1:72 Pegasus E-25

[Agis]

Latest paint job, the rather simple E-25 kit from Pegasus.
I added an AB crewman and some serious snow to cover the VERY basic tracks...


More pics on my website: http://www.agisn.de/html/20mm_german.html

[fairoaks024]

lovely work as usual Agis,

regards

jim

[Weird WWII]

Where do you get the IR rigs?

Brian

[Agis]

Where do you get the IR rigs?

Brian

Comes with the kit!

[former user]

do You happen to know a link with some more info on these vehicles?

[Agis]

During late war the German military leadership realized that previous tank designs were often too complex and had resulted in poor production rates and mechanical unreliability. Consequently the Germans were planning to standardize their AFV and tank production to as great a degree as possi-ble. Therfore a series of tanks and tank destroyers – the so called Entwicklungs-Serie (Development Series), more commonly known as the E-series - was proposed which would allow for maximum inter-change of parts. These AFV's were to replace all of the existing German vehicles making future tank production, maintenance and service easier and cheaper. The tanks were named by weight class. Therefore the E 10 was to be the German AFV in the 10 ton weight class. There were six weight classes planned, designated E-5, E-10, E-25, E-50, E-75, and E-100.
E-5
The E-5 was supposed to be 5-10 tons in weight and form the basis of a family of light tanks, recon-naissance vehicles, tank destroyers and armoured personnel carriers.
E-10
The E-10 design was developed as a replacement of the successful Hetzer tank hunter and the de-signs were based on it. The planned chassis would all be in the 10 to 25 ton weight class.
E-25
The 25-50 ton heavy E-25 designs were planned to replace all Panzer III and Panzer IV based de-signs. Most of these vehicles carried out roughly the same task but were different in design and con-struction. The E-25 would have rationalised them down to just one simple vehicle. The weight of the E-25 vehicles would fall between 25 and 50 tons.
E-50
The 50-75 ton heavy E-50 was planned as a standard medium tank – similar to today’s Main Battle Tanks - replacing the Panther and Tiger based tank variants.
E-75
The E-75 was intended to be the standard heavy tank to be used as a replacement of the Tiger II and Jagdtiger. The design would have been very similar to the E-50 – the hull was virtually undistinguish-able - but in the heavier, 75 to 100 tons weight class because of the thicker armour and bigger gun used.
E-100
The E-100 was to be a superheavy combat tank like the 'Maus', developed from an enlarged Tiger II chassis. It was even planned to use the same turret as the Maus. The E-100 even got off the drawing boards, but it only made it so far as a turretless, engineless chassis with a suspension. In 1944, Adolf Hitler cancelled any further development of the super heavy tanks and the unfinished E-100 was virtu-ally abandoned.

The E-Series program was conceived by Dipl Ing Heinrich Ernst Kniekamp, not only a capable, prolific engineer and good administrator but also the Chief Engineer of Waffenprüfamt during May 1942. In April 1943, Heereswaffenamt (Army Weapons Office) accepted his program and ordered many differ-ent manufacturers to start the planning and development of the Entwicklungs Serie. The companies involved in the E series were Klockner-Humbolt-Deutz of Ulm, makers of the Diesel powered RSO/03, Argus of Karlsruhe, Adler of Frankfurt and Weserhuette of Bad Oeyenhausen. They were to design respectively tanks in the 10, 25, 50, and 75 ton weight class. Adler were also directed to design a su-per heavy tank in the 100 ton class, which was actually built.

