Main page

To Overlord, Serb and anyone with an influence over development.

While the community became very excited about the new german TD developments, it is my personal feeling (and a concern shared by other players as well) that the WaffenTrager line is going to overly prefer extremely obscure paper projects to produced designs or at least more widely known projects.

While the lower tiers are mostly fine, starting with the WTPanther (the last design to have real confirmation and mostly as artillery) we only get obscure mentions in known sources and often not even a proper design sketch.

In light of this, I humbly propose some possible alternative chassis selection which I hope my fellow players would feel more adequate than the planned line:


Tier VIII: SturmPanther



Based on the Panther project, the SturmPanther was a relatively basic modification of the Panther design.
A modified turret would have carried a 15cm STUH 43 cannon while sharing most other components with the existing chassis with reinforced suspension.

As the real project ended in the wooden mock-up stage, it is likely that the Panther II chassis would have been used instead, offering as alternate choice of 88 and 105mm guns for the top setup.

Tier IX: Sturmpanzer Bar



While the SturmPanzer Bar never left the paper design stage, it is unlikely the original and most known specs would have been translated into production as the lack of traverse would have made the gun extremely hard to aim.

Without changing much, a smaller gun than the original design would have granted sufficient traverse to be viable as Tank Destroyer while shared components with Panzer V and VI would have made it viable for production.

Tier X: Sturmpanzer E-100

By sacrificing armor compared to the JagdPanzer design, a larger gun would have been viable.
Given the late war german gun development trend it is likely that it could have carried a modified version of the 21cm GrW69 (originally meant for the SturmTiger) with a mix of HE and HEAT ammunition in the line of the late war PAW series designs: http://en.wikipedia....ki/8_cm_PAW_600

Artillery level firepower would be balanced by a more fragile chassis and relatively low long range accuracy, making it a glass cannon deadly in the hands of a skilled player and it would be easier to balance than the extreme firepower of SturmTiger's rocket mortar.

While it has been mentioned that up to 4 TD lines could be made, using better known designs first could improve player enjoyment and historical accuracy while not presenting a massive redesign of the line.


Finally, here's some proof on what germans considered Sturmpanzers to be:




Edited by Zarax999, 07 July 2012 - 07:33 PM.

That sturmpanzer bar has a

http://epicponyz.fil...2008/09/bfg.jpg

Please note that "GrW" stands for "Granatwerfer", literally "grenade launcher". So, it is a mortar, which would be totally unsuited - quite like the Sturmtiger - to hit anything but a house head on. So, I don't think such a vehicle has a place in WoT as we have to hit tanks...

Hence why I wrote modified.
From 1944 onward germany mostly designed modified mortars as AT guns in order to take advantage of HEAT ammo.

Basically it would be a very big brother of this gun: http://en.wikipedia....ki/8_cm_PAW_600

if those things will get in wot, they will be arties not TDs

All proposed waffentragers by WG are artillery chassis in case you haven't noticed.
What I'm proposing is to use chassis that would at least have some protection from light tanks instead of complete paper.
Sturmpanzers were meant to be direct fire support, not pure artillery, otherwise putting on so much armor wouldn't have made sense.

As far i know GW stands for Geschütz Wagen, Geschütz a term used to designare artillery pieces rather than other guns, which were called Kanone. In the military language.  Making for example, tye Sturmgeschütz, an assault artillery, so an arty to support, folliw the assault (sturm)

The stug (and brothers) got produced in so big numbers cause they were cheap platforms that could carry a bigger gun without interfering with the production of actual tanks, saving time and ressources both things germany lacked. These waffenträgers are the logical step germany would have and had taken.will these be useless cause they have no armor? To answer that look at the marder ingame and tell me it is useless?

I didn't know the russians had 2 artillery lines... Oh wait, one is assault guns posing as TDs

Updated first post with sources about the role of sturmpanzers.

