Let's go with a more "parallel-universe" than a whatif concept...
Germans managed to hold the eastern front long enough to negotiate with western countries the retreat from France, Austria, the scandinavian countries,Belgium and Netherland, and the judgement of all the surviving nazi leaders.
The increasing menace of the Soviet Union lead the West to accept a compromise to hold the eastern red advance and the "new" post-nazi Germany became a key within this scenario.
(Please, don't ask for a deeper background, this is just a what-if idea for a different model, LOL)
That situation brings us to the end of the 40's, beggining of the 50's, with some of the former "entwickling panzers" seeing actual life, and the expected development of them following what their action experience demanded.
Now, my concept of the E-50 (Panther III??) "N" version. My belief is that the E-75 would be gradually replaced by the later versions of the E-50, but this is not the subject of this topic.
Main differences with the previously proposed models of the E-50:
- Back engine and transmission. This allows a lower profile, but demands a lengthened hull with the obvious need of additional access hatches and panels and some rearrangement of the back hull plate.
- Rearrangement of the suspension and road wheels. Still have to decide if I'll go with only six road wheels per side...
Redesign of the upper hull and sides, more sloped and with increased armor, but allowing internal space for more ammo (or to accomodate the larger ammo of the proposed main gun)
- Larger main gun: the Ｌ68　10.5㎝KwK
- New and larger turret, to accept the new gun without losing the tank commander after each shot. Some troubles there to allow some decent down deppresion of the main gun, I believe that some -7 or -8 degrees could be reached with the roof design, even with the huge breach of the 105mm gun.
- New glacis, suited to the new angling of the upper and lower hull.
- New skirts (still have to decide if I will go with side skirts similar to the Panther schurzen, or no skirts at all to show the tracks and running gear)

I'm thinking about adding some kind of IR reflector, like the Centurion ones, and have to decide how to finish the small "triangle" holes at the back of the hull sides. Maybe a solid armor plate, or a couple of "grills" instead.
Anyway, log way to go yet...
Any ideas, comments or critics will be welcome
Let's go to some crappy pics

Interesting concept, though the barrel seems overly long in the last photo. I would wonder if it would create some kind of balance problem with the turret with that much overhang. The length may also have a "digging in" problem on uneven terrain. Just something to think about...

The barrel length _would_ be at risk for digging in, but that's not too new in the realm of super tanks. I think the bustle is proportionately about right given the length of the barrel and the likely placement of the trunnions relatively far forward in the turret, yet not external to the turret as in the American vehicles of the late 40s early 50s.

My one design nit would be the trunk that connects the front face of the turret to the base of the mantlet. I'm quite sure that would not work at all. The gun couldn't elevate or depress given the shapes as depicted. The pivot point _has_ to be inside the face of the turret so imagine how the barrel will swing up & down from an axis placed on the inside surface of the turret face. That will allow you to reflect the correct housing that will allow the tube to elevate properly.

I mean, I know it's a "what if", but personally, I always find that the "what ifs" look much better if there isn't a screaming design flaw that destroys my ability to "suspend disbelief".

Moving the mantlet back immediately in front of the face of the turret will do the trick, too, if you don't want the extra work of a new rotor mount & mantlet. But that tunnel just doesn't work.

Unless you really like it, of course, in which case go for it as it's your model.

Paul

Got your point.
I´m not too satisfied with that part either. My previous attempts sucked worst than this one, so I gave it a try, but as you pointed it will limit the elevation/depression of the gun since its shape avoids getting advantage of the full functioning of the inner trunions.
Thus ruining all my previous efforts to achieve enough room inside the turret to allow a decent movement of the gun breech...
Let´s see how I finally solve this
Thanks for your comment!

Looks very cool. I am thinking of German 1950s armour myself. I do wonder if the Panzerwaffe would have gone for bigger turrets, like the Centurion and the M48, as the 50s wore on, especially to accommodate a 105mm main gun. Looking forward to see it with some paint on it.

Well, you could go the american route and push the trunnions outside the turret & add a trapazoidal turret face extension with the mantlet immediately in front of that. Or, you could keep the trunnions inside and add an external curved rotor shield (like a sherman, but smaller & more heavily armoured) and then add an upper & lower extension or chin/forehead to the mantlet to privide protection to the slot for the gun elevation arc that has to be put into that rotor shield.


I know I'm wondering as well!

Lovin your work so far mate.

I wouldn't feel too bad about the barrel length. As Bob mentioned it would be at risk of digging in but so would the standard barrel on the E50 that they supplied in the Trumpeter box. That thing looked about the same dimensions. After all it is a 'What If' based on the periods of the long barrels. My vote would be leave it how it is! But at the end of the day it's your tank mate, do what makes you happy with the end result.

The new turret and side skirts give a very realistic next gen of the 'E' series. The turret has the hybrid feel between the E75 and E50. Looking forwards to seeing where you take it!

