OVERLORD'S BLOG: e75

Showing posts with label e75. Show all posts

Tuesday, June 12, 2012

[WoT] Transmission Response from Mr. Doyle

I'm very proud that we were able to get an official response of highly-respected researcher in the field of German WWII tanks - Mr. Hilary L. Doyle regarding that "transmission thing" with E-series (namely front drive for E-50 & E-75). What's more important, this statement doesn't go against our suppositions.

"Firstly, in this case Overlord is completely correct. Any engineer or logical person can see that these sketches do not make sense. But he must avoid shooting the messengers!

We have talked about the philosophy that Tom and I adopted after the success of our “best-seller - the Encyclopaedia of German Tanks” (Arms & Armour Press, published in 1978). We try only to report the facts that we find them in original documents. As time has gone on we have become even stronger in our determination to avoid speculation. There are more than enough charlatans prepared to sell snake oil concerning German Panzer development and users. The “facts” are actually far more interesting and there is still plenty of new material to be unearthed but of course this involves really hard and expensive research that the home based enthusiasts is not prepared to do.

In our Panzer Tracts No.20-1 “Paper Panzers” on a single page we summarised of the “facts” available on the E50 and E75 proposals. Most important are the five general requirements of a next generation of Panzers

Of course, behind our summary I have collected some seventy pages of original documentation. Most are original calculation sheets on possible drive train and suspension ideas. My drawings are based on the sketches attached. Clearly, these first thoughts and proposals on future Panzer requirements were never given any priority and as the war situation deteriorated. To me the “real“ engine/transmission package designers from Maybach never actively got involved and the armour designers certainly had not considered how a rear drive might be mounted. What we see are proposals “that are the best ideas since sliced bread” being pushed by fringe companies and they certainly had no authority to design the necessary new armoured hull. Overlord should try to address his doubts to the inventors that made these sketches in 1944.

Any additional information published on E50 or E 75 besides that in Panzer Tracts No.20-1 and Spielberger's Band 8 Special-panzerfahrzeuge is merely fantasy and should be labelled as such.

We do not need to dream up E50 & E 75 designs since Porsche and Daimler-Benz outlined a possible tank design for the Indian government in 1955 which incorporated many of the E50 & E 75 ideas. This also did not get off the proposal drawing board but two years later, as part of one of the consortia bidding for the Standard Panzer (later Leopard), Porsche used these ideas once again. See the attached drawings." (see those HLD watermarks on the pics)

Once again many thanks to Mr. Doyle, whose works were a good source on many of German tanks in-game, and WG.net military expert Chieftain.

Wednesday, June 6, 2012

[WoT] The Notorious Transmission Thing

In this post I have gathered some (not all) of the info gathered from various sources (including Serb's and Storm's posts on RU forums).

It's obvious that the hull size and design of E-50/75 is similar to the one of King Tiger, which leaves nearly no space for rear transmission layout declared by Jentz and Doyle in their reconstruction blueprints.

The real archive blueprints are still not public and probably will never be.

Serb: Rear engine layout (which results from intakes), the design of leading and rear wheels (plus the absence of hub drive casing) make the rear-drive for E-50/75 impossible. In the generally accepted configuration and design provided by Doyle and Jentz at least.

There is no evidence in the form of engineering blueprints, based on Doyle's hull geometry, that could demonstrate the possibility of moving the transmission to the rear. The above does mean that with quite high probability Jentz and Doyle actually presented the two mutually exclusive theses on the same page.

Consequently the conventional front-drive design is considered to be more viable, without denying possible intentions of engineering rear-drive E-50/75.

More evidence by Serb is to be presented.

Storm: It's known that French AMX 50B was a successor of German tanks in terms of design. Still the hull of Tiger II is ~~6.4m~~ (it's ~7.3m), while AMX 50B is almost 1m longer (7.35m). That allowed French engineers to enable rear-drive for that very vehicle, while E-series were almost of identical size with KT. The difference was mainly in armour thickness and slope.

If we cut 1m from AMX 50B hull we are getting the following:

That leaves very little space for driver or engine compartment. There was no way the turret could be in the center of the hull.

Added Panther II turret, leaving the suspension, AMX 50B hull decreased by 90cm:

Looks somewhat horrible.

With the current front armour values of E-50 (upper 120@60, lower 120@60) and E-75 (upper 160@60, lower 130@60) the made adjustment doesn't look drastic and is not supposed to lead to noticeable performance decrease. However if the performance of either of the above drops, the necessary buffs will follow.

Edited (June 7):

Regarding the nerf thing, let's do some math.

Assuming that transmission is about 25% of the vertical projection of E-50/75 (I bet this is overestimation), internal module has 33% chance of being damaged and engine's (Maybach HL 295 Ausf. A) chance of fire is 15%, we get the following:

(0.25*0.33*0.15)*100%=1.2375%

And this accounts only for penetrating shots, while even at high tiers pen chance is not even close to 100% (for front hits ofc). It would be more difficult to do the same from the side.

So how many shots do we need to set a tank on fire:

100/1.2375=80.8 shots

80.8 rounds with average damage of 300 (it might be low for high tiers) will inflict 24242 damage which is enough to destroy E-75/50 how many times?