What proof is that? It is a part from an extrait what Mansfein considered the role of the Arty years to come. Now take this ideas and put them in their historical context. This ideas are from 1936, thats when they got reported, so they might be older (cant tell cause i dont know what source they are from). By that time spanish civil war hadnt even started, and military doctrines were still at the ones from ww1. Build bunkers, givle soldier rifles because they have better range than MP's and tanks should support the infantry and therefore dont need to go faster than 20 km/h (watch out dramatisation)

As said before, spanish civil war hadnt started(this was the test ground for german warmachine to get a view how the upcoming war would fight) which means a lot would change till 1939 and, what would later be called the blitzkrieg.

Until 36 tanks were build to cross a trench get to ennemy position and shoot fortified positions. So they had armor to protect the crew from infantry weapons and schrapnell.
Over time people figured out tanks could fulfill other roles so their weapons changed.

No one is arguing Manstein didnt have a good idea there. Having multi purpouse vehicles aint bad. But now lets look at the first major conflict the germans had 4 years later as they invaded france.

The french had the maginot line, useless because it git mainly bypassed by the germans.
The french had the B1 and used it as an infantry support tank...
The germans had much lighter tanks but bigger numbers and used em to make breaktroughs.....

The german tanks could not reliably (except 1 known case where a B1 got disabled by a shot trough a radiator i think) destroy/ incapacitate the b1. Neither the 50mm gun on panzer3 nor the short 75mm from panzer4 (same as the stugs by that time)
These are the examples u can give for a battle 4 years after Mansteins text got reported.

So during WW2 tank developement (like all other branches) progressed with light speed. Ww2  ould be named the culprit of tank warfare. Ww1 was artillery age, ww2 tank age and all following got dominated by planes and later on missiles.......(we have to find out on laters)

In Ww2 the requirements differed all the time on the situation u were on. 39 was not 45. Long story short they could invade france with more tanks than the ennemy had but needed a different layout in 45 when they faught more ennemys with much more tanks.
This is what converted. More stugs into actual TD (replacing the He vun with the At gun, 75mml24 vs 75mm l48)
Because in 40 they had ewssources and were on the offensive, unlike 43 onwards were they were mainly on the defensive. The stug in TD layout was a cheaper alternative to deploying a stronger gun in a smaller and more cost effective way.
This is the way german ww2 military decided to go, they used a longer more accurate and better penning 75mm at gun instead of keeping a shorter 75 He gun.
That is the way the russians went, why because they had to kill higly armored tanks but small numbers, so they fieled the su152 and later isu 152 (mainly only the chassis differed and more new is series chassis got available and kv chassis production stopped, same as the stug3 and4)
Germany decided to kill tanks from distance and doviets decided to send in a horde of tanks just stomping the opposition. Thats why some chose converted AA guns to make tank guns and others rather converted artillery pieces.

Hummell = arty        Nashorn = Td
Grille = arty.            Marder3= td
Germans made the JT with a 128mm accurate gun with great penetration over distance and fadt travelling shell

Soviets used the the isu 152 howitzer if it hits it goes kaboom

Germans needed to kill hordes of tanks, russians needed to kill soldiers in organised defence lines.

Except the first heavy sturmpanzer (STUIG33b) went into service in 1942.

What you're not considering is that the heavy sturmpanzers were not made for infantry assaults but rather urban fighting, where russian heavy guns proved deadly.

There, heavy frontal armor and the biggest possible gun were king, not long range accuracy.
STUIG and Brumbarr especially were built mostly for Stalingrad and russians were planning to answer with the KV-12s, basically a SU-152 with a short 203mm howitzer that was discarded as it would have been too inaccurate as TD in open fields.

Long range guns were also going out of fashion for late war germany, waffentragers were used to expend the existing production of 128mm cannons and they were planned to be replaced by the PAW series that thanks to heat ammo made cheap, easy to produce cannons a viable although mostly shorter range choice.

