The Confusing History of the Jagdpanzer E-100 | Fake Tank Friday

[@ConeOfArc]

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: kzbin.info/www/bejne/mZXaoaB3dq-Zlbc

[@rat_king-]

Establish this tank, buy a track link and a certification of makers mark. (only novelty apply now)

[@John.McMillan]

I'm subscribed to you with notifications on and only found out about this video because it popped up while scrolling down on a "Death Korps of Kreig" search. 10/10 yutoob.

[@u.n.gaming3321]

What is your opinion on the jagdpanzer IV line? I’ve never heard anybody criticise them due to their niche status, looking at the design I believe it was an effective cheaper option over jagdtiger/jagdpanther. What are your thoughts?

[@wheels-n-tires1846]

E-series are fascinating. Actually most subjects you hit are!!! This might be a bit out of scope, but when it comes to fake tanks, I immediately think of all the rocket and ray shooters of the JSDF from the older Godzilla movies.... Hmmm ...

[@seductive_Octopus]

🐙 Check out this German Military Historian specialized in Tanks. kzbin.info/www/bejne/iJfcd2ajaLedr7c He could help you with German Words and with his access to a German Tank Museum, you could make some awesome Videos in a collaboration.

[@karbengo]

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.

[@Hellsong89]

Sure, but least WT shows the internal layout forcing the designers to rub two braincells together to figure out if its even feasible to be built, where WOT just slaps "pretty" outer shell, pulls perimeters out of their ass, slaps 30% extra on premium vehicles and puts this bait front of the whales before its obvious OP status is nerfed when enough players complain about it. Also its always so magical how Soviet paper tanks are even after that nerf op and German ones are nerfed from the get go.

[@urMateGG]

@@Hellsong89 exactly, he could of talked about war thunders version which at least can be somewhat realistic

[@kingtiger3390]

@@urMateGG War Thunder version of what, that game doesn't have Jagdpanzer E100 and their depiction of E100 is famously less acurate than what can be found in WOT.

[@kingtiger3390]

@@Hellsong89 They most of the time have to work with vehicles that were much further down the design proces than a mere concept or a partial blueprint, so no, they don't rub anything together. There are many vehicles in WT that would have problems working when you look at the internal layout. I think most notably guns having too wide of a firing arc for balance reasons, and in result having their breach come in contact with the crew when moving around. You just swap a pretty outer shell for a flashy, rough x-ray.

[@Honey.1.1]

@@Hellsong89WOT is just better than WT 🤡 Much faster paced and more action, more strategy required too 🤡🤡🤡

[@zeroyuki92]

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"

[@mr.fister4738]

Bruh

[@r.ndomperson]

it kinda true tho

[@felixsteiner1295]

BR 8,7

[@keeratijirananutwinyu8339]

bruh 150 mm gun jagtiget

[@UkrainianPaulie]

Problem is gamers now think they're historians or armchair generals.

[@awesom6588]

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

[@oldesertguy9616]

It sure would help to have supports mounted for that long, heavy barrel, and not have as much barrel sticking out to interfere with maneuvering.

[@MaxTSanches]

One of the issues that the Jagdpanther & jagdtiger had was too much weight on the front suspension. By moving the casement and gun to the rear the forward facing armour would be more evenly distributed.

[@miller0734]

The biggest issue with this placement is that you would have to redesign the entire hull to accommodate the rear case mate, which doesn't make sense to do when you have already based the entire E100 design around a centrally mounted turret design. It would also force you to separate the crew by putting the driver infront of the engine and the commander, gunner, loaders, and radio operator in the rear which forces the crew to rely on 1940s radio technology to coordinate effectively while in combat. another issue with this design is the possibility of heat from the engine warping the gun itself, (I believe this was experienced with the Ferdinand but don't quote me on that) and when considering the massive weight of the 17cm it's not hard to see how that can cause issue's after weeks in combat. as for weight distribution, you still have 150mm of rear armor on the casemate, that is ALOT of weight to balance out, and even though the frontal armor of the super structure may be 200mm it's not mounted forward enough to counteract the rears suspension strain. and there's no way that 17cm has enough room to elevate more then 20⁰ so being a pseudo artillery placement is imo out of the question.

[@sthenzel]

As the drive sprocket is at the front, the gearbox is there as well, so changing the engine placement is not that much of a problem, just shorten the driveshaft. The only problem may be exhaust placement or heat distribution/dissipation.

