Jump to content


Did WG get it wrong?


  • Please log in to reply
28 replies to this topic

Inappropriate_noob #1 Posted 11 November 2019 - 11:49 PM

    Major General

  • Player
  • 17506 battles
  • 5,354
  • Member since:
    09-23-2011

I'm talking about the modelling of the E 100?

Pictures show this with a rounded frontal gun mantlet,I know it will never be buffed,but it would look a whole lot better.

Then there is this....

 

 

 

 

Attached Files

  • Attached File   070809_IS-7_vs_E-100.jpg   90.52K
  • Attached File   A4115707100780331.jpg   128.15K
  • Attached File   maxresdefault.jpg   105.56K

Edited by NoobySkooby, 11 November 2019 - 11:50 PM.


Nishi_Kinuyo #2 Posted 11 November 2019 - 11:52 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9315 battles
  • 6,613
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011
No, because the E-100 as built never had a turret to begin with.

NekoPuffer_PPP #3 Posted 11 November 2019 - 11:55 PM

    Brigadier

  • Player
  • 34884 battles
  • 4,138
  • [VRTC] VRTC
  • Member since:
    09-13-2013

Well it has the Maus' turret in War Thunder, for example.

 

I dunno...



xx984 #4 Posted 12 November 2019 - 12:00 AM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 65042 battles
  • 3,565
  • [SHEKL] SHEKL
  • Member since:
    08-11-2013
I'm pretty sure its just one of those things where there were multiple designs for it on paper, And WG chose this one. As the turret was never built for it anyway

VarzA #5 Posted 12 November 2019 - 12:53 AM

    Captain

  • Player
  • 27391 battles
  • 2,217
  • [USAGI] USAGI
  • Member since:
    06-17-2011

View PostNoobySkooby, on 12 November 2019 - 12:49 AM, said:

I'm talking about the modelling of the E 100?

Pictures show this with a rounded frontal gun mantlet,I know it will never be buffed,but it would look a whole lot better.

Then there is this....

 

 

 

 


That's the mouse turret, i think E100 has the maus turret in war thunder though.



HassenderZerhacker #6 Posted 12 November 2019 - 04:03 AM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 31730 battles
  • 3,413
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostNoobySkooby, on 11 November 2019 - 11:49 PM, said:

I'm talking about the modelling of the E 100?

Pictures show this with a rounded frontal gun mantlet,I know it will never be buffed,but it would look a whole lot better.

Then there is this....

 

 

 

 

 

tsk tsk tsk... where would all the russkis shoot their HEAT rounds if the E100 turret was viable in any way?

 

why would german engineers design something that works, anyway?

 

look at the Tiger II for example... I'm sure in the war, the armor was as useless as in the game...



Richthoffen #7 Posted 12 November 2019 - 04:00 PM

    Major

  • Player
  • 30606 battles
  • 2,659
  • [MS-] MS-
  • Member since:
    12-23-2011

View PostHassenderZerhacker, on 12 November 2019 - 04:03 AM, said:

 

tsk tsk tsk... where would all the russkis shoot their HEAT rounds if the E100 turret was viable in any way?

 

why would german engineers design something that works, anyway?

 

look at the Tiger II for example... I'm sure in the war, the armor was as useless as in the game...

if I remember correctly, the king tiger captured at la gleize Belgium, after being abandonment by its crew was used for target practice by the Americans shooting with bazooka's from close range in the side claiming afterwards that if Germany could produce it in large quantities they (the allied) would be in trouble 



Homer_J #8 Posted 12 November 2019 - 04:06 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Moderator
  • 32930 battles
  • 36,133
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View PostNoobySkooby, on 11 November 2019 - 11:49 PM, said:

I'm talking about the modelling of the E 100?

 

 

 

The only photos of the E100 are a pretty sorry looking hull of which you can see very little.

 

The turret was never made.  The pictures you have are no more real than WG's attempt.

 

When the E100 was first introduced to CT it had the Maus turret as stock with the Maus gun and you had to research the current turret as you have to research the 150mm gun now.


Edited by Homer_J, 12 November 2019 - 04:06 PM.


HassenderZerhacker #9 Posted 12 November 2019 - 04:59 PM

    Lieutenant Сolonel

  • Player
  • 31730 battles
  • 3,413
  • [1DPG] 1DPG
  • Member since:
    09-09-2015

View PostRichthoffen, on 12 November 2019 - 04:00 PM, said:

if I remember correctly, the king tiger captured at la gleize Belgium, after being abandonment by its crew was used for target practice by the Americans shooting with bazooka's from close range in the side claiming afterwards that if Germany could produce it in large quantities they (the allied) would be in trouble 

 

is your sarkasm detector broken?