You don't need a gun able to hit precisely 3km away when most of the fighting is done under 750m, germans knew and planned for this.

Zarax999 May i ask where you obtain them cool photos ?.

 Technocrat_Prime, on 05 July 2012 - 03:28 PM, said:

And SPGs are totally unsuited for any form of close range precision fire.
Your point?

http://www.google.co...zIIO40QWfzLnGBA

bit long but some good shots in there...also some you can clour in while camping from arty

I guess german aint ur mother language. Because u seem to get confused by tank nomenclature and mix the terms around.

If by the first heavy sturmpanzer, u mean the 24 stupa3 , meaning the schweres infantry geschütz 33b (SIG33b), this thing is not a heavy assault artillery in terms of beein a heavy tank, it is based on the Pz3 which is by no mean a heavy chassis. It is a pz3 chassis fielding the sIG33 (schweres Infantery Geschütz 33)
In this case the only heavy (schwer) can be applied to the gun being designated as heavy because it was a big caliber 150mm gun. Which still is an arty piece and meant for arty support which means focused on He explosion to destroy buildings/ bunkers with the ability to direct fire for activ infantry support.
Thats why it would write down as StuIG33b (Sturm Infanteri Geschütz 33b) and not STUIG33b) Stu for Sturm I for infanteri and G for Geschütz

Not trying to be a smart ass just trieng to clear something out (german aint my native language either)

So actually the term schwer is relied to the gun it carried not to the vehivle nor it's armor. Same like the US designate the t30 a heavy gun tank and not a heavy tank.

Again they used avalilable and obsolete (in term of no longer adequate for actual tank warfare) chassis to field a gun that was in the inventory but not propelled yet.

The first StuPa were were fielded in france and they were based on the obsolete Pz1 chassis. This was a reaction to the facts shown n poland invasion that the Pz1 would not have a future in warfare, so they (some git still used in france) started to convert em into more usefull vehicles meaning the StuPa1 and the Panzerjäger1. 1 arty tank the other a tank killer.

So the germans build their weapons for special jobs, while others build more allraounders. Tiger a tank with a good He charge and Ap abilities while the Panther was a dedicate tank Kipler with its L70. Same as they build early Pz4 and Pz3 1 a good He charge while thw other had the Armor penetrator. The sherman on the other hand got the 75mm because at that time the 75 m3 had enough Ap value and a good HE charge.  Remember thats the reason many us generals didnt support the 76mm conversions of shermans.

If we speak now of end war germany army, keep n mind they practically been defeated since late 43, from there on it was delaying ennemies to further delay the inevitable. They lacked materials in all departements, humans and ressources. So yes they tended to research cheaper fast to produce machines. But this was grasping at straws. Tanks were not designed to fight in cities.

The fact the soviets used the isu 152 was because germany used heavilky armored tanks which could not reliably be killed from the front but could be destroyed if hit by a 152mm shell. By that tume the soviets did not have something to defeat german heavy armor so they used a tank not fitted for the job but able to do it. The fact is the russians could allow themselfs to send a ton of tanks that would be destroyed to secure an objectif.
They had the nubers the germans did not.

The way, waffeträgers seem to be represnted in game seems correct for me. Use the production lines u got and slap on different guns gor each task u want to use the chassi. Hummel abd Nashorn..... GwtypeE and waffenträger 100... (even if the later never existed)

Sturmpanzers...like the Bison and Stpz II?

Aren't thoose artilerry in game?

 Redneck, on 08 July 2012 - 03:59 PM, said:

I guess both Von Manstein and Hitler were confused as well, although I suspect their understanding of the terms was slightly better than mine.

Quote

By heavy I mean as "heavily armored" (for their production year).
In case of the Pz III chassis most tanks became STUGs (74 L24/43/48) and STUH 42 (105 L28).
The STUIG 33b was a more specialized variant of the chassis that sacrificed mobility in order to maximize protection and firepower.

