Jagdpanzer E-50 stats?

RaccoonEmpire · Post by **RaccoonEmpire** » Thu May 12, 2011 1:19 am

What is the armament for the Jagdpanzer E-50?

Schwerepunkt · Post by **Schwerepunkt** » Thu May 12, 2011 6:00 am

128/55 same as the original JagTiger. German guns in upgunned vehicles went from 7.5/48 to 7.5/70, 7.5/70 went to 8.8/71, 8.8 went to 128/55, there are exceptions to the above but most sources I have checked indicate the 128/55.

Harlan · Post by **Harlan** » Thu May 12, 2011 6:37 am

From the looks of things, it appears to have the same 105mm gun of the E-75 Tiger III. I think the recoil and the size of the 128L55 would be too much for the E-50 Jadgpanther II.

Donald M. Scheef · Post by **Donald M. Scheef** » Thu May 12, 2011 8:43 am

Without any justification except personal preference, I vote for the 10.5 cm gun. Gun mass rises as approximately the cube of bore. On this basis, a 10.5 cm is about 1.7 times as heavy as an 8.8 cm. This is within credibility. A 12.8 cm gun is about 3 times as heavy. I just don't believe this is reasonable. Instead, put the 12.8 cm gun on the Jagdpanzer version of E-75.

Don S.

Schwerepunkt · Post by **Schwerepunkt** » Thu May 12, 2011 6:29 pm

...of the beholder. The 105 would not have appreciably greater penetration than the 88 of the Panzerjaeger so why make the change? I will stick with the heavier gun for the added punch. In addition, an aft mounted gun would render the engine more vulnerable to frontal attack. However, the website previously mentioned shows the E50Pjgr with the rear mounted gun
It all depends on how one views the possibilities inherent in the Wehrmacht in the field in 1947 onward. I have the model and will begin assembly. I will examined the gun barrel at that time.
Scherepunkt

Schwerepunkt · Post by **Schwerepunkt** » Fri May 13, 2011 2:46 pm

It all depends on one's perspective. Even if the 105 (what is the barrel length?) has superior penetration to the 128/55 and is lighter, the greater explosive effect of the HE round would help on the Eastern Front.
I may go with both and see how they do.

Donald M. Scheef · Post by **Donald M. Scheef** » Fri May 13, 2011 11:27 pm

As far as I can tell, the German 10.5 cm KwK is either totally hypothetical or something that existed only in the design stage. I think it reasonable to assume a barrel length on the order of L/65 to L/70, putting it in the same length range as other late-war high-velocity guns (8.8 cm KwK 43, British 20 pdr, US 105 mm Gun T8, etc).
If what you want is greater explosive effect, why not go to a parallel line of SturmHaubitze? Replace the original long gun of the Panzerjaeger with the next-larger size of howitzer, just as the StuH 42 carried a 10.5 cm leFH 18 L/28 in place of the 7.5 cm StuK 40 L/48 of the StuG III. Although no such guns existed, something like a 12.8 cm StuH 45 L/30 or a 15 cm StuH 45 L/25 would fit nicely into the E-50 Panzerjaeger chassis.
Don S.

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Sat May 14, 2011 4:56 am

There was a proposal at the end of 1944 to replace the gun of the Tiger II with a 105mm/L70. However the idea had no follow up as the gun had separate loading. This required one man more in the crew and, therefore, a copmplete redesogn of the turret,

Schwerepunkt · Post by **Schwerepunkt** » Sun May 15, 2011 1:45 am

...the DickerMax had a 105mm high velocity anti-tank weapon and while only one or two saw action, the gun was very powerful. SInce it's weight is more reasonable than the 128/55, I think the 50-60 ton E50 would carry it.
It does seem though that the larger the unit type, the heavier gun is intended for mounting.
The 105 is heavier than the 88/71 and would be ideal for the new "medium" tank of the Wehrmacht.

TAMMY · Post by **TAMMY** » Sun May 15, 2011 2:48 am

The 1105mm of DickerMax was developed from the schwere 10cm Kanone 18, an L/52 piece. Like the original artillery piece, besides the standard HE it was able to fire an APHE Pzgr of 15,56kg at 835 mps credited with a Ã¨performance of 111mm /30Â° at 2000m. It had a separate loadng cased charge.

