Main page

DarthE100, on 10 November 2012 - 07:09 AM, said:

3th Td line with be ``sturmpanzer``, like Brummbar, and SturmTiger (as tier X)

we might get a fourth line though (serb said that they had enough material for 4 td lines), i guess this line will contain the Ferdinand, and some other Porsche designs (perhaps JagdMaus as tier X??) but we will for sure get 3 lines, 1 waffentrager line, with tanks like marder III, Sturer Emil, Nashorn, and these waffentragers, and 1 ``sturmpanzer`` line.

GehakteMolen, on 11 November 2012 - 01:33 PM, said:

As far as i know ST will be on its own assault gun tree along with other german assault guns, not an part of TD tree.
Edited by PanzerGrenadier, 12 November 2012 - 01:00 AM.

UberJager, on 29 June 2012 - 09:21 PM, said:

Bieber project...?  

Waffentragen e100 is terrible!!! We want Jp E100 Krokodil etc

Yeahh why dnt they just implement thw mammoth tank or the devastotor from dune?

Actually JP E-50 should be the tier X, with WT Panther II in tier IX and WT Panther in tier VIII.

Here's the proper research thread: http://forum.worldof...al#entry2664925

LocoMati, on 27 October 2012 - 12:35 AM, said:

Prawda

it's a blown-up JT for pity's sake. Note the interlocking face armor that remained and the characteristic gun mantle.

Just providing a little historical background:

When looking at german Tank destroyers and Assault guns, you can see 2 distinguishable types, plus a third type of SPGs, which is closely related.

The first type is the tank destroyer, which is any tank or assault gun especially designed to take out tanks. Very typical traits of these are: Low silouette, fully enclosed fighting compartment in the front, good frontal armor, long barelled AT guns like the Pak 40, mostly medium based chassis, light and heavy chassis also commonly used. Good examples: Jagdpanzer 38(t) (Hetzer), StuG III, Jagdpanther.

The second type to be explained are the Self propelled artillery guns, designed for indirect fire support. Very typical traits are: high silouette, open topped fighting compartment in the rear, poor armor, short barreled howitzer guns, mostly light tank chassis, though medium chassis types are also common. Good examples: Sturmpanzer I "Bison", Wespe, Grille, Hummel.

The third type is an intermediate, the Self propelled AT guns, designed as improvised Tank destroyers. Very typical traits are: High silouette, open topped fighting compartment in the rear, poor armor, long barreled AT guns, mostly light tank chassis, rarely medium tanks.

The history behind all this is as follows:
After campaigns in France and Poland, the germans were looking for alternate uses for their outdated tank designs, like the Panzer I and IIs. Due to the fast speed employed by the Blitkrieg tactic, Artillery guns had trouble keeping up with the advance, so a more mobile artillery was required. The solution to both problems was simple: mount the artillery guns on outdated tank chassis in open topped superstructures. This resulted in many vehicles like the Wespe and Grille.

These vehicles were mechanically unreliable as some vehicles resulted in way too big guns mounted on way too small chassis like the Bison mounting a 15cm Infantry gún on the front of the PzI chassis. A more successful solution was the Wespe, mounting a 10.5cm howitzer on the back of a PzII chassis. Similar solutions were designed using the Panzer 38(t) (Grille) or the Panzer IV (Hummel).

Overall the vehicles were performing very well, as they combined heavy fire power with decent mobility. The weak armor protection, especially the open topped fighting compartments were only a small issue as these SPGs were not intended for direct fire and therefore only needed protection against small arms fire.


While combating french tanks, the ned of more mobile anti tank guns was quickly recognized and it was decided to mate the PzI chassis with the czech 4.7cm at gun. The Panzerjäger I was the predecessor of the marder series and all similar vehicles. When the germans encountered the superior russian Tanks like the T-34 and the KV-1 they were shocked. Development on a long barreled 7.5cm AT gun was started resulting in the KwK 40 in the versions L/43 and L/48 for tank use and the L/46 for towed guns as the long 5cm L/60 gun was insufficient for these tanks. As the towed guns were again not mobile enough and tanks, that mounted this gun were not available in the numbers required, the infantry requested a more mobile anti tank gun, resulting in the marder series.