Dava_117 #10 Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:01 PM

    Major General

  • Moderator
  • 23021 battles
  • 5,478
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    12-17-2014

View PostRichthoffen, on 12 November 2019 - 04:00 PM, said:

if I remember correctly, the king tiger captured at la gleize Belgium, after being abandonment by its crew was used for target practice by the Americans shooting with bazooka's from close range in the side claiming afterwards that if Germany could produce it in large quantities they (the allied) would be in trouble 

 

Seriously doubt about this. The Tiger2 sides were flat and just 80mm thick so shouldn't be a problem for bazookas of late war. 

The front is another story, as was hard to penetrate by a lot of WW2 tanks, that is well represented in WoT as you can roflstomp tier 6 and have a clear edge over tier 7 tanks.



Nishi_Kinuyo #11 Posted 12 November 2019 - 05:57 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9315 battles
  • 6,613
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

Basically, barring some obscure documents of questionable legitimacy, nobody knows what the turret would've been.

Which means that Wargaming ended up making four different turret models to test the E-100 with before implementing.

And I'm not even sure which of those turrets could be historically accurate.

One could argue for the Maus turret since it already exists, except that the suspension might not be sufficient for its weight (dunno, game says they both weigh 58 tons, but the tanks total weight differ by like 60 tons).

 

Also, did some google fu: http://forum.worldof...th-maus-turret/



UrQuan #12 Posted 12 November 2019 - 07:54 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 21645 battles
  • 7,340
  • [T-D-U] T-D-U
  • Member since:
    08-19-2011

Most folks already gave some good reasons. Imo, I'm glad WG went with a different design for the E-100, making it stand out more as its own tank rather then a Maus copy. The E-100 turret shape comes with its own advantages. Curved shape means that someone attacking from lower ground has less issues penning your turret then the flat turret of the E-100. Due to the tank's size, most tanks will shoot from below.

While the Maus has 10mm more frontal armor on the turret, the turret shape of the E-100 means that the actual armor protection is about the same. Due to the curved Maus turret most tanks will find some 260 mm armor to shoot when maus isn't angled. this is less likely for the E-100 if you drive a flat / low profile tank where the turret armor will behave closer to 300mm front armor before we apply angling the turret (the turret front of the E-100 in WoT is sloped backwards)

 

 

View PostRichthoffen, on 12 November 2019 - 04:00 PM, said:

if I remember correctly, the king tiger captured at la gleize Belgium, after being abandonment by its crew was used for target practice by the Americans shooting with bazooka's from close range in the side claiming afterwards that if Germany could produce it in large quantities they (the allied) would be in trouble 

 

 I know of that one. The King Tiger in la Gleize (Tiger 213) was indeed used for some non-official target practise but nothing serious (americans goofing off with their weapons) They indeed used heavy ordinance & even tank weaponry on it but only the front. Most shots bounced off or did little damage. Most significant shot was a sherman shell that went deep in the armor right at the line between two armor plates.

 

Keep in mind that the La Gleize King tiger was taken out by a single shot of a sherman. They focused fire on the gun barrel knowing that they couldn't penetrate anywhere else on the front & they lucked as as one of the first shots already took out the gun barrel. this is the reason the King Tiger on display has a Panther gun barrel (salvaged from a destroyed panther in the same region)

 

PS; reason the tank is there & not in the US of A is because a local lady bought the tank for a bottle of brandy from the US forces

 

More info: Tiger 213 Note that in the La Gleize battle there were two King tigers who were both taken out rather quickly by Sherman tanks with minimal losses on the allied side (the Tigers missed; the shermans did not)

More expanded info ot the battles leading up to la Gleize (involving alot of Tiger tanks (I & II): Surviving Battle of the Bulge tanks revealing that these tanks while formidable; had flaws as well & not all that unbeatable (still fearsome to fight tho)

Info containing more pictures with the La Gleize King Tiger: Exploring the Ardennes

 

PS: if you can, visit it, that tank is huge, especially if you're used seeing the sherman / comet / churchill tanks & stuff from musea. It's one thing seeing it on pictures, but when you stand near it, dang.