[@miller0734]

@@sthenzel It's not that simple, you're completely redesigning the entire engine bay and crew compartment just to use an impractical design that causes more problems then it solves, a centrally mounted super structure is far more reasonable for the reasons I've already stated.

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

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.

[@Angelthewolf]

Stug doesn‘t automatically mean it is for infantry support, what is often forgotten, the Stug IV was designated an tank destroyer

[@MrChainsawAardvark]

@@Angelthewolf As I said, I wasn't full sure and I want to say the STUG IV was a bit of a special case (disruption in supply meant they needed to use a different chassis.) Also a lot of stugs were pressed into service as TDs because they were the best available for the situation. Towed AT guns are hard to move. A 500 kilogram pak 36 can be shifted by five men (part of why it served so long), a 1500kg 50mm gun, not so much, a pak-40 75 at 2,500.

[@Angelthewolf]

@dimapez the Stug III in general was used alot against tanks, thats why the Stug IV was made as an tank destroyer

[@Cussingpenguin]

So the stug is legal?

[@shagal2142]

Jagdpanzer E-100 Krokodil NOTHING would have stoped this vehicle from the front if it would have ever build. But let´s say germany would have had E-75 tanks my goodness the Normal Tiger was already nearly impossible to destroy, let alone the King Tiger but the E-75 or even the E-50 would have annihilated everything. E-100 ingame is just soooooo freaking ugly, really dont like that desing AT ALL. The Krokodile one looked so much better.

[@BassBanj0]

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

[@_hitomaru]

yes this is absolutely what i love about world of tanks / world of tanks blitz. the diversity of tanks

[@joaoguilherme9034]

@@_hitomaru wotb is not very good the model looks good but soo many unrealistic tanks

[@sakuya1185]

@@joaoguilherme9034 no shot mr obvious, 80% of the tanks in both games are fake lol.

[@Mr_AntiSocial]

@@joaoguilherme9034how does that make it bad? It means it’s better, cause theoretically, they’ll never run out of things to add

[@joaoguilherme9034]

@@sakuya1185 well wot tanks a loot of them where made in at least papers but wotb tanks never existed ( premium ones like the 3 shots at 1 tank idk the name ) like e100 was in papers jg pz e 100 too st 2 line too a loot of them

[@stuartaaron613]

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.

[@maplearrow1842]

@STuGChannelLmao Germany would have probably done *a bit* better if every higher ups didn’t have his own biases/prioritize his interests over the war effirt

[@kl_kruemel]

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

[@sebastianstoltz7740]

The _ultimate_ StuG-Life.

[@191BreadWinnings]

So many stugs

[@a12934]

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.

[@darkninjacorporation]

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

[@robertharris6092]

Jagdtiger is just a casemate tiger 2. So making an e-100 into a casemate is gonna be insane.

[@Legiondude]

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

[@huntsman0076]

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

[@HarverTheSlayer]

That one is actually closer to "cursed by design". As far as I know, it's a variation of the same project that gave us the tier VII German SPG "GW Panther" (unhistorical name), which is also related to the Rheinmetall Skorpion.

[@kings_nemesis5995]

There's alot of wot tanks that I'd love to know if they were actually planned or not

[@kobeh6185]

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.

[@kimjanek646]

Looks like a 15mm MG 151 to me

[@Justanormalguy753]

For me it was like a 20mm automatic weapon, but could be also the 30mm version.

[@pennycarvalho1223]

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])

[@danielsteger8456]

hunting tank vs tank hunter

[@KristianSandvikk]

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

[@jammygamer8961]

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

[@regulate.artificer_g23.mdctlsk]

I thought it's only the front mounted one that has weight distribution issues

[@SomeOrdinaryJanitor]

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.

[@UkrainianPaulie]

Because they were useless moronic designs. But they were led by a psychopath.

[@PUARockstar]

At least they've built Maus prototype

[@virmirfan]

​@@PUARockstaryou mean two, though the first prototype only had a turret mass simulator

[@builder396]

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.

[@lolloblue9646]

The original name of the "Hetzer" was Leichter Panzerjäger 38(t) before being renamed Jagdpanzer 38(t) so I'd assume there would be SOME overlap

[@builder396]

@@lolloblue9646 That one is a curious case anyway, since to some it was just a further development of the Marder III, which was a Panzerjäger, and Hetzer pretty much took over Marder III production lines anyway.