It was meant to be a direct fire support platfom exactly the same way as the other Stu* (and with actually LESS elevation) and just like KV-2, SU/ISU-152 , T-28/95 and so on.

Quote

That the gun was "obsolete" (yet upgraded in 1943 for the Brumbarr) is arguable but it was the very same principle used by USSR TDs.
Even worse, the whole "Stumpanzers should be SPGs" is rendered utterly invalid by the new tier V, which was actually meant to be a dismountable artillery platform.

Quote

And this is all correct for the invasion of France, while the later designs were meant for a completely different scenario: Stalingrad.

Quote

That is why both sides started to field heavier self propelled howitzers. To deliver a much bigger punch in a self-enclosed platform that could resist infantry AT guns.

Quote

A concept that the germans happily copied and brought to gigantic proportions with the SturmTiger.

Quote

Hummel and Nashorn were based on cheaper chassis, just like the Waffentragers.
When an expensive heavy tank chassis was used it either was uparmored (Ferdinand) or meant to be FAR, FAR away from the battlefield (the Tiger based Grille prototypes).

You don't leave unprotected an expensive heavy tank chassis if it's meant to be near the front line and you don't waste armor plates (and make it a lot more maintenance intensive) on anything that is not meant to be close to the battlefield.

The historical waffentragers used the dirt-cheap panzer 38 platform to carry 88 and 128mm guns in the cheapest possible way, when they needed a front-liner they deployed either a JP, a Ferdinand or a JT, all of which were very heavily armored.

And this is a 1945 scenario.

If you look at 1944-45 gun designs you don't see much in the long range department as they were extremely expensive to upgrade, rather the plan was to bring increasingly larger HEAT throwers (Panzerabwehrwerfer, AT guns based on mortar barrels) so that they could have cheaply produced yet effective guns, a concept they again brought to the extreme with the airborne "Mistel".

Speer would have died laughing if he saw a WT E-100...

The E100 same as the Maus were doomed projects, not planned for main production anyway. Germqny would never been able to produce those vehicles.

The lighter chassis/ obsolete ones were
Re used, means got a supeestructure, sacrificing the turret and supwrstructure and turret got replaced by a casemate. And fielded a bigger gun than it did as a tank. Stugs had the same 80mm superstructure armor then the StuIG33B. So if the term heavy was used it was used on the gun. As an arty piece this is where it would get it's notification from.  Thats why i assumed u were not german native, the use in capital letters in tank nomenclature.....


The gun changes on the sIG33 made to be put in the brummbär was a redesigning of the gun to make it lighter to fit the brummbär, this was the reason why i doubted the brummbär 88 proto ever have worked.

I do t disagree that these Heat weapons were in research but fact is that more and more At guns of the caliber 75l70 saw light, more and more tanks got that gun equipped.... The rest is developpement thing and no one knows if they would have been cheaper to produce.... A slug (normal ap shell would be cheaper) but wont have the same pen nowadays thats why tanks use apds and heat nowadays.

The strmtiger is a diffrent subject, they had this enourmors anti dubmarine mortars lying around and domehow wanted to use em. The only chassis that could use it was the tiger1. And not a 1000 were made quite the opposite happened.
It is not the same story as the russian employement of the su/isu 152.

And if these Stuig33B would have been more effective why didnt they convert more of the pz3 chassis to them? But the stuh3 was the most successful tank killing machine the germans had.

The early STUGs were used exactly like the StuIG.
The difference was that weight of higher thick armor plus heavy gun was too much for a PZIII chassis, hence why the Brumbarr was developed later on.

It was a less flexible vehicle, hence why less were produced, still they were more numerous than the heavy TD Ferdinand for example while sporting a similar lethal firepower.

Finally, you argue that MAUS and E-100 were doomed chassis because they were too expensive, yet you think that making a fragile front liner out of those is the rational choice?

Quite funny how it says like 500 times.. this is for infantry support not tanks!! And now put them with tanks \o/

Wait