If you enjoyed be sure to like and consider subscribing. Also check out my previous video on the E-100 if you haven't already: kzfaq.info/get/bejne/mcqno9ByprDKj4k.html

I think playing WoT for more than 10 years have corrupted my brain. Upon hearing that the more logical representation of this project is a Stug E-100 with center placed gun and 15cm cannon the thing that popped in my head is "This could be a great T9 reward vehicle"

Love it or hate it, WoT and WT really did spread knowledge about tank designs, including the most obscure ones to a wide audience, like not media has done before.

personally i think a rear mounted super structure makes more sense, but not because it would be easier to engineer, but because the 17cm gun would be incredibly hard to work with, with a rear casemate, you could open up the back of the vehicle and use it as an artillery emplacement, and button up if you want to use it as a sturmgechutz

I seem to recall that a stug was legally an artillery piece and part of general infantry issue, while a motorized tank destroyers would be assigned to panzer units. Kind of similar to the long standing agreement in the US military that the air force gets the fixed wing planes, but the army operates helicopters. This issue may have already appeared in Guderian's "Atung Panzer" with concepts of support vs independent units.

Its honestly a very well designed tank on WG's part You can argue about how they create fictional designs as well as weird mashups and add them to the game but its not a negative thing in my opinion. Because of it we get to see and play tanks that are unique and take inspiration from real tank design to become iconic in their own part

Regarding the Stug, remember that originally it carried the short barrel 75 mm gun for field work. Later they replaced that with the longer 75 mm anti-tank gun when someone realised that the low body of the Stug would make a great tank hunter. Meanwhile, on the Porsche Tiger/Ferdinand/Elefant, remember that because of the electric drive moving the engines (it had two of them) was relatively easy because there was no drive train between the engine and the final drive, just heavy wires.

The first concept and drawing of the Panzerjäger Tiger (P) referred to the planned vehicle as "Sturmgeschütz Tiger 8,8cm L/71". So it's very likely, that a Jagdpanzer E-100 would be a "Sturmgeschütz E-100" if ever built

The german translation for the engine is just 'Maybach New Project' so in all cases completely fictional. Even WoT couldn't find a name, so WoT just called it the new project and left it at that.

Imagining the E-100 as just an even *MORE* absurd Jagdtiger is just… damn

The weapon on the roof of the WG model appears to me to be a much lower caliber weapon than 30mm. It may be a 13mm machine gun, but it may even be a simple MG34 in 8mm Mauser.

An episode about how the story of grille 15 came up would interesting as well

I don't remember if Yuri Pasholok ever talked about it, it's been years since I kept track of WG and the historical backgrounds of their material, but I want to say that the 17cm arrangement of the GW Tiger project was a consideration in WG's design of this one

"A Cruiser caliber gun kills the tank, a Battleship caliber gun kills the soul." -Some WG tank designer (probably)

i like the Jagd Panther style E100 model by Trumpeter Models I have it as a 1/35 scale model kit

Actually jagdpanzer and panzerjager were different. Jagdpanzer was a anti tank self propelled gun with actual armor (as you can see in the jagdpanzer 4, jagdpanther and jagdpanzer 6 “jagdtiger”) while the panzerjager were anti tank spg with little armor, often open top (nashorn [panzerjager 4], panzerjager 1 and the panzerjager 38 [aka marder 3 or marder 38])

The supposed 17cm would be able to smash fortifications and tanks alike, so Stug E100 makes sense.

From what I've seen. When in designated AT roles the names of the units between Panzerjäger (Pz.Jg.) and JagdPanzee (J.Pz.) is that Pz.Jg vehicles were more lightly armoured (or open) than J.Pz. vehicles and were thusly more used as actual hunters in a sense that they hide themselves and take a more sharpshooting role than J.Pz. who had more armour they could rely on to survive the hits they take

I don't think the Tank Destroyer E-100 would be a rear mounted design because that would require a complete rework on the tanks internals by needing to adjust the drivetrain and move the engine to the centre. While a centre mounted design would have worse weight distribution but would require less time to be made in theory and its matches what they did with the jagdtiger. Edit: Just after i wrote this you said the same thing lol

what's wild is that the E-100 and to an extent, the Maus, are sort of mythological tanks, they just kinda popped up in history and went away with little info about them or their purpose.

i love your videos and your dedication to accurate information and easily digestible formats