[@darknut9696]

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

[@stutterpunk9573]

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

[@yoshineitor]

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

[@kentlindal5422]

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

[@fanta4897]

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).

[@inductivegrunt94]

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.

[@maplearrow1842]

And the E-10 was meant to replace the Pz. 38(T) (Hetzed) while the E-25 was supposed to replace the Panzer 3’s and 4’s. The latter is interesting because they decided to go back to the stug design by making a casemate, which gives the tank a lower profile, reduces the amount of armour needed and allows the mounting of a bigger gun. IMO the turret became a waste of weight as it would require too much armour to keep a reasonable weight.

[@soldieroverwatch6267]

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

[@bowbowjang4281]

Got it on my phone bro, bell squad hype!

[@ltrace8651]

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

[@meinacco]

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.

[@NickTheQuick82]

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! 👍

[@andrewwoodhead3141]

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,....

[@Epicfunk]

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

[@user-pk3eo6pq6m]

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

[@elliotdryden7560]

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.

[@Vnx]

Was that Otto Carius? I think his book was Tigers in the Mud.

[@Kackpuh]

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.

[@MhG2017]

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

[@XSpamDragonX]

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

[@jwenting]

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.

[@kirgan1000]

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.

[@keithpennock]

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.

[@alessiobubbles5345]

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

[@nikokentaur2240]

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

[@JGCR59]

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

[@AleksandarFilipovic-r4z]

what minute

[@cmsIGauffahrgestellPanzerkampf]

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.

[@Ruben97-i3b]

The 17cm L/50 kanone 18 is the closest to the L/53 mentioned. And there was actually an armour piercing shell used on the Kanone 18. I Assume the L/53 would be developed from from this artillery piece. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/17_cm_Kanone_18

[@oldesertguy9616]

The only problem is that, by this late in the war, there are limited opportunities to use against fortifications, as almost every battle was defensive for the Germans.

[@danielhurst8863]

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.

[@284JBr]

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

[@WOLFY_THUNDER-vh7hl]

I play WoT and this is so nice to see fresh and familiar pictures from the game.

[@americafirst6408]

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 .

[@kohencidence4485]

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!

[@TheLightLOD]

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.

[@RedXlV]

Yeah, the Krokodil is a fake tank. A forward mounting of such a large gun would've been unworkable because it's just too heavy for the suspension.

[@BatyusFrodo]

The length of this video 💀💀💀

[@lance_r72]

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

[@der_fuxs]

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!

[@hummel6364]

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

[@f.m.f962]

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.

[@thomasroese2651]

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)

[@Guardian-io7kl]

Actually "Jagpanzer" directly translates to "tank hunter" or "hunting tank".

[@Erwin_Von_Heidenheim]

And what do tank destroyers do... hunt tanks, sorta splitting hairs here

[@AudieHolland]

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!

[@hawk1559]

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

[@od1452]

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

[@Nocturne50]

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

[@AnamelessChild]

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

[@toasterloh4156]

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.

[@swiggityswoogity705]

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.

[@R4V3-0N]

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.

[@hanssmidt12]

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

[@nigelconnor6960]

Even if the Germans could have produced this tank in any given number, it's highly doubtful if they could have produced ammunition for it, by this time, they could only produce black powder propellent, so I was told, which would have been useless for such a large shell! Great video, thanks mate,!!!👍.

[@koenvangeleuken2853]

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

[@kevincostello3856]

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

[@Hax-vj2hq]

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

[@zao7035]

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.

[@matthewkabanuk443]

Effectively, assault gun and tank destroyer mean the same thing as the gun is used for direct fire purposes; to literally “assault” the enemy. An SPG is does indirect fire, and it’s not really used as direct fire.

[@RedXlV]

Well, in WoT, real-life tank destroyers and assault guns are all lumped together into the same category. From a gameplay balance standpoint, this makes sense because killing tanks was *one* of the things that assault guns did (the StuG III series were Germany's most effective tank-killers, after all), and in a PvP tank game primary roles of an assault gun (infantry support and destroying fortifications) don't exist.

