_GOTOBOTTOM
Armor/AFV: What If?
For those who like to build hypothetical or alternate history versions of armor/AFVs.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Trumpeter E 10
tatbaqui
Staff MemberNews Writer
ARMORAMA
#040
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 02:36 AM UTC
Hi,

Finally got hold of an E 10 from a LHS. I find it a bit confusing though, the box has this pic:



Which leads one to assume you can build it either way. However the instructions don't seem to show it -- as the build drawings and painting guide depict an E 10 as that of the model on the left pic.

The kit offers two types of tracks -- early and late; same goes with the drive sprockets.

Any comments on this? Were there two E 10 designs, suspension wise?

Thanks
H_Ackermans
Visit this Community
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 02:46 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Hi,

Finally got hold of an E 10 from a LHS. I find it a bit confusing though, the box has this pic:



Which leads one to assume you can build it either way. However the instructions don't seem to show it -- as the build drawings and painting guide depict an E 10 as that of the model on the left pic.

The kit offers two types of tracks -- early and late; same goes with the drive sprockets.

Any comments on this? Were there two E 10 designs, suspension wise?

Thanks



AFAIK there was only 1 E-10 design. Trumpeter has taken the liberty by offering "early" and "late" E-10 options.

Which in itself explains a lot, as the E-10 never was intended for production anyway, as were the other E-series designs.

The E-series were concepts with which the German war industry explored areas to simplify production and increase numbers, while also improving certain areas in the tank designs.
kaolelo
Visit this Community
Hawaii, United States
Joined: August 14, 2006
KitMaker: 83 posts
Armorama: 74 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 03:17 AM UTC
i'm not sure about the early and late, either, but the difference between the two versions in the photo, afaik, is that use of hydraulic suspension, which the e-10 was supposed to have. the version on the left is in the full elevated position, while the version on the right is in full depression. hope that this is accurate and helps.
H_Ackermans
Visit this Community
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 04:02 AM UTC

Quoted Text

i'm not sure about the early and late, either, but the difference between the two versions in the photo, afaik, is that use of hydraulic suspension, which the e-10 was supposed to have. the version on the left is in the full elevated position, while the version on the right is in full depression. hope that this is accurate and helps.



That is correct yes, but I assumend that 2 truly different types of suspension were included, not raised and lowered.

Yeah, it is interesting how innovative these designs were.
Graywolfgang
Visit this Community
Louisiana, United States
Joined: November 28, 2006
KitMaker: 303 posts
Armorama: 251 posts
Posted: Wednesday, November 07, 2007 - 01:50 PM UTC
I have two on preorder from GM.. I love doing what-if's.. No one can tell you are wrong of wright.. You can do your own thing.. I'am working on a 1/35 Railroad and Armour Dio, Era 1946.. "Back To Old Mother Russia" Except this time with a twist.....
tatbaqui
Staff MemberNews Writer
ARMORAMA
#040
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2007 - 02:10 AM UTC
Thanks guys. The kit itself has options for tracks and sprockets -- but the suspension is the same.

Kawika, when you say full elevation / depression, was it intended to be operated in either way -- what's the purpose for this?

I recall a previous thread about the similarities between the E 10 (or was it the E 25) and the Swedish S-tank -- the ability to operate on either low or high profile when firing (?). Would this be because of the hydraulic suspension attributes?
antoniop
Visit this Community
Lisboa, Portugal
Joined: January 02, 2006
KitMaker: 351 posts
Armorama: 319 posts
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2007 - 02:24 AM UTC
The idea was to have a lower profile for ambush of enemy tanks.
This was a tank killer design, as the Hetzer or Jagd IV so the lower profile would help considerably. The lower the tank the more difficult to spot it and aim at it.
The suspension arms for the road wheels would pivot to a point that the clearance between hull and ground was minimal.

Very clever design. I've seen drawings of this pivoting suspension somewhere

http://www.ww2incolor.com/forum/showthread.php?t=3292
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/best-tank-destroyer-self-propelled-gun-2048-8.html
H_Ackermans
Visit this Community
Gelderland, Netherlands
Joined: July 11, 2006
KitMaker: 2,229 posts
Armorama: 2,221 posts
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2007 - 02:57 AM UTC

Quoted Text

The idea was to have a lower profile for ambush of enemy tanks.
This was a tank killer design, as the Hetzer or Jagd IV so the lower profile would help considerably. The lower the tank the more difficult to spot it and aim at it.
The suspension arms for the road wheels would pivot to a point that the clearance between hull and ground was minimal.



That's right, but there's one glaring error in this.

You refer to the Hetzer, and by that you probably mean the JgdPz 38(t).

Point of fact, that vehicle didn't bear the name Hetzer at all.

In fact, the E-25 is the vehicle that would be called Hetzer.
antoniop
Visit this Community
Lisboa, Portugal
Joined: January 02, 2006
KitMaker: 351 posts
Armorama: 319 posts
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2007 - 08:25 AM UTC
That's right.
The Jagdpz 38(t) commonly know as Hetzer got the nickname intended for another tank.
I wonder how the name got associated with the Jagdpz 38(t)

Today, you can find that name associated with the Jagdpz 38(t) everywhere, from kits to books, but I saw the explanation Herbert gave written somewhere.
tatbaqui
Staff MemberNews Writer
ARMORAMA
#040
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2007 - 11:20 AM UTC
Thanks Antonio, Herbert. Any references on how it would have looked like -- "normal" and "lowered"?

I kinda imagine those cars with hydraulic lifts that bounce or pop up and down by itself
antoniop
Visit this Community
Lisboa, Portugal
Joined: January 02, 2006
KitMaker: 351 posts
Armorama: 319 posts
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2007 - 11:47 AM UTC
Finally I found it!!

http://www.modelltreff.de/artikel/e10/e10.htm

The page is in German but you have drawings of the tank in the high and low positions.
Some schematic of the pivoting suspension is also there.
Hope this helps
tatbaqui
Staff MemberNews Writer
ARMORAMA
#040
Visit this Community
Metro Manila, Philippines
Joined: May 06, 2007
KitMaker: 2,713 posts
Armorama: 2,451 posts
Posted: Friday, November 09, 2007 - 01:36 PM UTC
Thanks Antonio -- this is great! I wonder where the reference came from. Panzer Tracts' Paper Panzer has some Doyle schematics, but not the internals, moreso the "lowered" one. Hmmm...may be better build option than what Trumpeter has in its box art. Tat
SimonW
Visit this Community
England - East Anglia, United Kingdom
Joined: September 18, 2005
KitMaker: 72 posts
Armorama: 59 posts
Posted: Sunday, December 09, 2007 - 12:10 AM UTC

Quoted Text

I'am working on a 1/35 Railroad and Armour Dio, Era 1946.. "Back To Old Mother Russia" Except this time with a twist.....



I'd love to see some pics. I'm a fan of 'what if' too.
 _GOTOTOP