Bell squad where ya at. Love these fake tank Friday vids wot does give alot of content for it aswell which is nice 😄

As a German I wanted to give some notes on the nomenclature: Panzerjäger and Jagdpanzer arent entirely interchangeable, and very litterally translated they would be, respectively, Tank Hunter and Hunting Tank, and they tend to apply to one of two design philosphies of tank destroyers. Panzerjägers follow the idea of recycling tanks by just bolting an AT gun onto a turretless hull with only a gunshield or an open top thinly armored fighting compartment, most prominently the Marder series, while Jagdpanzers are much more intensive projects with closed superstructures, strong frontal armor that often requires significant changes to the hull, meaning vehicles come off their own production line rather than being conversions of damaged or obsolete vehicles, but usually at the cost of a slightly smaller gun than a Panzerjäger on the same chassis, if you compare Jagdpanzer IV with the Nashorn for instance. There are a few curveballs, like the Nashorn being technically not a Panzer IV chassis but the GW III/IV, which used predominantly Pz IV components but still its own hull. The other curveball is the Ferdinand, which is also a Panzerjäger, but it has thick armor and a roof, but its still just there to recycle the Porsche Tiger hulls. And then you have StuGs, but they arent a very controversial category. Cannons follow the same pattern, of Paks being either towed AT guns or AT guns specifically for tank destroyers, while StuK translates into assault cannon and is what would go on StuGs, just pointing that out since the 17cm gun was designated a StuK.

Your last question made me think: what if you were to ask an engineer to design a tank to these specifications, using technology and design choices from 1940s? I wonder if he'd arrive to a proposal which would be identical to Jagdpanzer E-100 or if it would be similar from let's say 90% or if it would be completelly different. There's of course no way to say how identical it would be since we don't know anything about the original proposal, but it would still be interesting to see what would make most sense from engineer's perspective. Maybe even more interesting experiment would be to do the same, but for a tank which we can find how it looked (let's say, ask engineer to design a tank to same specs as Panther, ideally some engineer who would not know of Panther).

Ah yes, Panzerjäger vs Jagdpanzer. What a wonderful opportunity to indulge a bit in the nuances of the German language. Even those that only have a basic understanding of german will probably have noticed that we assign names to many objects by literally describing either what they do or what they are (This is a Flammenwerfer, it werfs Flammen!). This is a perfect example of both. 'Panzerjäger' (very literally) translates to 'tank hunter', so someone or something that is supposed to hunt tanks. You'll notice this only describes the objects purpose but gives no information whatsoever about the object itself. If not for our now ingrained expectations of combat vehicles we could imagine a plane, a tactical unit or maybe even just a single soldier with that description. 'Jagdpanzer' on the other hand tells us that we are referring to a 'Panzer' (tank) that is meant or designed to hunt (to hunt = jagen | the hunt = die Jagd). Ironically as an inverse of its synonym, this one leaves it completely open WHAT it is supposed to hunt. Again, if someone who has no concept of armored warfare were to hear this for the first time, they might ask "So what does it hunt? Deer?". Interestingly the common english translation 'tank destroyer' would translate to 'Panzerzerstörer' or maybe 'Panzervernichter' (to destroy = zerstören / vernichten), neither of which was ever used mostly because these terms would be a bit to extravagant for military use.

I love how @2:05, a kid just calmly checks out the explosive and no one cares. Man things have changed

The entire E-series of tanks is an interesting tank line when you look at the individual tanks compared to what they were supposedly supposed to replace should the line been put into mass production. Especially the larger tanks such as the E-50 with the Tiger and Panther, E-75 with the Tiger 2, and the E-100 with the Maus. Real or not, the Jadgpanzer E-100 is an interesting tank to theorize about. And the same goes for all the proposed E-series tanks. But Wargaming did the best with that they could, especially with how there's basically nothing with this theoretical tank.

as an expert in tanks who got his graduation from playing war thunder I have to say that this tank is very real and op tank famous for its use in the battle of london

God I wish these videos were twice as long every time.

I love how the engine ingame is just called "New Project" aka. Drawn on Speers night blanket

Points to note : The Ferdinand was a electrical driven design . It is far easier to move the generators from the front to the back , or vis versa , when your electric drive motors are going to stay in the same place. In comparison ,a conventional drive train requires considerable re designing. Also, the HL 234/295 engine was completed by the French after the war and used on their AMX 50 project. Despite best efforts and the help of German engineers they never achieved more than 850 Horse power from this unit. Given that the original HL 234 from which the HL 295 was developed was itself an HL 230 with fuel injection , and given that the original HL 230 never developed more than 700 HP , a projected rating in excess of 1000 HP would be very optimistic indeed,....