Thanks for your comments guys!
A small update for this weekend...
I redesigned the bustle between the turret front and the gun mantlet. Simulating the movement of the gun breach inside the turret, it seems that it could get about +18º/-8º elevation range, acceptable for me considering the turret height is lower than the Tiger II/E-75 series.
Also closed the rear parts on the side hull, still have to decide the kind of details to add there.
Lets go to some pics. The 105mm main gun will be placed later, after finishing the turret.
Also, thank to the close ups, noticed that I have to sand/file/putty a lot of details and correct the shape/angle of the junction between the turret roof and rear armor plate (some of these marked with little red arrows)

I like it just the way it is, but hey... what do I know!










~ Jeff

Quick update for today
Some details added to the side storage boxes and the hull plate over the transmission.
The main gun is only dry fitted to get an idea of the size of the thing...
Next steps will be adding putty in some areas, fine sanding, adding additional detail, bolts and stuff to the hull top and sides, and of course finishing and detaileng the turret. Tha last steps will be those of the running wheels and tracks...

The gun looks great with the muzzle brake. Be interesting to speculate how it would have fared against a T-54.

Who knows?
We can speculate,as you said, based on the known data of the existing 88mm Kwk gun placed on the Tiger II´s, comparing it to the later soviet D10 100mm gun performance, and based on the armor values of both the Tiger II and the first T-54 versions.

The 88mm had a declared penetration capability of 150mm of steel at a 2000mts range, and a frontal armor of 150mm at 50º, AFAIK

The initial T-54 had a hull front armor of about 100mm at 50º, and the D10 was supposed to get a penetration of 160mm at 1000mts. Again, AFAIK

We know that the projected E-50 and E-75 tanks should have heavier armor than the Tiger II, and that a reasonable increase of penetration should be achieved with the 105mm Kwk gun -speculating once more, I think that a 20% could be reasonably expected, but we can discuss this other day-

Considering that, I think that the eventual result of a direct confrontation between an E-50 and a T-54 should be a matter of "first accurate shot", since each one could get rid of the other in terms of being capable to penetrate their armor.

Considering the higher profile of the E series, easier to be spotted and aimed at, and that we may expect a higer degree of accuracy, optics and perhaps rate of fire in german tanks, tactic deployment and mission profile would be the key.

Anyway, this fictional scenario would anticipate what actually happened during the years of the Cold War : mass quantities of soviet simpler tanks, faced to fewer but high-tech western ones. That´s why I assume that the E-50 would face a significant number of developments and improvements through a few years, to be able to face the increasing threats from the East... (let´s say "a la" Leopard 1).

I suppose the question is, would the E50, developed and refined, have seen the Panzerwaffe through to the introduction of the Leopard 1 in the 1960s, or would something else have been needed? Would the German Army have persisted with heavy and medium tanks longer than other countries, or gone the MBT route?

Ahhhh, that's one of the attractive of this kind of "whatif's"...
I personally think that there would be great chances that they gradually went to the concept of the MBT, but if we start from my initial scenario of Germany forming part of an early "western" alliance against the Soviet Union (this happening far before the times of NATO and WP actual alliances), we can assume that german tank development and doctrine should be influenced by US ones.

We already know that the US mantained for years the idea of deploying medium and light tanks (M-46/47/48/60 together with M-41 and M-551, for instance).

If Germany adapted that doctrine to her own needs and resources, then she would keep not all the versions projected by the end of the war, but one medium-heavy tank and a light one(this one not the matter of this tread).

At this point is where I consider that the best choice for a medium-heavy tank should be a development of the E-50 -what makes the E-75 redundant so its eventual production would went to an end, being gradually replaced by the 50-.

E-100 class is evidently out of the equation due to the huge ammount of resources it demands to mantain a continuous production, and the fact that even with its massive armor, it lacks of mobility and speed so it would be useless for a flexible defense. Why will you keep a complicate and expensive tracked bunker?

Also, lets remember that Germany did not go to the Leopard project until the 50's with the failed french-german joint development which result in the different AMX-30 and Leopard 1, and that the first Leo's did not enter service until 1965. So you have a 20 year gap between the end of WWII and the Leo first deployment. You needed to fill this gap with whatever was available.

In our real world Germany gradually received M-47's, and later M-48's, in my proposed scenario she went with her own designs, choosing and developing the most suitable ones.
Of course, the introduction of the Kwk 105mm gun would have an impact both in GB and USA gun development, so who knows what would happen with the now famous and succesful L-7 gun?

Arguable, but interesting, isn't it?
And please, don't make my write a novel, this is just an attempt to build a factible and "logic" whatif model.. LOL

I agree, You shouldn't need a novel to explain your rationale.

The back corners behind the (very sweet) storage bins the look like supplemental fuel tanks??
What is the idea across the back of the hull above the exhaust?

Personally I think the E-50/75 are already in the price/weight/dimension range of MBTs from the 1950s. E-100s are just too big a LST.

Of course, the E50s deployed to Korea with the "Germania" Corps performed well...

https://armorama.kitmaker.net/forums/195180&page=1