti-tank fire, and the greater internal space in the fighting compartment which would result from the placement, influenced the choice of rear drive.

However, these first thoughts and proposals on future panzer requirements were never given any priority and as the war situation deteriorated. The “real“ engine/transmission package designers from Maybach never actively got involved and the armor designers certainly had not considered how a rear drive might be mounted. Wartime reality dictated that the front drive was seen as being a good enough of a solution. This would indicate that if the E-50 or E-75 had been produced, it would have had a front drive until conditions allowed the redesigning to a rear drive. Still, this does not mean that a rear transmission itself was completely ignored. E-50 and E-75 were to mount a transmission which would eventually be developed as the ZF M-4 transmission for the AMX 50. Essentially, at least conceptually it was entirely possible for a rear transmission to have been developed.

Keeping this in mind, allow us to explore the royal tank that was the basis of E-50 and E-75: Tiger II.

Royalty: Königstiger

One of the most iconic heavy tanks of World War II, Tiger II is majestic in its appearance.However, there are quite a few differences in the measurements of the hull. Some sources say 7.38 meters, another mentions 7.1 meters, and a blueprint of the Krupp plan to install the 10.5 cm gun indicates 6.8 meters. In order to analyze this, the following drawing by Mr. Doyle should serve a purpose:

According to this, the length of Tiger II from the nose to the rear armor is 6.8 meters. Once measurements include the exhausts or the front fenders do the number extend 7 meters. It seems that ultimately all the different measurements are based on where the hull is measured from, with the most related measurement concerning internal space to be 6.8 meters. In addition, the distance between the leading and end wheel is approximately 5.5 meters.

Internally, we see that quite a bit of space has been taken up by the engine room and the transmission. The engine room is approximately 1.4 meters lone when considering the floor, and the transmission is 1.1 meters long. With the positions of the engine and the transmission, we can see why the turret was placed in the middle of the hull, aside from balancing issues.

Successor: AMX 50

Unfortunately, the design of Tiger II did not survive into future, contrary to what quite a few people seem to think. Only the French, utilizing the Panthers and hiring German engineers, continued on the heavy tank technological advances of the Third Reich, and even this was only for a short while. The ultimate result (and dead end) was AMX 50.

Of particular note for this tank is that the engine and transmission were both essentially the continuation of the E-series. The engine was the Maybach HL 295 (a redesigned German gas engine in 1945 captured at Friedrichshafen by Engineer-General Joseph Molinié), which would have been used for both E-50 and E-75. Furthermore, the transmission was developed from the same designs which was to be used for E-50 and E-75. Basically, we can see what the rear transmission E-50/E-75 would have needed for it to be able to contain such an arrangement. Using the length of the hull (7.24 meters) and of the engine room floor (2.2 meters), we can attempt to see what changes are required

Application: Rear Transmission E-Series

For all purposes, both E-50 and E-75 had the same hull dimensions as Tiger II, with only the angles of the frontal armor being different (and the obvious armor thickness changes). Once you attempt to put the rear transmission into Tiger II, this happens:

The additional 0.8 meter of spaced required means that the turret itself would have to be moved forward, which in itself would collide with the forward hatch and ventilator cover, causing quite a few problems for the crew. In order for a rear transmission to have been possible, the hull itself would have to be lengthened by a minimum of 15 cm, and the turret itself moved from the formerly central position to just ahead of the engine room, which would be around 0.5 meters forward from the original location. As it happens, such a vehicle exists in WoT: E-50 Ausf. M.

From left to right, top to bottom:
“Technically, you can lower it a little. No torsion bars, no driveshaft, you can lower the engine and cut off some hull.”
“Motor group from the AMX 45″
“This wheel is no longer the drive wheel, remove clutches.”
“Move the fan grilles to cover the engine, the transmission service hatch is behind them.”
“This wheel is the leading wheel, add clutches”
“Turret moved as far up as possible so you can still open the hatches.”