This series utilized obsolete tank chassis like the PzII and Pz 38(t) and mounted the Pak 40 in open topped fighting compartments as a stop gap solution. also many french tank chassis were used for these conversions, resulting mainly in the marder I (mainly french tanks and tankettes), the marder II (based on the PzII chassis) and the marder III (based on the 38(t) chassis). These vehicles were highly improvised, but as both obsolete tank chassis and AT guns were available in large numbers and conversions were easy to make, these were built in large numbers, sometimes the AT gun was mounted in the same superstructure as the howitzer gun on the same chassis (e.g. Grille and Marder III)

Due to the combination of such a heavy AT gun with such a light chassis these vehicles were constantly overloaded and not very reliable. Also the open fighting compartment was an issue, especially if the vehicle was used as an assault gun substitute, but also in the anti tank role, as they had to be relatively close to the enemy tank for a successful shot unlike artillery guns which could use indirect fire from a distance. The weak armor was easily penetrated by all allied anti tank guns aswell as by most anti tank rifles. In urban areas it was also not entirely uncommon that infantry threw hand grenades or similar devices into the fighting compartment (see the movie "Save private Ryan). Still these vehicles were a moderate success, as they were at least mobile AT guns, as towed guns had even less protection and were mostly immobile.

in 1944 purpose built tank destroyers started to surface in form of the Hetzer. By widening the chassis of the 38(t) the Czech were able to mount a 7.5cm Pak 40 in a ball mount in a fully closed fighting compartment in the front with heavy frontal armor. This vehicle was incredibly low and thus hard to detect, well armored and could eliminate almost all allied tanks with ambushes. This vehicle served as an example to the germans who quickly developed the very similar looking Jagdpanzer IV based on the Panzer IV mounting either the L/48 or the L/70 gun. a similar solution was developed on the panther chassis, called the Jagdpanther mounting the 8.8cm PaK 43 L/71. The last vehicle of this trait was the Jagdtiger mounting a 12.8cm Pak 44 L/55 on the tiger II chassis. All these vehicles had heavy frontal armor, a better gun that was mounted on the battle tank on the same chassis and had a very low silouette (except for the Jagdtiger) and were therefore hard to spot.

Hard to classify are the Ferdinand/Elefant and the Jagdtiger, as both were having a distinguishable superstructure on top of the tank instead of mounting the gun directly in the hull, making the vehicle rather high, yet they had closed fighting compartments and heavy frontal armor.

It is obvious were the SPG line leads on the WoT tech tree.
The Tank destroyer á la hetzer is also rather obvious.
I am still waiting for the marder series being implemented, though these "waffenträger" designs look like the logical continuation of these vehicles.

builder396, on 06 December 2012 - 03:12 AM, said:

Development for the JagdTiger started as early as 1943 (and in 1942, the germans alrdy wanted a 128mm in AT role, In early 1942 a request was made by the Army General Staff to mount a 128 mm gun on a self-propelled armored chassis.

So the JT is older, as hetzer and so on.

The ferdinand was more made in the same way as the other tds, but also older, they used obsolete Tiger-p hulls, but the front/mid mounted engine of the Porsche Tiger didnt allow a front mounted gun. A rear mounted gun, as the sovjets did with object 261 and 263, which have the rear of the IS7 as front side, also wont work, coz the driver of the Ferdinand was infront of the engine,  (driver and some other guy where in a different part of the tank as the rest) turning the tank 180 deg, would mean the driver is sitting behind the engine in the back of the tank. So unless u completly redo the internal design it wont work, yet this doesnt make sense since u have complete hulls, rebuilding them is stupid so that (i think) why the ferdi has an ``upperstructure``, the original Tiger-P design wont allow a hull mounted gun (both in the front as back)
Edited by GehakteMolen, 06 December 2012 - 10:51 PM.

germans getting screwed nothing new

We alredy have arty using HE to destroy tanks..

The realism in this game died a long time ago.

Just give me my stürmtiger plz.  

Andersp90, on 07 December 2012 - 03:19 PM, said:

This is a panther destroyed by a 152 from ISU-152/SU-152

Also a Ferdi which got hit  

first reaction: LOOOL

second reaction: five and six men respectively.

third reaction: Meh, all were stock.

UberJager, on 29 June 2012 - 09:34 PM, said:

I don't know if somebody already said this, but:
GW = Geschützwagen = Arty
WT = Waffenträger = TD

Don't be fooled by definitions, during the war they were all initially classified as "Sturmpanzers", only later on they branched out the names.
TBH even the sturmpanzer II arty is wrongly classified as germans found it a lot more useful in assault gun role direct fire as they discovered they could make the shells a lot nastier when ricocheting on the ground before exploding.

That said: any waffentrager based on a heavy tank chassis is simply fantasy as WTs were all based on cheap hulls as emergency vehicles.

This is what an historical tree should be: http://forum.worldof...-the-real-deal/