login   |    register
Armor/AFV: Axis - WWII
Armor and ground forces of the Axis forces during World War II.
Hosted by Darren Baker
Main guns
b2nhvi
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: June 17, 2016
KitMaker: 551 posts
Armorama: 479 posts
Posted: Monday, August 06, 2018 - 05:25 AM UTC
How big a difference is there in weight and space needed between the tank mounted version of the PaK 43 and the Panther's 75mm? I have a craving to build a E-10 and was thinking of bumping the gun up to an 88mm. I know, it's a paper panzer and I can do whatever I want, but I want to keep it in the realm of possibility. Weight might not be a problem .... beef up the suspension. Issue might be space for the breach /recoil system. The E-25 would be better able to handle both, but it looks too "normal" (jagdpanzer / hetzer - ish) The E-10 just looks sinister.
d6mst0
#453
Visit this Community
Texas, United States
Joined: August 28, 2016
KitMaker: 764 posts
Armorama: 413 posts
Posted: Monday, August 06, 2018 - 07:53 AM UTC
You could put steel road wheels in front to simulate load bearing.
SSGToms
Visit this Community
Connecticut, United States
Joined: April 02, 2005
KitMaker: 3,435 posts
Armorama: 2,952 posts
Posted: Monday, August 06, 2018 - 01:36 PM UTC
You'd never fit the recuperator cylinders in there. Also recoil travel is your enemy in this case.
RLlockie
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: September 06, 2013
KitMaker: 833 posts
Armorama: 692 posts
Posted: Monday, August 06, 2018 - 03:57 PM UTC
There are also the practical considerations of ammunition storage and loading. 8.8cm shells were much bigger and someone has to get them out of their racks into the breech ring within the turret volume, given the fact that much of the space is occupied by the rear of the weapon and assorted other turret equipment and crew members.
TopSmith
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,087 posts
Armorama: 1,031 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - 12:20 PM UTC
Think about the size difference between a Panzer 4 turret and a King Tiger turret. The 88 is larger, the recoil is longer and the rounds are much larger.
TopSmith
Visit this Community
Washington, United States
Joined: August 09, 2002
KitMaker: 1,087 posts
Armorama: 1,031 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - 12:23 PM UTC
My what if would be to get a Wespe and put a Panthers 75MM on board. That is workable.
b2nhvi
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: June 17, 2016
KitMaker: 551 posts
Armorama: 479 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - 02:32 PM UTC
Open tops are simple. As long as the chassis not backed up flush against a brick wall the travel of the breach is not much of an issue. I mean they mounted (or planned to) 128mm PaK 44 on what was basicly a PzKw 38(t) . The E-10 and E-25 were intended on packing the Panthers 75mm. I thought the E-25 was suppose to replace the Jagdpanther , so one would think the big 88 would be an option.
b2nhvi
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: June 17, 2016
KitMaker: 551 posts
Armorama: 479 posts
Posted: Tuesday, August 07, 2018 - 08:36 PM UTC
Just saw something about the schmalturm being able to mount an 88mm. How much room did it have? Thought it was smaller than a standard Panther turret. Also they mentioned a PaK 43 with a new recoil system with no recuperator tubes on top and chambered for a round with a shorter, fatter shell to make it easier to handle in the confined space. Also, I think the fighting compartments are about (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) 240 X 160 cm for the E-10 and 280 X 170 cm for the E-25.
GeraldOwens
Visit this Community
Florida, United States
Joined: March 30, 2006
KitMaker: 3,443 posts
Armorama: 3,404 posts
Posted: Wednesday, August 08, 2018 - 07:12 AM UTC

Quoted Text

Just saw something about the schmalturm being able to mount an 88mm. How much room did it have? Thought it was smaller than a standard Panther turret. Also they mentioned a PaK 43 with a new recoil system with no recuperator tubes on top and chambered for a round with a shorter, fatter shell to make it easier to handle in the confined space. Also, I think the fighting compartments are about (Scientific Wild Ass Guess) 240 X 160 cm for the E-10 and 280 X 170 cm for the E-25.


Plans were drawn up to mount the 88 in the Schmalturm beginning in October, 1945. The gun would have been way out of balance, and the space to load would have been insanely tight, but it was feasible. The Schmalturm had the same turret ring diameter as the Panther G, but was narrower towards the front, hence the name (schmal means narrow).
Kaktusas
Visit this Community
Vilnius, Lithuania
Joined: April 12, 2017
KitMaker: 143 posts
Armorama: 143 posts
Posted: Thursday, August 09, 2018 - 06:34 PM UTC
A good way to compare space required, is to put Marder 3 aside Nashorn. Then you realize how big/long Pak43 is. You can beef up a lot of things, but that just adds weight. Then you need to beef up tranny and engine, etc etc. Essentially, you will end up in bigger tank... Bigger gun is not an answer, the balance on the other hand, is.
b2nhvi
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: June 17, 2016
KitMaker: 551 posts
Armorama: 479 posts
Posted: Sunday, September 16, 2018 - 10:14 PM UTC
Well, I finally got my E-10 .... And an E-25 for good measure.Using Ye old MkI Mod. 1 eyeball
the fighting area of the E-10 looks pretty close to a Panther turret. The E-25 close to a Tiger II. KwK 43 in the E-10 would not be feasible , but the KwK 42 would probably work. And would still be an improvement over the PaK-39. And the KwK-43 would be plausable in the E-25. Sooooo ..... Here is my E-25 Ausf B with the 88mm KwK-43, of Panzerjager Abt. 130, Panzer Lehr Div. Still working on the E-10 .... waiting for parts from KoaLa Land.
srmalloy
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: April 15, 2012
KitMaker: 329 posts
Armorama: 292 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 - 08:39 AM UTC

Quoted Text

A good way to compare space required, is to put Marder 3 aside Nashorn. Then you realize how big/long Pak43 is. You can beef up a lot of things, but that just adds weight. Then you need to beef up tranny and engine, etc etc. Essentially, you will end up in bigger tank... Bigger gun is not an answer, the balance on the other hand, is.