The above are the notes that WG had made when developing E-50 Ausf. M, and we can see the requirements necessary for a rear transmission

E-50 Ausf. M happens to be approximately 15 cm longer than both E-50 and E-75, with the distance of the leading and end wheel being 5.6 meters and the distance of the first and last roadwheel 4.1 meters. These numbers are that used for Tiger (Weserhütte). Basically, by coincidence or design, the rear transmission E-50 Ausf. M lays out what Tiger (Weserhütte) would have been potential of if the German designers had managed to move on to a concrete rear transmission design. And as it turns out, SerB had confirmed E-50 Ausf. M is basically a redesigned Tiger (Weserhütte). Silentstalker: By the way, ever wondered, why E50 Ausf.M is called “Ausf.M”? Check the picture author’s last name.

Conclusion

For some reason, Weserhütte had made a concept design for E-75 which was different from the Adler design, in being both longer and with having a different running gear layout of six roadwheels. This design had the potential of being the basis of a rear transmission E-75, given the specific redesigning necessities being fulfulled as seen in the example of E-50 Ausf. M. Basically, we can argue that there was a historical basis for the rear transmission E-75, something which has a firmer foundation than the requirement-reliant E-50 Ausf. M. Of course, there would be the problem of redesigning the turret and such, but the conditions do exist for a tier 10 potential juggernaut which could replace the VK 72.01 (K) and with a greater historical basis.

It is certainly interesting how even in the chaos of the final months of war, the Germans were working on different ideas which could be used. Perhaps we might see something interesting in the future, or perhaps not. Nevertheless, what is certain that ultimately almost everything we see in World of Tanks has some foundations in history, and we should use this as a basis to further our own knowledge.

In World of Tanks

Well, that’s for the history lesson. And how would it look in World of Tanks?

So, do you like it? :)

Welcome to another edition of my Q&A! The previous one can be found here.

Q: Could you present a case for adding the Object 279 as a tier 10 heavy tank?

A: Well, the ridiculous armour angle would rival American heavy tanks for hull-down headaches. UFP and up, it’s a possible addition to the game. The only problems come when looking downward. The quadruple tracks would be a problem. On the T95, they are treated as only two tracks, but on this tank, they are much more further apart. Even if the developers do the same thing as the T95, there is still the issue of the fuel tanks in the middle of them. All of that UFP and front turret armour won’t do much when your tank burns from every shot to the relatively unprotected gas tanks. Even if you figure out how the 279 fits within game mechanics, the only way we’d ever see one at tier 10, is if we get a severely gimped version, like with the IS-7. Since SerB admitted the IS-7 to be his biggest mistake, I doubt we will see the Object 279.

Q: Could you write more about the T-32? I remember reading that some of them fought in the late stages of the Spanish Civil War, and that the design was unsuccessful because it was still a convertible tank.

A: The T-32 (or A-32, as it is more often called) was a further evolution of Koshkin’s ATG resistant tank projects. The government order was for a tank that is protected from guns with its speed, which built on the BT-7M. The result of that was the A-20. On his own initiative, Koshkin developed another tank, without a convertible drive, but with a more powerful gun, and more armour. His second prototype was weighed down to 24 tons (original mass was 19 tons) to test the reliability of its components. The tests were successful, and the development of a tank with a high velocity 76.2 mm gun and 45 mm of highly sloped front armour began. The result of that was the A-34, the precursor to the legendary T-34.
As for the A-32 seeing combat in the Spanish Civil War, that is very unlikely. Only two were built, in the spring and summer of 1939. By the spring of 1939, the situation of the Republicans was so grave, that it is highly unlikely that the Soviets would send them an untested prototype of a brand new tank.

Q: What was the BT-IS? Did the IS stand for Iosif Stalin?