[@zao7035]

@@RedXlV I'm not talking about classifications, I know they are all classified as TDs. I'm talking about tank such as Jagdpanzer IV with the word "Jagdpanzer" are translated to be called "Tank Destroyer 4"; Tanks such as "StuG III Ausf. G" with the word "StuG" are translated to be "Assult Gun 3 Type G"; Tanks such as Ferdinand with neither word are just translated to be "Ferdinand". But paper tanks such as Jagdpanzer E 100 and Waffenträger auf E 100 aren't usually translated in the same way, where the name on different language or server could be entirely different or even change over time. For example, on the Chinese server, Jagdpanzer E 100 was called "Assult Gun E 100" and only changed to "Tank Destroyer E 100" after the graphical overhaul. But I suppose those sever also have fictional tanks such as the Nameless so maybe the weird names are not really that weird after all.

[@RedXlV]

@@zao7035 The Chinese server is its own thing, so I don't really know why they do things like that. The translations or Jadgpanzer and Sturmgeschütz as "Tank Destroyer" and "Assault Gun" are correct, though.

[@hummel6364]

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

[@russianyoutube]

There were Jagdpanzer E 100 blueprints, but it was basically a bigger Jagdpanther with more armoe, a E 100 hull and a 15cm gun

[@kot0472]

Nah, there weren't These were fakes.

[@DakotaofRaptors]

Alongside the FV215b 183 are absolutely terrifying to face

[@123dodo4]

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

[@quentinmichel7581]

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

[@Kyitz255]

The rear mounted Superstructure would've made more sense. The massive gun would be too long for it to be mounted on a centrally placed turret, plus it can work as artillery and follows the design of other super heavy tanks

[@lorddestructive]

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

[@Mornomgir]

I had a very nice book long ago, or rather my dad. Illustrating and talking about the E-series. Its planning, the layouts the proposed and possible. Sadl its lost to history as so many other things when all was "transfered to the internet". Its been corroborated by other tank nuts over the years and every chance i get i pop into an antique or old used book store to see if i can find it again. But within was illustrations and pictures i have never once seen on the internet and even though one can debate the voracity of some of the claims its still quite obvious that alot of it was not just made up. Im sure someone else has atleast flipped through it at some point. It should have been written in the 60s possibly 50s. The book belonged to a series of works illustrating warmachines of all types from ww2 as well as in depth explanations about the "big" battles.

[@AndrewBrowner]

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

[@Lockheed-Super-Airliner]

Now you destroyed my brain so how does it look like and does it exist?

[@ThatTrafficCone]

Missed a neat detail about the tank! There was a desire to fit the E-100 with an unspecified 1200hp Maybach engine, which would push the tank to 40 km/h. However, to do this would have necessitated a larger engine compartment that would've been pushed forward, likely centrally located. This would've obviously resulted in a drastic redesign on the E-100 and a drawing was reportedly made, but this drawing's current existence is unknown. But this would have essentially given the E-100 a Maus-like profile with a rear turret. This design is known as "Project B Antrieb." Source: Panzer Tracts 6-3 With this in mind, the World of Tanks design have a bit of credence. There's also the notion that a rear fighting compartment would have a better center of gravity. But there's another thing! The idea of a rear fighting compartment was also entertained for the Jagdtiger during its development, but this was ultimately rejected because of fears over accessing the engine with that massive gun in the way. Also, the gun might be heated because of the engine directly below it, possibly weakening the metal or even causing the gun to warp. So these fears may have been compounded with such a design on the E-100 or Maus chassis. While a Jagdtiger-like design for the StuG E-100 would absolutely be the easiest to make, given enough development time and better circumstances I think a Ferdinand-like design might have been more seriously considered. It's a damn shame we don't have any idea what that scale wooden mockup of the StuG E-100 looks like.

[@DoenerHans]

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

[@cheesetonk]

fv301: time to drink tea and wait for my turn

[@CallmeRoth]

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.

[@shrek9703]

I agree with all of your assumptions except for the mounting of the 150mm gun. Hitler was known to actively take interest into tank designs and to rush some improvements that were either still on the drawing board or experimental. For instance the early panzer 3 was said to be incapable to mount the longer 50mm gun by many highly respected tank engineers but hitler insisted that it be mounted on the panzer 3 and so it was done. In my opinion it's likely that hitler would've ordered the gun to be rushed into production and mounted on as he did adhere to the bigger the better mentality.