The Heereswaffenamt (Army Weapons Department) of the German Army became increasingly aware of the need to conserve materials and manpower as the war progressed. A development (Entwicklung, or E) program was started to investigate certain aspects of tank design, but using the design offices of engineering companies which had no previous experience of tanks.
The basic ideas were to save internal space, save time and effort, standardize parts and carry out research into gun stabilization. Why maximize internal space? A larger gun needs larger ammunition and related systems, and there was no room for further expansion in the current range of vehicles. Gun stabilization would give a degree of fire on the move capability and also alleviate trunnion loads as the tank travelled cross country. The designs were to not use torsion bars as these took up an inor-dinate amount of room, but have bolt on external suspension units, and preferably have the gearbox and final drive at the rear of the hull. These latter items were to be simplified where possible to mini-mize machining and gear cutting operations. This layout would have been somewhat of a compromise as tests by the Germans had shown that tractive effort was far greater with front drive, but the compo-nents were less vulnerable to anti-tank fire mounted at the rear and also gave greater internal space in the fighting compartment (this is directly opposite to the latest Israeli thinking which puts crew safety as the prime consideration, hence the Merkava has the engine and transmission at the front to act as armour). If possible plain bearings were to be used in place of ball and roller bearings.
Despite round the clock bombing by the Allies, production of tanks was actually at a very high level. However, the armed forces were scraping the barrel for manpower. Redundant Kriegsmarine sailors were being used as line infantry and the simplified production requirements of the E-series would have freed up a lot more men from the factories. It must be remembered that for ideological reasons the Germans did not use women in their factories except for some secretarial tasks, unlike their opponents Britain, America and the USSR who used female labour in tank, aircraft and munitions factories, re-leasing men to fight. In the Nazi scheme of things women were to be dedicated to Kirche, Kuche, Kinder, which means "church, kitchen and children". Instead Germany used inducted foreign labour from the occupied countries and slave labour from P.O.W. and concentration camps. None of these groups were exactly pleased to be working for their captors and the quality of the work suffered as a result.
Direction of the program was by Waffenprufamt 6 (WaPruAmt 6) under General H.E. Kniepkamp, a capable and prolific engineer and good administrator. A direct translation of this organisation is "Weapon test establishment, section 6". By the end of the war Kniepkamp had patented about 50 indi-vidual designs concerning track laying vehicles. The firms involved in the E series were Klockner-Humbolt- Deutz of Ulm, makers of the Diesel powered RSO/03, Argus of Karlsruhe, Adler of Frankfurt, and Weserhuette of Bad Oeyenhausen. They were all mainly component manufacturers, making things like engines, gearboxes and brakes for the larger concerns such as MAN and Daimler-Benz. They were to design respectively tanks in the 10, 25, 50, and 75 ton weight brackets. Adler were also directed to design a super heavy tank in the 100 ton class, which was actually built. The E-100 was to have had a turret practically the same as the Maus and was brought back to England at the end of the war, partially assembled, only to be scrapped later. (Military Modelling featured the E-100 in the June 1991 issue, written by Jonathan Roberts)
Adler was primarily a car builder but also supplied parts for half tracks, and designed the "A" and HK300 series of one tonne half tracks to be developed in parallel to the Demag series. These re-mained prototypes, no series production was undertaken. Later Adler was involved in the proposed replacement for the one tonne half tracked tractors, the leWS (leichte Wehrmacht Schlepper or light army tractor), which was usurped by the R.S.O. fully tracked tractor.
E-25
Argus of Karlsruhe had the task of designing the E-25; a low, well armoured and agile tank destroyer. It was planned to use the 7.5cm L70 anti-tank gun of the Panther and Jagdpanzer IV – The 7.5cm L70 anti-tank gun was a well proven weapon effective against all Allied tanks of the time. A planned alter-native was the StuH 42 10.5 cm howitzer to equip close support artillery units.
The suspension was to be externally mounted in a new way. The swing arm contained the spring and damper mechanisms, moving against a fixed crank on the hull side. There were to be five units either side, each one supporting a single large road wheel. These were offset and overlapped in typical German style, so the track guide teeth ran between alternate wheels, with axles of the same length using spacers to give the correct offsets. The road wheels would have been 1000 mm diameter resil-ient steel type similar to the 860 mm wheels for the late Panther G and the projected Panther F (not the 800 mm type from the Panther II or Tiger II). The springs inside the suspension housings were to be made from stacked Belleville washers with a central hydraulic damper. Each suspension unit was bolted to the hull side and bottom plate so it could be easily removed if damaged.
The hull armour was to be extremely well sloped – up to 45 degrees – which resulted together with the low silhouette in a very good protection against enemy fire. The roof plate would have been bolted to the hull as on previous German tank destroyers.
The engine was originally meant to be an Argus air cooled motor mounted transversally at the rear, driving an eight speed gearbox with hydrostatic steering, but this was probably not to be fitted straight away as it was still under test. Also designated was a water cooled Maybach engine of 400 HP, the extra 50 HP being lost through fans and pumps for the cooling system. Another alternative was the liquid cooled Maybach HL 230 P30 as fitted to the Panther, but this was probably to be mounted only as a test engine, being in production for quite a while and well proven. The 700 HP available would have given the E-25 a speed of 65 km/h. This amount of horse power coupled with the wide track would have made the E-25 extremely agile.
Even with the low silhouette the E-25 would have had a usefully sized fighting compartment, due to the transmission position at the rear of the vehicle and the external suspension units. It would have had much more internal volume than the Hetzer. Perhaps the only draw back would have been the length of the L70 gun barrel. Stuck right at the front of the vehicle it would have been prone to damage in built up areas, and from nosing into the earth when on the rough. This was initially seen as a major drawback to the Jagdpanzer IV Lang but careful handling circumvented the problem.
Some hulls were completed by 23rd January 1945 and were at Kattowitz ready to be moved to a prov-ing ground.

[former user]

thank You

could it be that these ideas made it into the first "Jagdpanzer" designs of the Bundeswehr, but with american parts?
are there possibly pictures?

[Agis]

thank You

could it be that these ideas made it into the first "Jagdpanzer" designs of the Bundeswehr, but with american parts?
are there possibly pictures?

Sorry, can't help here...

[Westfalia Chris]

could it be that these ideas made it into the first "Jagdpanzer" designs of the Bundeswehr, but with american parts?

I don´t think so, although the general design philosophy was certainly influenced by end-of-WW2 experience. Both the Jagdpanzer Kanone and Jagdpanzer Rakete used, AFAIK, running gear components of the "Schützenpanzerfamilie (Neu)" and a body inspired by the Jagdpanzer IV (whose influence is also visible in the above). Built by Rheinstahl-Hanomag. I don´t know if the gun (Rheinmetall 90mm L/40,4) used Nato-Standard ammunition.

@Agis:

Lovely piece of work, as always. I built two of them as well, but didn´t manage to get such a lovely result. The camouflage is splendid.

[Sangennaru]

that's lovely! but....... how does it manage to have snow only on the half of a track?  maybe it was a sunny day, than it falled the snow, and the tank moved for 5-6 meters forward and then stopped again!

[former user]

well, it is actually meant to be a "Halftrack" 

[Sangennaru]

well, it is actually meant to be a "Halftrack" 

[former user]

well, You do have a point here, but You could also regard it as the result of thawing the interlocking wheels, since they tended to freeze together.
The track would collect snow on the move, bot not necessarily the wheels.

Or the Krauts took this problem into account and provided the wheels with heating?

[Agis]

that's lovely! but....... how does it manage to have snow only on the half of a track?  maybe it was a sunny day, than it falled the snow, and the tank moved for 5-6 meters forward and then stopped again!

Yawnnnnn! 
Call it painters prerogative!