Hello, I have some questions about the thickness of the E series tank armor

[High wind and rainstorm]

Recently, on a website, I saw a statement about the thickness of e50 and e75 armor, which said, the E50 has 100 mm head armor with a 60 degree angle and the E75 has 150 mm head armor with a 60 degree angle.viewforum.php?f=47.Excuse me, is this data reliable?

[ThatZenoGuy]

Unless I am mistaken the additional slope provided much of the additional protection of the E-Series tanks.

The 'actual' thickness of the armor is unknown as it was never written down anywhere but measuring the thickness of the drawings resulted in 80mm for the E-50 and presumably 1.5/2x that for the E-75.

[High wind and rainstorm]

除非我弄错了，额外的斜坡为E系列坦克提供了更多的保护。

装甲的“实际”厚度是未知的，因为它从未在任何地方记录下来，但测量图纸的厚度得出E-50的厚度为80毫米，大概是E-75的1.5/2倍。

－Thank you, friends of the forum! I still have a little doubt. The above article says that the front armor of e50 is similar to (not equivalent to) Panther g（(By the way, what software is required to measure the thickness on the drawing？)

[Peasant]

Thank you, friends of the forum! I still have a little doubt. The above article says that the front armor of e50 is similar to (not equivalent to) Panther g（(By the way, what software is required to measure the thickness on the drawing？)

The first image shows thickness of about 80mm sloped at about 60°. In the second one the text under says that it's meant to be 100mm thick. Conflicting evidence.

I can suggest this thread for more information: https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php? ... lungserie/

[High wind and rainstorm]

n[quote = "大风暴雨" post _ id = 2433075 time = 1664783178 user _ id = 105343]n感谢您，论坛的朋友们！我还是有点怀疑。上面文章说e50的前装甲和Panther g相似(不等同)(顺便问一下，图纸上的厚度测量需要什么软件？)n

n第一幅图像显示厚度约为80毫米，倾斜角度约为60°。在第二个例子中，下面的文字说它应该有100毫米厚。矛盾的证据。倪可以建议这个线程获取更多信息:https://forum.warthunder.com/index.php? ... ungserie/n n[img]https://I . postimg . cc/SRLBWYMV/image . png[/img]n[/quote]Thank you. Seriously, it's disappointing that the E50 front armor is only 80mm. Maybe not as good as Panther Ⅱ's 100mm front armor.

[Peasant]

Thank you. Seriously, it's disappointing that the E50 front armor is only 80mm. Maybe not as good as Panther Ⅱ's 100mm front armor.

It was still meant to be only a medium tank. It's armour is not so bad for its time. It's not so far off that of T-44(90mm/60°) or Centurion (76mm/57°).

[ThatZenoGuy]

Thank you. Seriously, it's disappointing that the E50 front armor is only 80mm. Maybe not as good as Panther Ⅱ's 100mm front armor.

It was still meant to be only a medium tank. It's armour is not so bad for its time. It's not so far off that of T-44(90mm/60°) or Centurion (76mm/57°).

To be fair for it's gargantuan size (it's basically a Tiger 2), 80mm/60 is...A little underwhelming.

Tiger 2 was a big heavy beast of a tank, but at least it's frontal armor explained some of that weight.

[ThatZenoGuy]

除非我弄错了，额外的斜坡为E系列坦克提供了更多的保护。

装甲的“实际”厚度是未知的，因为它从未在任何地方记录下来，但测量图纸的厚度得出E-50的厚度为80毫米，大概是E-75的1.5/2倍。

－Thank you, friends of the forum! I still have a little doubt. The above article says that the front armor of e50 is similar to (not equivalent to) Panther g（(By the way, what software is required to measure the thickness on the drawing？)

As explained by Peasant, the official drawings can be scaled to 80mm via the other dimensions in the drawing.

Additionally 80/60 is actually a fair bit more protective than the Panther, every bit of slope you adds even more protection outside of specific shell types and such.

It was also supposed to be a nimble medium (if oversized) tank, not a heavy brawler. That is what the E-75 was for.

[Erik1]

Not sure if this information is relevant, but anyway, if you're interested in these tanks, Hilary Doyle have said (I think on the "Overlord" world of tanks blog) that these Tiger 2-like drawings would not have been what the E-50/E-75 would've looked like if they would've been created, for 2 reasons:

1. These drawings for the E-50/E-75 project were made by one of the smaller fringe companies, which would've been considered too unskilled or inexperienced (can't remember the exact explanation) to work on something as important as the final design of a new hull. These kinds of companies kept sending in their ideas all the time though, hoping to win contracts.

2. A rear-drive had been specified for the E-50/E-75 and this would've changed the shape of the hull quite a bit, so doesn't make sense that the hull's shape would've been like a Tiger 2's.