[@MonkeysKatzen]

a Sturmgeschütz has a short barrel gun, a Jagdpanzer a long gun. A Sturmgeschütz is for fight against bunkers and in tight urban environments like citys, so its shells need a ballistic curve. A Jagdpanzer needs a long gun because of the velocity for its shells to fight heavy armored units. Sturmgeschütz = e.g. Brummbär, Jagdpanzer = e.g. Jagdpanther. Its that easy ;)

[@kot0472]

Later StuGs and early JagdPanzers IV had the same 75mm KwK L/48 gun.

[@MonkeysKatzen]

@@kot0472 thats true. The usage of the Stug changed to a Jagdpanzer but the name remained. It will be more clear if you know the history of the StugIV en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturmgesch%C3%BCtz_IV

[@SteelHorseRider74]

without wot/wotb, a wider audience would never have heard of all of these planned tanks like Jagdpanzer E-100, Löwe etc

[@The.Original.Potatocakes]

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

[@lalopacheco2614]

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

[@vaclavbaloun4700]

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

[@sscb1999]

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

[@KRAMPUS_G60_16V]

It would be such a gorgeous beast if it was ever made. The "Krokodil" project would also be a monster. :) And "Panzerjager" actually means "Tank Hunter".

[@comet8540]

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

[@fastermaster5555]

iirc the E program was meant to standardize German tank production after the war, instead of having many different designs filling different roles there would be a few designs designated by E and then their weight...tho I learnt this almost a decade ago so it might be wrong and it was meant to come into effect Post-war and i believe thats the reason not much work on the E designs like the E-100 was done

[@larryfontenot9018]

I'll strongly disagree on the vehicle being called the Sturmgeschutz E-100 for several reasons. Something to start with is that The terms Panzerjäger and Jagdpanzer are _not_ interchangeable. 1) The name Sturmgeschütz (abbreviated to StuG) was only given to two vehicles, the StuG III and the StuG IV. It means "assault gun", and the StuG III was originally intended to take out fortified enemy positions in the infantry support role. It wasn't until the Germans started fighting Russian T-34s and KV-1s that they were converted to carry a high-velocity 75mm antitank gun. StuGs were mostly operated by the artillery branches of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS, and StuG formations were called batteries. 2) Panzerjägers were open-topped tank destroyers, either cludged together in field depots or purpose-built, that were operated by the infantry branches of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS. 3) Jagdpanzers were fully enclosed tank destroyers that were operated by the Panzer corps of the Wehrmacht and Waffen SS. In other words, the names not only varied by role, they varied by construction and the branch of service that operated them. In summary, the Jagdpanzer E-100 probably _would_ have been called the Jagdpanzer E-100 since, as far as we know, it was intended to be a fully enclosed tank destroyer operated by the Panzer corps of the Wehrmacht and/or Waffen SS. Additionally, it's farfetched that it would have been intended for the assault gun role in 1944. Germany needed vehicles to defend against attacking enemy tanks by that point in the war, not vehicles to attack enemy pillboxes or trench systems.

[@historicmilitaria1944]

E100 chassis was brought back to the uk by the british army in 1945 and was exhibited at the tank museum bovington for a couple of years then handed over to pounds of Portsmouth,,,a scrap dealer who scrapped many ww2 vehicles...it is rumoured tho not proved that instead of cutting e100 for scrap it was buried on site,where its rumoured to be there to this day.

[@AdmiralJT]

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

[@roys.1889]

well this does at least explain why the E-100 in WoT has a 15cm cannon as an optional mounting though I do wonder why they saw either of these as necessary at a time when the most threatening vehicles they were seeing at those stages of the war were usually no more threatening than a Sherman.

[@maplearrow1842]

Just like with the Tiger 2, I guess it was all about future-proofing. If the war carried on, the T-44 and IS-3 would have seen combat (the 44 entered service but was never used while the IS-3 was only on time for the victory parade) and the T34 (or more probably the T32, as the 34 was cancelled because of weight issues) would have entered service. The Germans would have then needed to upgun their tanks to 105 or 128mm, or develop HEATFS/APDS rounds. While the 128 was more than enough on the Maus and E-100, mustache man wanted the tanks with ridiculous armour to also have ridiculous firepower, so they can dominate the battlefield in every way (except reliably, mobility and fuel efficiency).

[@gerogyzurkov2259]

​@@maplearrow1842 The centurion was only one month post ww2 when it arrived so any longer and they would of fought the centurion tanks. Likely would of made Panthers and tigers jobs harder.

[@jimcase3097]

Very cool

[@teerthrajtirpude1950]

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

[@4T3hM4kr0n]

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