Never have I ever been so early to a video before Edit: this was a very nice video and one I’ve been waiting for, for a while! I’ve never considered the name being an inaccuracy but your explanation makes sense. I’ve also always been a bit confused as to why the rear mounted superstructure was chosen for WOT instead of a central one. Anyways nice job covering this and actually showing this tank has some history to it!

For clarification: Sturmgeschütz: intended for use on fortifications and embankments (Sturmhaubitzen, like the StuH 42, were for heavy ones or were indirect fire was needed). They were only later used for anti-tank-purposes because they proved formidable at that (just like the 8,8). Panzerjäger: "tank hunters", pretty much any weapon platform intended to solely destroy tanks (so the Panzerjäger I is more a self propelled anti tank gun). But all Jagdpanzers are included in that. Jagdpanzer: "hunting tank", specifically a tank intended to hunt other tanks.

ConeOfArc, Please do the longer video you proposed @ 1:42 about the difference between Tank Destroyers & Stugs, Sturms and others in the German Army circa WW2.

German here, the correct Translation Word by Word would be: Jagdpanzer = Hunting Tank because of Die Jagd = the Hunt and Der Panzer = The Tank A Tank Destroyer in German is a Panzerzerstörer! Destroyer = Zerstörer. A Panzerjäger is a Tank Hunter. And Sturmgeschütz means literally Stormgun but Storm not in terms of weather but in terms of like a cavalry storming against an enemy. But other than that a great Video! 👍

I think that B-Roll wartime footage shows an SS Jagdtiger outfit surrendering at war's end. One of the officers who surrendered mentioned it in his book he wrote on his war service. I cannot remember his name. He sent a runner into the village to find an American officer to accept his surrender and once organized, churned his "twelve-eights" in to lay down arms.

One more, thing, the whole purpus of the E serie was to standardize parts, so it go agenst the whole point of the E serie to move the engine from the back, becsue then the new jagpanzer need a new unique powertrain, compare to the standard E-100.

Interesting content, well presented, thank you

damn the old WOT music makes me go back 9 years of my life

I do wish that further work was done on creating the 17cm cannon, it would've been amazing seeing its performance in using such beefy armour piercing or anti-concrete shells against armour and fortifications with destruction that can only be matched by the FV4005s 183mm cannon and maybe a few other experimental guns.

The length of this video 💀💀💀

Mr. Cone could you do a series on artillery self propelled guns? Or have you already? These massively gunned tanks are interesting to me.

Thanks for the content Cone, love it as always! Is it just me or are fake tanks something you see within your deepest thoughts at the work space? Like you’re just zoning out and then something like this beast comes to mind?

Background music is so nostalgic. Started to play World of Tanks in 2011

2:33 so you're telling me there were plans for a Sturmgeschütz VIII? I expect you to make a video on that :3

Just found this channel, outstanding content and as a Veteran myself ( Fast attack Subs) thank you, subscribed Immediately

Amusing Hobby makes a great 1:35 kit of the E-100 and i am building it as soon as it gets here,i love the paper panzers and prototypes .

Probably the Jagdpanzer E100 design would have gotten a SD.Kfz designation close to the StuG's so that it would end up more likely around the lines of Gepanzerte Selbstfahrlafette für 15/17 cm PjK Ausf. E100

You convinced me of the center superstructure. OK Takom now we need a 1/35 model.

Jagdpanzer were driven by armor units. Stugs were driven by members of the artillery. That is the key difference. Later in the war, more Stugs were pressed into an anti-tank role and some were operated by armor units.

Jagdpanzer and Panzerjäger aren’t the same! Jagdpanzer is based on a tank(!) (eg a tank destroyer). Panzerjäger is anything that’s designed to specifically destroy tanks in general. That could be Fritz with his Panzerfaust, a helicopter with anti armor rockets/missiles, a Tellermine, a PaK40, or a Jagdpanzer like Nashorn oder Marder. Ferdinand, Jagdpanzer 4 and Jagdtiger where designed as assault guns but weren’t given to artillery branch so they changed designation to Jagdpanzer. So if there have ever been serious plans for an assault gun on E100 chassis, the Jagdpanzer designation is still in the game, depending if it would have gone to artillery or Panzerjäger departments!