A: Yes, the IS stood for Iosif Stalin, but the BT-IS tanks predate the heavy tank with a similar name by nearly a decade. The first BT-IS was the BT-2-IS, a 1934 project to improve the very flawed BT-2 tank. The prototype made all 6 wheels propel the tank in wheeled mode, instead of just two, and had a slightly redesigned hull with additional gas tanks. The tank was more agile and more survivable under fire than the BT-2, but the lack of synchronization between the road wheels and lower reliability led the project to be abandoned.
A similar project was undertaken with the BT-5-IS, in 1936. The tank also had higher off-road performance than the BT-5, and additional gas tanks. A brand new feature was the ability to convert the tank from track mode to wheeled mode without leaving the tank, in just 15 minutes. Unlike the singular BT-2-IS, 10 were built.
The BT-5-IS model 1938 project improved the BT-5-IS further. The armour was thickened and sloped at the expense of some gas tanks. No BT-IS was mass produced, but improvements from the projects were used in the BT-7 and BT-7M projects.

Q: Is it true that the V-2 engine was designed as an aircraft engine? Can you write on its history? Does it have disadvantages?

A: The engine was built as a multi-purpose diesel engine by the Kharkov Locomotive Factory (originally intended for heavy bombers, but insufficiently powerful for them). Five modifications existed by the start of the war: V-2 (BT-7M), V-2-34 (T-34), V-2K (KV-1 and KV-2), V-2V (Voroshilovets tractor), and an experimental “half” (V-4) modification for the T-50 tank. In later years, the engine was forced to higher horsepowers, such as the V-2SF and V-2SN using a centrifugal supercharger (borrowed from an aircraft engine). V-2 type engines continued to be developed for Soviet heavy tanks throughout the war. Descendants of the V-2 engine are still produced today (with not that many changes), for tractors, boats, trams, hovercrafts, locomotives, heavy trucks, and a large number of other vehicles.
Disadvantages of the engine design compared to modern alternatives include a high use of oil, loud noise, and complicated components that could be designed better today, with the use of superior manufacturing technologies. The aircraft roots of the engine also used aluminium, which was in short supply during the war, and sometimes replaced with other alloys.

Q: During the siege of Leningrad, the Kirov and Bolshevik plants produced tanks despite a lack of resources. Can you write something about these improvised constructions?

A: I have read of T-34s and KV-1s built with gasoline engines from older model tanks that were still in storage, when shipments of V-2 engines were interrupted. There were also plans to make T-34s with 45 mm guns, in the event of a shortage of 76 mm guns, but none were produced. Experimental tanks, such as the T-50 and KV-220, also took part in the siege.

Want to know how new arties are doing on EU server? Here’s how, courtesy of Edrard (wot-news.com):

Hello everyone,

the “testing” of miniquests on RU server successfully continues :) There is an interesting even from 26th to 29th of June, that includes two new miniquests, amongst other things.

First: A player, that wins 15 battles in any vehicle in one day (not in a row, just so) recieves one day free premium account. The counter resets around 4 AM.

Second: A player, that deals more than 3000 damage per battle, gets twice XP for that battle. Again, on any machine.

Not sure how about you, but I deal over 3k pretty often on my Ferdinand. And what is the EU server getting? Oh, that’s right. No miniquests for you, western capitalists!

“How terrible…”

Hello everyone,

as you have probably read already, the Object 430 will be most likely the top tank of the Soviet tier 10 branch (unless Evilly screwed something up and SerB will debunk this). Let’s have a look at this interesting vehicle together.

History

Object 430 is an experimental Soviet tank. After the war, the T-54 medium tank became the standard tank for the Soviet army, but as the 50′s came and went, it became more and more clear that its original armament, maneuverability and armor configuration started lagging behind the western world trends and that the T-54′s will have more and more trouble dealing with contemporary western tanks. Therefore, several tank development programs were started with the goal of creating a vehicle, that would outperform anything it could meet on the battlefield.

In the Kharkov mechanical plant (ZIM, Factory named after V.A.Malischev – a Stalin-era politician), a new department (KB-60M) was created specially for this purpose, it was led by the plant chief designers J.I.Baran and A.A.Morozov. In 1953, this department finished a preliminary project idea for the new tank, designated “T-64″, which was approved by the army. The project was officially started in April 1954 and recieved the designation “Object 430″. The sketches were ready by the end of 1954 and in May 1955, work began on the technical project itself. This all was finished by June 1955 and a wooden mockup was made.

