WW2 Tank Gun Comparison

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

There isn't much data on the 150mm KwK44 or the 170mm version also considered, but the MV would be over 920 m/s. But since the reload rate would be extremely slow with either of these guns, the 128mm L/55 L/60 already in service which were more powerful than ever needed were prefered to be he main armament of the design.

By the end of the war the first full prototype of the E-100 was nearly ready, a month or two away from entering trials. The Allies found the complete hull chassis, tracks etc etc of the prototype:





When completed the prototype would've looked as such (With thick armored skirts):




A version with a MAUS turret and either the 150mm or 170mm KwK44 was also suggested:

 
Great pictures. I believe german can build 150mm AT gun like Japanese. Japan 150mm AA gun is 9 meters long.....

BTW, E100 need 1000HP+ engine, such as aero piston engine. In WWII, it is possible to incoperate aero engine, e.g Merlin and ailison V1710 and german 1000+HP ,but the cost is high even USA can't afford it unless they all switch to jet plane.

In 1945 US heavy T34 is also a monster, powerful T53 120mm gun,very thick armor, E100's opponent....


 
The problem with the T29, T30 T34 US heavies was that they were extremely heavy and didn't use an especially powerful engine, plus the sides rear of the hull were extremely poorly armoured at ~50mm. Furthermore it must be remembered that these tanks wouldn't have stood ready before sometime in 1947, two years after the end of the war, where'as the E-100 would've been ready in mid 45.
 
Soren said:
The problem with the T29, T30 T34 US heavies was that they were extremely heavy and didn't use an especially powerful engine.
Click to expand...


Correct me if I am wrong but:

E-100:
140 Tons
700hp V-12 Maybach HL230 (It was however proposed to usa 1200hp HL234)

T-29:
60 Tons
650hp Engine Ford GAC four cycle 60 degree V12

T-30:
65 Tons
704hp Continental AV1790-3

T-34:
Was just a converted T-29 and a converted T-30

Therefore how was the weight and power a problem with the T-29, T-30 and T-34, but not a problem with the E-100?

I will admit, I do not know much about tanks, but logic tells me the E-100 was plauged by these problems more.
 


yes,
1) Even with 1200HP, E100 is still lack of power.

2) Post war tanks hadn't got 1200HP engine until 1970s. Postwar Panzer I in 1965 was of only 830 HP.

3)There is technically possible to employ aero engine(over 1000HP) on tanks in WWII, but allied aero piston engine was as good as axis, btw, aero engine is quite expensive.

4) 700 HP HL230 engine was "overclocking", very bad reliability.
 
That is incorrect Tempest, the HL230 ran very reliably at 700 HP.
 
As for the E-100 production version, it featured the HL 234 engine which from std. had an output of 800 HP, but it was boosted to over 1,200 HP. The production version was to have the HL 234 engine, only the prototype was to be using the HL 230.

And as for the US T-34, it weighed 71.8 tons and it was very poorly armoured on the sides. Plus there were serious problems with the transmission and reliability of the tank in general, the Allies simply not having enough experience with such heavy tank designs. But these are really moot facts to point out when these designs would'nt have stood ready for service before 1947, a full 2 years after the E-100.
 
Yup that's correct. Luckily for the German tankers the Centurion didn't make it into service before the end of the war, cause unlike all the other Allied heavy tank designs the Centurion was actually a good design. Had the Centurion made it into WW2 it would've proven a menace for most German tanks, packing a truly awesome punch, comparable to that of the Panther, while being very well armoured.
 
Soren
judging from photos which shows a hull without engine or turret in May 45, at best E-100 proto would have been ready by mid 45, but when E-100 would have been ready for production? Nobody knows.

Juha
 

Based off what you are telling me, the E-100 was still way underpowerd. More so than the T-29, T-30 and T-34.
 
Juha said:
Soren
judging from photos which shows a hull without engine or turret in May 45, at best E-100 proto would have been ready by mid 45, but when E-100 would have been ready for production? Nobody knows.

Juha
Click to expand...

The E-100 was originally designed to mount the same 55-ton turret as the Maus (to put this in perspective, the turret for the Maus alone weighed almost as much as a battle-weight Tiger I), with the 12.8 cm KwK 44 L/36.5 cannon. The E-100 was only one in a whole series of so-called E-series tanks designed at the end of the War, with the E-100 being the largest (and most powerfully armed) design; the tracks for the E-100 were 100 cm wide, or almost 40 inches across! The original engine was the standard Maybach HL 230 P30 but, as Soren said, it was planned to install a 1,200 HP Maybach HL 230 with supercharging and fuel injection in the production version. However, even with the increase in horsepower, this still meant a power-to-weight ratio of 8.5 HP/ton (lower than all of the other German "heavies": the Panther had a PTW ratio of 15.6 HP/ton, the Tiger I had a PTW ratio of 12.3, and the Tiger II had a PTW ratio of 10.1).
 
Juha said:
Soren
judging from photos which shows a hull without engine or turret in May 45, at best E-100 proto would have been ready by mid 45, but when E-100 would have been ready for production? Nobody knows.

Juha
Click to expand...

Seeing how quickly the Germans were fielding new designs I believe that the production version would've started service in late August or September.
 
I would be very suprised. From an incomplete, untested prototype to production of something this huge in three months, not a chance.

The Tiger II took much longer than that and had a suspension based on the Elefant.
 
Soren
IIRC first Panther proto was ready in Sept 42, first combat deployment was Aug 43 and it was clearly mechanically unreliable at that time at the level being occasionally capable self-destruction. And Germans had problems with final drives in much lighter and much less powerful tanks than E-100 still in 45.
 
Soren, I just figured I would put it another way. This is probably not the best way to compare, but it sort of shows my point. Again I am not a big tank guy, so this discussion is very interesting me. I am learning some good stuff from everyone.

E-100: 8.5hp per ton.

T-29: 10.8hp per ton.

T-30: 10.8hp per ton.

T-34: 9.8hp per ton.

So again Soren, how is the E-100 not plagued by the same problem as the T-29, T-30 and T-34? In my opinion it is plagued even more.

The Germans made great tanks, but the E-100 was overkill, not needed, too heavy and probably too slow and unmaneuverable.
 
Looking at these numbers I am tempted to believe that the ground pressure is at least as important. The T34 was no slouch in its performance but if you just went on these figures you would think that it had a terrible performance.
 
Adler,

The problem with the T-29, 30 34 is that it is the first true heavy tank that the US designed, and the reliability was worse than that of any German heavy tank, the transmission esp. being completely unsuited for the task and exhibiting extremely bad reliability.

The E-100 featured wider tracks than US T-protos, a new transmission optimized for a vehicle its weight and a much higher HP torque engine. And the problems the Tiger was plagued with were likely not going to be shared by the E-100 as it actually used a gearbox suitable for its' weight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 1 (members: 0, guests: 1)

Similar threads

A
Rolls Royce Tank Engines
Replies
2
Views
604
Reluctant Poster
R
P
Which tank is this ?
Replies
2
Views
735
programa
P
N
US Navy WW2 squadron patch
Replies
1
Views
523
Wurger
D
Help with RAF WW2 service record
Replies
10
Views
726
Sabrejet
M
The D-Day Naval Gun Battle
Replies
0
Views
743
MIflyer
M
Menu
Log in
Register