The superstructure stretching all the way to the back MAY work with the engine in the rear. Think of a massively elongated turret that overhangs the engine deck, but without the traversal mechanism. It could that way serve to allow for longer recoil and ammunition stowage, without protruding into the engine bay. Of course it would mean gun elevation will suffer, but that didn't stop tank designers from coming up with elongated turrets on other designs.

This was super interesting

i think the small gun on top might've been added as a weakspot in game design as most tanks have a cupola as a weakspot in the game.

Please make more of these videos!!!!!

fv301: time to drink tea and wait for my turn

Hello, really appreciate your videos :) I have a request, could you make a video about M47 and M48 Patton?

Why is the 17cm cannon referred to as StuK here? My guess would be it's similar to the KwK (Kampfwagen-Kanone) designation. Maybe Sturm-Kanone? Sturmgeschütz-Kanone? 7:06

Great timing I’m just grinding for it in world of tanks blitz today I just got the jagdtiger

Bruh this was my dream tank when I was a kid, now I have moved on to war thunder and lost my interest.

2:06 peep the 8 year old in coveralls going "yes yes very nice, this will do Haunz this will do"

It’s like a tank limo, those things are huge!

1:20 if im not mistaken the chieftain said the panzerjager was for the infantry division and jagdpanzer was for the mechanized/tank division

Cool video!

normally, a support SPG, Sturmgeschütz, would not need this superheavy armour. the thick armour really only makes sense for a jagdpanzer.

Jagd = Hunt / Sturm = Storm; So in German a lot is simply explained in terms of language... A "tank hunter" should be sneaky, well armed and highly mobile (Jagdpanzer IV), a Sturmgeschütz shall infuse fear to his opponents (mainly infantry) and make it rain HE shells on the trenches/houses and not engage directly in tank to tank combat

Off topic (kind of): the Jagdtiger footage is of the surrender of one of the Jagdtiger battalions in Austria (I think) in May 1945? I've never seen that footage before

Similar to the introduction of this video. I would love to see you talk about the family of self propelled AT vehicles in a video and what different terms and those terms in different languages as well as era's With terms like "gun motor carriage" , "self propelled artillery" (or anti-tank, or anti tank artillery), "tank destroyer", As well as the German "waffentrager" (weapons carrier), "jagdpanzer" and "panzerjager", etc) there is some confusion with the terms. Especially when the vehicle is taken to different nations and predesignated. Such as with the M10 being a self-propelled (anti-tank) artillery in British service. In many cases there are doctrinal or linguistic differences between the terms and sometimes the use or role of the vehicle is lost on people due to these translations especially from different languages but also era's. As we retrospectively look through the modern use of tank destroyers and apply it to vehicles that were not functionally tank destroyers in the same sense (ie: Though not called one. The Sherman Firefly performs the roles of US tank destroyers a lot more similarly than say the Archer, Avenger, Alecto, or Achilles. Especially when attached to a troop of 3 infantry tanks for AT support). I am mostly speaking of the perspective of the US vs UK as it is easier to notice due to both being in English and more accessible to myself. But a deeper dive into it as well as going into what vehicles are incorrectly labelled by these terms would be interesting! One such example that comes to my mind is how the Conway and Centaur in the cold war were not designated nor intended to be used as "tank destroyers" but are instead interim designs for the later tanks of the British forces hence the disparity in its name compared to other british SPG's.

I think the rear mounted superstructure makes sense for wargaming's design especially with the long 17cm, the superstructure already takes up more than half of the hull anyway and the superstructure's front where most of the weight is located technically is already in the middle of the vehicle.

Imagine this 170mm barrel facing your Sherman or KV-2 in ww2 😬

Hey could you by any chance look at the history of T-10M and its variations? Recently ive seen some pictures of a T-10M with what looks like a missile launcher on its gun/turret just like the BMP-1 has

the way the historical version of this would be a large jagdpanther

Alongside the FV215b 183 are absolutely terrifying to face

In WOT, under some language setting the tank is called "Tank Destroyer" while in some other language setting it is called "Assault Gun". Not sure if it is translation error or it is just WG being WG.