Another good visual comparison is to look at pictures of the PaK 43 auf Waffentrager and see how much space is taken up by the breech mechanism of the gun relative to the vehicle, with the Waffentrager having a significantly longer hull than the E-10.
Precious_rob
Visit this Community
United States
Joined: March 09, 2009
KitMaker: 195 posts
Armorama: 172 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 - 08:50 AM UTC
If you want to" keep it in the realm of possibility" you wouldnt be building the kit in the first place, because Germany was in absolutely no position build any of these insane flights of fancy they had on the drawing board in 1945. I mean if accuracy is your goal and all....

b2nhvi
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: June 17, 2016
KitMaker: 551 posts
Armorama: 479 posts
Posted: Tuesday, September 18, 2018 - 09:17 AM UTC
"Another good visual comparison is to look at pictures of the PaK 43 auf Waffentrager and see how much space is taken up by the breech mechanism of the gun relative to the vehicle, with the Waffentrager having a significantly longer hull than the E-10." That is why the KwK 43 IS in the E-25. The Waffentragern were to be built (and the few that were built were..) on extended Praga chassis. Using a PzKw 38t (My waffentrager kit is still in the mail.) next to the E-10 the E-10 is 2-3 foot longer. The E-25 would be another 3-4 foot longer still.
Das_Abteilung
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: August 31, 2010
KitMaker: 321 posts
Armorama: 307 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2018 - 08:53 AM UTC
The 7.5cm KwK 42 round is about the same length as that for the L/56 8.8cm. The L/71 8.8cm round was indeed considerably longer. Out to about 1,000m the armour penetration of the "long" 7.5 and "short" 8.8 was about comparable. Not forgetting that an L/100 8.8 was apparently proposed with, one assumes, an even larger volume chamber.

On my E-10 and E-25 I fitted the aircraft-style Bordkanone barrels with pepperpot muzzle brakes on the basis of higher-performance ammunition rather than a larger or longer gun.



b2nhvi
Visit this Community
Nevada, United States
Joined: June 17, 2016
KitMaker: 551 posts
Armorama: 479 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2018 - 09:55 AM UTC
Nice work , Peter. I like the screen skirts on the E-10. I heard that they were designing a version of the KwK 43 that had a new recoil system that did away with the huge recuperator tubes making the gun more compact, plus I think the plan was to up the powder charge too. My E-10 is on hold for the moment, waiting for parts from the land of the Koala.
Ranger74
Visit this Community
Tennessee, United States
Joined: April 04, 2002
KitMaker: 1,289 posts
Armorama: 657 posts
Posted: Thursday, September 20, 2018 - 10:07 AM UTC
All of the considerations listed above are valid. A larger caliber gun can be put into almost any turret/chassis. It would require changes to the recoil system to shorten the recoil and to get the system into the turret. Then you had to somehow account for the increased energy that gets transferred through the gun trunions to the turret ring, fire control system, crew, etc. An excellent example is the difference between 152mm gun-launcher mounted in an M60A2, weighing approximately 54 tons compared to the same system mounted into an M551 chassis weighing just 17 tons. The M60A2 could easily absorb the recoil forces that were not absorbed by the recoil system. The M551 is a completely different case. Having served in all 4 crew positions in a M551, the recoil when firing the 152mm HEAT round was "exciting" to say the least. It was just about guaranteed to knock the missile out of alignment, lift the first two road wheels completely off of the ground and there were cases of cracks developing in the turret ring. As long as there is room between the breech and the back of the turret, when the gun is "in-battery" to load the ammo, enough room for the recoil, and room for the crew you could mount almost anything you wanted. If the crew and vehicle will survive the result of too much gun for too little chassis, is the question. For those reasons I would never want to man a Hetzer!
Das_Abteilung
Visit this Community
United Kingdom
Joined: August 31, 2010
KitMaker: 321 posts
Armorama: 307 posts
Posted: Friday, September 21, 2018 - 09:21 AM UTC
Thanks, Timothy. First tanks I'd built for years and they turned out OK. I went off doing German subjects a long time ago but I've always liked these 2 Entwicklungsfahrzeug.

I wondered at first if the E-10 might have the automatic BK5 5cm gun firing APDS. In the end I just bored-out the BK5 muzzle and used it as a 7.5cm.

The gun barrels are actually 1/32, by Schatton Modellbau. I wanted to use their lovely MK103 barrel in the E-25 cupola, but realised it was much too small to fit an MK103 breech. There's some "what if" extra armour around the shot traps under the mantlets.

Of course we're surmising here that Germany would have carried on using HV KE rounds. Tungsten was pretty much non-existent and propellant short. HEAT rounds were available for lower-velocity weapons like the LeFH18. HEAT has the advantage that its effect is independent of impact velocity. Although trajectory and time of flight become problems with lower velocities, complicating firing solutions: aiming.

There was of course the real 8.8cm PAW600 and proposed 10cm PAW1000. These were lightweight, low-recoil yet high-ish velocity weapons which used less propellant and did not need massive mounts and recoil mechanisms. But were range-limited: 750m for the PAW600 Panzergranate. OK for an ambush predator like panzerjager. I suspect that had the war continued we were more likely to see more use of these.