The 128/55 fired a 28,30kg APHE at 1000 mps credited with 200mm/30Â° at 2000m

Donald M. Scheef · Post by **Donald M. Scheef** » Sun May 15, 2011 4:43 am

In my opinion, if the gun on the Jagdpanzer E-50 is 10.5 cm, it is not the same as the L/55 fitted to the Dicker Max. This is based on looking at the photograph in GHQ's on-line catalog. The gun for the Jagdpanzer E-50 is stepped about half-way down the barrel, which is not true of that on the Dicker Max. Also, its appearance seems to be that of a greater length/diameter ratio. It does seem to have a muzzle break similar to that fitted to the 10.5 cm K18 on the Dicker Max.

Again, my opinion; an update of the 10.5 cm K18 with enlarged chamber for more propellent and barrel lengthened to something like L/65 or L/70. I would also try to make it's projectile unified with the cartridge rather than separately-loading shell and propellent so as to speed loading. The flexability of variable charges is not important for a direct-firing anti-tank gun and post-war experience showed that loaders can handle 1 105 mm shell and casing.

Don S.

sultanbev · Post by **sultanbev** » Wed May 18, 2011 4:31 am

I have the 10.5cm Kwk as 105mmL56 firing APCBC, HVAP, HE and APDS.
Purely hypothetical of course, but penetration in my games is:
APCBC: 22cm/500m, 20cm/1000m, 18cm/1500m all against vertical armour
HVAP: 32cm/100m, 29cm/500m, 26cm/1000m, 22cm/1500m all vs vertical armour
APDS 31cm/500m, 29cm/1000m, 26cm/1500m, 24cm/2000m all vs vertical armour

In comparison the 12.8cmL55 PAK44 has:
APCBC: 28cm/500m, 27cm/1000m, 25cm/1500m
APDS: 39cm/300m, 35cm/1000m, 30cm/2000m
all versus vertical armour. Reduce all by .866 to get values versus armour sloped at 30* from vertical, which some people insist on using.

The rationale behind the 10.5cm figures is that it is a slighter longer version of the NATO 105mm L7, so should be comparable, given that German WW2 guns always seem to have that "edge" in performance.

For what it's worth, I have the H&R JagdPanther II with superstructure at the rear, and have it with the 12.8cm gun, on 58t chassis, and frontal armour of 17cm including slopes. Speed 45kmh on road, 24kmh cross-country.

The GHQ E-50 JagdPanther I hadn't come across before, so I haven't developed stats for it. So I have added it as the same as above but with the 10.5cm gun.

Incidentally I have my GHQ E-75 "Tiger III"s armed with 12.8cm gun in some tanks, and 10.5cm in others. Some I received had no muzzle breaks, others did, so I separated the two, the ones with muzzle breaks being the 10.5cm variant.

As mentioned above, the 12.8cm armament is probably the more useful, given it's larger HE round, and just more umph when hitting Soviet heavy tanks!

Mark

Donald M. Scheef · Post by **Donald M. Scheef** » Wed May 18, 2011 7:50 am

How is the quality of the H&R JagdPanther II with superstructure to the rear? I like GHQ's detail, but would prefer the version of this vehicle with the shorter length..

Don S.

RaccoonEmpire · Post by **RaccoonEmpire** » Wed May 18, 2011 8:01 pm

Thanks everone for answering my question! I'm probably going to go with the 105mm stats, eventhough the 128mm was tempting.

Donald M. Scheef · Post by **Donald M. Scheef** » Sat May 21, 2011 2:45 am

Although not definitive, the fact that the recently announced Jagdpanzer E-75 (G-563) is specifically described as having a 128 mm gun strongly suggests that the Jagdpanzer E-50 should have a 10.5 cm gun.

Don S.

Jagdpanzer E-50 stats?

Jagdpanzer E-50 stats?

No, it is the

It all depends on the perspective...

Eye of the beholder, correct!

I am now convinced...