First two prototypes were made in 1957 and they recieved the designations “Object 430-1*Z” and “Object 430-2*Z” (Z here means “trial” apparently). These protypes were tested by the factory and also trialed against another experimental Soviet tank, Object 140. A number of defects (especially regarding the engine) were revealed during the trials, but overall the tests were considered successful. By June 1958, the plant was ordered to build 3 more prototypes for the military to test on polygons. These were designated “Object 430-1*P, 430-2*P and 430-3*P”. These prototypes were ready in December 1959 and were tested thoroughly in two stages from March 1960 to May 1961.

In the end, based on the trial results, the Object 430-2*Z and 430-3*P were selected for development and mass production recieved new designations of “Object 430M-1, Object 430M-2″. That was, however, not meant to be.

The result of the testing committee was, that while all the development program goals were met and Object 430 is essentially ready for serial production, it does not represent much of an improvement over the T-54. Furthermore, other experimental tanks (Object 165 and Object 166 – otherwise known as T-62A and T-62) also passed the tests by that time, but their advantage was that some of their parts were unified with the T-54. Therefore, since there was such a reserve in T-54 improvement potential and since Object 430 didn’t represent that much of an upgrade over the T-54, the project was cancelled on 17.2.1961. The intended “T-64″ designation was then passed to Object 432.

Characteristics

We will compare this tank to the T-62A, its direct tier 10 competitor (data in brackets will belong to T-62A).

Crew: both vehicles have 4 man crew.
Weight: 35,5 (37)
Engine: 5TD, 600hp (580hp V-55) – as a “fun fact”, Object 430 had a new cooling system, that led to numerous breakdowns
Power to weight ratio: 16,9 hp/t (15,68 hp/t)
Maximum speed: 55 km/h (50 km/h)
Hull armor: 120mm (60 degrees)/ 50mm (50 degrees)/ 40mm (30 degrees) (102/75/45 for T-62A)
Turret armor: 248mm/185mm/63mm (240/161/65 for T-62A)
Gun: 100mm D-54TS (same gun as the T-62A), or U-8TS (experimental rifled gun, roughly matching the British L7)

Verdict

Object 430 seems to be better on the paper in most respects than the T-62A, so I assume we can expect some nerfs in the game, compared to its real life characteristics. When talking about this vehicle in the past, SerB mentioned a horribly unreliable “one hitpoint” engine, so I assume we can expect something like that to be the vehicle’s weakspot. Either way, this tank will probably play much like the T-62A – why the developers would decided to implement yet another such tank, I have no idea.

Now the Americans already have one don’t they? Well, by playstyle the T26E4 doesn’t really fit the stereotypical medium role does it? So are there any other vehicles that could be introduced to fit in a tier 8 premium medium spot? Yes, a lot actually.

Lets start off with the more logical choices. The T42 might be the easiest vehile to implement. Historically the T42 was based off the T37 light tank and was to be better armored than the M46 while keeping approximately the same firepower. The T42′s turret was used in the M46E1(upgraded M46) and the  M47 Patton. The chassis is already ingame as the T69′s chassis while the turret and gun are represented by the M46′s upgraded turret and the 90 mm gun M36. The T42 would have 4 crew members and could achieve speeds of 51 km/h (with 13.3 hp/t).

Another choice is the M47 Patton itself. The M47 used a hull based off the M46 Patton but featured better sloping so the protection would be equal to the T42 hull. The gun is the same as the T42(the M36). The M47 had a top speed of 48 km/h while having 15.9 hp/t. The M47 should be superior to the T42 in mobility besides top speed, also you get to train 5 crew members in it. I’d be happy with an M47 premium but I’d like to have the M47 as a researchable tank at tier 9 and have the M26 and M46 combined as a single tier 8 tank, we could see it in the Euro Tree too.