 

Edited by UrQuan, 12 November 2019 - 08:02 PM.


24doom24 #13 Posted 12 November 2019 - 08:49 PM

    Warrant Officer

  • Player
  • 8715 battles
  • 649
  • [WW3] WW3
  • Member since:
    10-20-2012

They could make it an option with the current turret.

15cm with the boxy turret  or   12.8cm with the Maus turret.



WindSplitter1 #14 Posted 12 November 2019 - 09:52 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 19438 battles
  • 3,523
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View PostRichthoffen, on 12 November 2019 - 03:00 PM, said:

if I remember correctly, the king tiger captured at la gleize Belgium, after being abandonment by its crew was used for target practice by the Americans shooting with bazooka's from close range in the side claiming afterwards that if Germany could produce it in large quantities they (the allied) would be in trouble 

 

That's why God made aircraft and artillery.



Nishi_Kinuyo #15 Posted 12 November 2019 - 10:08 PM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9315 battles
  • 6,613
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostWindSplitter1, on 12 November 2019 - 09:52 PM, said:

 

That's why God made aircraft and artillery.

Aircraft? Against tanks? Really?

Sounds like a huge waste of time other than the morale issues you might give the tank crew.



Homer_J #16 Posted 12 November 2019 - 10:13 PM

    Field Marshal

  • Moderator
  • 32930 battles
  • 36,133
  • [WJDE] WJDE
  • Member since:
    09-03-2010

View Post24doom24, on 12 November 2019 - 08:49 PM, said:

They could make it an option with the current turret.

15cm with the boxy turret  or   12.8cm with the Maus turret.

 

That was the original WG idea, they decided having to grind a turret and a gun was too much for tier X.

 

It also had a turbo boost consumable.

 

We used to call it the sports maus.



WindSplitter1 #17 Posted 12 November 2019 - 11:53 PM

    Colonel

  • Player
  • 19438 battles
  • 3,523
  • [ORDEM] ORDEM
  • Member since:
    02-07-2016

View PostNishi_Kinuyo, on 12 November 2019 - 09:08 PM, said:

Aircraft? Against tanks? Really?

Sounds like a huge waste of time other than the morale issues you might give the tank crew.

 

The pilots would have a "blast" :trollface:



Nishi_Kinuyo #18 Posted 13 November 2019 - 12:26 AM

    Lieutenant General

  • Player
  • 9315 battles
  • 6,613
  • [GUP] GUP
  • Member since:
    05-28-2011

View PostWindSplitter1, on 12 November 2019 - 11:53 PM, said:

 

The pilots would have a "blast" :trollface:

You realise that aerial attacks against tanks were mostly fireworks right?

For the battle of Caen, some 300 vehicles claimed to have been taken out by aircraft were examined, only 10 of them were actually hit by aircraft.

Mortain: USAF claims to have disabled 120-140 tanks during that operation through the use of low-altitude aircraft, the axis lost 46, and only 9 of those due to aircraft.


Edited by Nishi_Kinuyo, 13 November 2019 - 12:26 AM.


Bulldog_Drummond #19 Posted 13 November 2019 - 12:36 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 33579 battles
  • 10,754
  • Member since:
    08-10-2014
It's very difficult to operate tanks effectively under an umbrella of enemy air supremacy.  

Baldrickk #20 Posted 13 November 2019 - 03:11 AM

    Field Marshal

  • Player
  • 32167 battles
  • 16,890
  • [-MM] -MM
  • Member since:
    03-03-2013

View PostBulldog_Drummond, on 13 November 2019 - 12:36 AM, said:

It's very difficult to operate tanks effectively under an umbrella of enemy air supremacy.  

But not due to the aircraft taking your tanks out.

 

It's the lack of ability to easily hide from arial reconnaissance, the hit you take to moral, the lack of air strikes against their supply lines etc.

 

Every air force that to my knowlege attacked tanks would just drop their munitions and claim kills. 

Often,  they wouldn't even check. 

When they did, if a vehicle was stationary, they would count it.

Typically, the crew would just get back in and start it up again once the planes departed. 

 

The Luftwaffe are the only ones who didn't really do this, as they didn't maintain the air superiority, and so focused on air to air during the period where they a) still had planes and b) could have had valid tank targets. 

So it was a lack of tank attacks that meant they didn't do it,  rather than some supernatural way of dealing with and then accurately counting tank kills. 


Edited by Baldrickk, 13 November 2019 - 03:12 AM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users