[Peasant]

Not sure if this information is relevant, but anyway, if you're interested in these tanks, Hilary Doyle have said (I think on the "Overlord" world of tanks blog) that these Tiger 2-like drawings would not have been what the E-50/E-75 would've looked like if they would've been created, for 2 reasons:

1. These drawings for the E-50/E-75 were made by one of the smaller fringe companies, which would've been considered too unskilled or inexperienced (can't remember the exact explanation) to work on something as important as the final design of a new hull. These kinds of companies kept sending in their ideas all the time though, hoping to win contracts.

2. A rear-drive had been specified for the E-50/E-75 and this would've changed the shape of the hull quite a bit, so doesn't make sense that the hull's shape would've been like a Tiger 2's.

Thank you, very interesting. I'll admit, I haven't researched much this topic as I'm more drawn towards vehicles that have actually been built and participated in combat.

[Grzesio]

The first image shows thickness of about 80mm sloped at about 60°. In the second one the text under says that it's meant to be 100mm thick. Conflicting evidence.

I made a little bit more accurate measurements in CAD - the Panther frontal armour is drawn as approx. 85 mm thick, the Tiger is approx. 135 mm thick.

[Erik1]

The first image shows thickness of about 80mm sloped at about 60°. In the second one the text under says that it's meant to be 100mm thick. Conflicting evidence.

I made a little bit more accurate measurements in CAD - the Panther frontal armour is drawn as approx. 85 mm thick, the Tiger is approx. 135 mm thick.

What's CAD? And do you mean the Tiger hull's front plate?

[Grzesio]

Yes, Panther's upper front plate is drawn as ~85 mm, Tiger's upper front plate is drawn as ~135 mm. Of course, such a drawing is not a fully reliable source.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer-aided_design

[ThatZenoGuy]

Not sure if this information is relevant, but anyway, if you're interested in these tanks, Hilary Doyle have said (I think on the "Overlord" world of tanks blog) that these Tiger 2-like drawings would not have been what the E-50/E-75 would've looked like if they would've been created, for 2 reasons:

1. These drawings for the E-50/E-75 project were made by one of the smaller fringe companies, which would've been considered too unskilled or inexperienced (can't remember the exact explanation) to work on something as important as the final design of a new hull. These kinds of companies kept sending in their ideas all the time though, hoping to win contracts.

2. A rear-drive had been specified for the E-50/E-75 and this would've changed the shape of the hull quite a bit, so doesn't make sense that the hull's shape would've been like a Tiger 2's.

I have to agree with Doyle in that regard, IIRC the famous E-Series drawings were from 1943 or somesuch, the never-actually-seen 1945 designs, if they even existed, would look quite a lot different in some ways but similar in others. Major differences to fit the rear transmission but that would've mostly been done via moving the turret forwards ala the T-34.

But they certainly would've resembled oversized panthers/king tigers in most cases on account of simplification and standardization.

Unless I am mistaken the intended powertrain for the tanks was to be a combined transmission/engine unit in the rear of the tank, which could've possibly been fairly compact if they figured out sideways engines.

[Erik1]

Not sure if this information is relevant, but anyway, if you're interested in these tanks, Hilary Doyle have said (I think on the "Overlord" world of tanks blog) that these Tiger 2-like drawings would not have been what the E-50/E-75 would've looked like if they would've been created, for 2 reasons:

1. These drawings for the E-50/E-75 project were made by one of the smaller fringe companies, which would've been considered too unskilled or inexperienced (can't remember the exact explanation) to work on something as important as the final design of a new hull. These kinds of companies kept sending in their ideas all the time though, hoping to win contracts.

2. A rear-drive had been specified for the E-50/E-75 and this would've changed the shape of the hull quite a bit, so doesn't make sense that the hull's shape would've been like a Tiger 2's.

I have to agree with Doyle in that regard, IIRC the famous E-Series drawings were from 1943 or somesuch, the never-actually-seen 1945 designs, if they even existed, would look quite a lot different in some ways but similar in others. Major differences to fit the rear transmission but that would've mostly been done via moving the turret forwards ala the T-34.

But they certainly would've resembled oversized panthers/king tigers in most cases on account of simplification and standardization.

Unless I am mistaken the intended powertrain for the tanks was to be a combined transmission/engine unit in the rear of the tank, which could've possibly been fairly compact if they figured out sideways engines.

Maybe they would've looked a bit like the fictional E-50 M from World of tanks? It's a typical E-50 that's made to look like it has a rear-drive, and Hilary Doyle helped with the design iirc.

https://s1.1zoom.me/b5050/406/World_of_ ... 66x768.jpg

About German tank sizes, I'd like to ask you, someone said on a forum that they wanted lots of ammunition in their tanks, which is the main reason the big cats are so big, togheter with the front-drive, torsion bars and hydralic turret traverse engine. Is this true?