You could have the M47 as a German Premium too…

The T25 and the T25E1 were modified T23s that were fitted with the  90 mm gun T7(aka M3) in a new turret. The T25E1 used a more conventional transmission because the original T23 Electric transmission(used in the T25) couldn’t deal with the weight being added. The T25E1 would be a better choice than the original T25 in my honest opinion.  The T25E1′s turret was 76 mm thick with an 89 mm thick mantlet. The frontal armor is 76 mm thick at a 46 degree slope to protect the crew of 5. The T25E1 could reach speeds of 56 km/h but only in short spurts, its sustained top speed was 48 km/h and had 12.9 hp/t. the T25E1 would be the most sluggish and weakest armed and armored out of these 3 vehicles and would need good “soft” stats for compensation.

Now for some prototype/conceptual vehicles. In 1952, the first Questionmark conference was held. Out of this conference the M-1, M-4/M-5, and the M-7 could be viable tier 8 mediums.

The M-1 was the most conventional out of these vehicles, being similar to the M48 Patton. It had 102 mm of frontal armor sloped back at 60 degress and had a powerful 500 hp engine(AOS-895, used in the Walker Bulldog). The M-1 was armed with the 90 mm T139 gun(which in all practicality is the 90 mm M41 gun). I would think this would be a little too much out of a premium, the M-2 design armed with the 105 mm T140 gun could make a good tier 9 tank with the M-1 being stock.

The M-4 and the M-5 only differed in powerplant, the M-4 was to use a failed engine(AX-1100) while the M-5 was to use the AOS-895 and would have good mobility(13 hp/t). They had 102 mm of armor sloped at 60 degrees to protect the 4 crew members. The turret for these designs was placed in the rear to minimize overhang of the gun which was the 90 mm T139 gun. The M-5 should still get a good deal of comfort(which all these other tanks have an exceptional amount of comfortable gun depression). I think the M-5 would be a good choice as it unique and it isn’t over/underpowering.

The M-7 is a strange vehicle. It has the same chassis as the M-5 as above but the turret is a pod with an autoloaded 90 mm T139 gun. The weight of the M-7 was only 32 tons and would have 15.6 hp/t. There was to be no dangers of gun fumes or recoil but this arrangement also made vision more difficult for the crew of 3. The M-7′s autoloader would have access to many more rounds and for this reason it would be near impossible to balance as a tier 8 unless it is extremely nerfed, however the M-6(37 tons) was armed with a 105 mm T140 making the M-6/M-7 a tier IX candidate.

This is actually the M-7 with the 105 mm gun.

Now the last vehicle that I would endorse will come from the third Questionmark conference. Here many medium tanks were proposed but most either had composite armor or a smooth bore 90 mm gun so that only leaves one vehicle from the conference available, the TS-3. the TS-3 was a 40 ton vehicle armed crewed by 4 tankers and was armed with the 90 mm T139 . The armor was 96.5 mm thick and sloped back at 60 degrees; overall the TS-3 had less overall armor than the M48. The hp/t ratio would be ~14 hp/t giving the TS-3 good mobility with the 560 hp AOI-1195 engine. The TS-3 could be an effective premium if balanced properly.

There are more concepts from the US which could fill this position but most of the ones not here didn’t receive a proper designation and are pretty boring to be honest. I don’t want to talk about the “90 mm Gun Tank Proposal” or the “Lightweight Medium Tank” and you really don’t need to know, but they do exist.

Sources: Hunnicutt’s Pershing, Patton, and Abrams

Gotta give it to WG NA – they take action fast. First, they issued a statement about it. Long story short:

- the culprit (KingAlphyn) and his friends who helped him are permanently banned from participating in any WG competitions
- prizes have been revoked
- according to his own words, KingAlphyn recieved a one week ban on his account

Sounds good to me. Let’s hope that the competition results are checked more closely – but somehow, I think they will.