@2:12 there what looks like an armored jeep or something of the sort. Anybody know anything about it? Never seen one before.

Hey @ConeOfArc I think that a cool video would be about the new tank in world of tanks. The bz-176 could find much info about it but you would propably have more luck than me

Very cool

I agree with the center superstructure, one does not simply move the engine in a tank.. If I'm not mistaken one of the main reasons for mounting the Jagdtiger turret in the middle was the effort required to move it to the back as Germany would have wanted There exists a proposed design for the center superstructure variant in the form of some blueprint that was published in a 2007 French magazine under the name "Krokodil", I believe it to be made up by the author of the magazine or something similar. The model kit manufacturer Trumpeter has turned it into a full 1:35 scale model kit under the number 01596 however, but still calls it jagdpanzer E-100.

"Jagd" doesn't mean "destroyer" . It means "hunt" ..so, JagdPanzer= essentially Hunting Tank. Panzer Jaeger= Tank Hunter.

Wish they would rework Jg Pz E-100 to have it’s gun forward facing like that photo @ 3:10. It would have a totally impenetrable front due to the angle, but obviously weak lower glacis, also probably add that MG cupola forward as a weak point.

theres apparently something called the "Geschutzwagen tiger" judging by the way it looks, they probably based the jagdpanzer E-100 partially off of it.

Bartrauma music in background... I won't question why submarine editor but hell yeah!

Has anyone considered the Jagdpanzer E-100 to be a semi-hybrid open-topped vehicle that perhaps used the E-100's turret basket or something similar?

What is speaking against a Turret and the Position in the middle of the hull is the lenght and weight of the Cannon. The Overall lenght would have been an even greater mobility Nightmare then the Maus. Shooting the Cannon between the 2 to 4 and 8 to 10 Position would have for Sure damaged the chain drive

Speaking of WoT tanks, any chance to look at the FV215B tanks?

Im working on a project i call the jagdmaus, it will be a maus spg with a Pak 40 and 44

By laying the super structure to the back 2 advantages would be seen. 1. A shorter way from engine to transmission and to the drives ... And 2. the shorter overall length of the vehicle. (Which brings additional advantages)

Can you please do one on the Firelizard? It’s like the Jagdpanzer E100 but the “turret” is on the front with much more sloped armour

Panzerjäger was more of a improvised build with open top, while Jagdpanzer where design as Jagdpanzer from the beginning and all are completely closed

Next you oughta do the arty version

i am german and i agree to the terminology of stug and jagdpanzer. but its important to see that later in war stugs often were used as jagdpanzer because they also got anti tank guns. most anti tank guns like the longer 7,5cm kwk could deliver the same payload as the short and stubby 7,5cm howitzers and also do anti tank work so i think its ok to call the jpz e100 a jagdpanzer and a stug as it is more than capable of both roles. i think it would just creep around and just smack everything stupid enough to face it. we could just call it vielseitige fliegenklatsche, a versatile fly swatter, as everything would be small conpared to the big projectiles it would have delivered. obviousely it would have been destroyed or captured after the first battle due to it running out of ammo and/or fuel or being flanked or sth but thats another topic

0:57 Whoa, that was the smoothest ride we've had so far. No breaking down! 1:58 The war is over, look out or you'll trip over and become a casualty yet. 2:03 That's all Sir, is that to your liking? US GI: WOW!

Can you do a video talking about the project Emil heavy tanks?

I suggest an cursed by design on the T-92 HMC.

Btw it would be nice to see video about Jagdtiger armed with 8.8 gun in this series

6:26 "It is not simple to move the engine" in case of Ferdinand/Elephant it was easy, because the Porsche Tiger was desgined with fuel-electric system. So they had just to move the engine+generator forward, shorten the cabel to the driving motors and thats it. Jagdpanther and Jagdtiger are based on the fuel-gear system base with rear engine and would have need a new constraction of the gear arrangement. that why they have their gun positioned in the more regular gun position, compare to their combat tank versions.

The E-100 was a project that was actually worked on and given that Hitler enthusiastically approved of all tank designs to have an SPG variant (Elefant went on a Tiger P chassis technically) it's likely had the war continued (if Germany was actually holding territory) the JPE-100 would have existed.

Turns out Kamikoto Knives is also owned by the company that owns Established Titles...

Pls do a vid on the m51 super shermans

Fun fact the front mounted gun jgpze100 is used in tank company