Original Panther design kept

[Deleted member 1487]

We've discussed this extensively on a previous thread.
I'm one of those who thinks post war focus on mobile defence (notably works based on Halder's 50's biased studies) is overrated. But, IIRC, none of us moved an inch last time we discussed this in lenght, so I won't go there again.

Yes, I know, I just still am having a hard time with the series of small attacks being a viable option; nothing is going to stop the Soviet offensives so having up manpower and munitions for the big attacks to me is a better option than using it for moderate gains in small attacks, even if in aggregate they result in favorable casualty rates; they won't chew up enough Soviet manpower nor material to stop the big attacks.

Now as to mobile defense I don't mean it in the sense that it is usually used, rather I mean that the Germans should just fight stubbornly from strong points built up and supported by armor and just keep falling back as the pressure becomes too much to hold one line after another. Counter attack where possible and bleed the Soviets with long range aimed Panzer fire as they attack in waves, don't just try and hold a line at all costs.

don't think the Panther or Tiger had enough benefit to attempt the transition at the time, should have fought on with the Panzer IV.

launch a tank with diesel engine circa 1945-46 if they had survived.

build something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashorn using parts in widespread use, something the force knew how to repair, able to be towed away, etc.

Gudernian apparently was recommending something like this, but still wanted the light Panther to supplement the Pz IV. Also keep in mind the Panther wasn't replacing the Pz IV, but new capacity was being brought online that tooled from the beginning for the Panther. So it was either tool for just the Pz IV in the new capacity or the Panther; it seems to me if the light Panther is ready by 1943 it should start to replace the Pz IV as the MBT due to being much better equipped to survive against the T-34.

 

[NothingNow]

Gudernian apparently was recommending something like this, but still wanted the light Panther to supplement the Pz IV. Also keep in mind the Panther wasn't replacing the Pz IV, but new capacity was being brought online that tooled from the beginning for the Panther. So it was either tool for just the Pz IV in the new capacity or the Panther; it seems to me if the light Panther is ready by 1943 it should start to replace the Pz IV as the MBT due to being much better equipped to survive against the T-34.

The introduction of a New MBT would make more sense.
Particularly if that'd allow for more Pz IV production to go towards producing more StuG IVs, Jagdpanzer IV/70s, and Flakpanzer IVs (all of which would seriously reduce combat losses against the Western Allies and Russians,) while the Panther takes up the role as the premiere MBT.

Maybe even retooling a bit to produce a Light(er) Jagdpanther with the 8.8cm Pak 43 could be in the cards? That would provide longer-ranged Anti-tank support for the Panther units, and could also more readily replace the Nashorn and Elefant than the OTL "heavy" Jagdpanther, while still being absurdly mobile, and reasonably survivable if it has maybe 65-80mm of well sloped (55° off Vertical sounds good) Armor up front, and 30-40mm at 25° off vertical on the sides and rear.

 

[AdA]

Yes, I know, I just still am having a hard time with the series of small attacks being a viable option; nothing is going to stop the Soviet offensives so having up manpower and munitions for the big attacks to me is a better option than using it for moderate gains in small attacks, even if in aggregate they result in favorable casualty rates; they won't chew up enough Soviet manpower nor material to stop the big attacks.

Now as to mobile defense I don't mean it in the sense that it is usually used, rather I mean that the Germans should just fight stubbornly from strong points built up and supported by armor and just keep falling back as the pressure becomes too much to hold one line after another. Counter attack where possible and bleed the Soviets with long range aimed Panzer fire as they attack in waves, don't just try and hold a line at all costs.



.

Not so small. The model I was thinking about was the allied 1918 offensives. But there are really no winning options for the German side in Russia after the failure of Blau.

Defence in depth, then, rather then mobile defence. A much more valid concept, particulary from late 1942 german air superiority was no longer a sure thing.
An interesting scenario would be not trying to hold tunisia, rather evacuating NA after Torch and trying to win a major victory over the Wallies in Italy?
A revised Citadel either in favour of alternate offensives or defence in depth, allocations of freed LW units to Italy, no losses (in men, heavy weapons and critically aircraft and aircrews) in a futile battle in NA, etc

Defeating Overlord in the circunstances of 1944 is virtually impossible. Defeating Husky in 1943 might not be...

Of course since there was no chance of a peace deal with the Wallies it would only delay the inevitable.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The introduction of a New MBT would make more sense.
Particularly if that'd allow for more Pz IV production to go towards producing more StuG IVs, Jagdpanzer IV/70s, and Flakpanzer IVs (all of which would seriously reduce combat losses against the Western Allies and Russians,) while the Panther takes up the role as the premiere MBT.

Exactly my thought, but the Pz III chassis already filling that role, so it would probably start getting phased out. Miketr is working on trying to figure out panzer production numbers, so we hopefully can find out eventually what was produced where when and could have been altered. There were new capacities being added in 1942 and 43 that could have all been for the new Panther, while IMHO Tiger production should have been phased out by 1944 for more Panther production.

Maybe even retooling a bit to produce a Light(er) Jagdpanther with the 8.8cm Pak 43 could be in the cards? That would provide longer-ranged Anti-tank support for the Panther units, and could also more readily replace the Nashorn and Elefant than the OTL "heavy" Jagdpanther, while still being absurdly mobile, and reasonably survivable if it has maybe 65-80mm of well sloped (55° off Vertical sounds good) Armor up front, and 30-40mm at 25° off vertical on the sides and rear.

Yes, definitely.
This is based on the VK30.01 chassis, but its pretty similar to the eventual MAN VK30.02:

AFAIK the 80mm frontal armor with a 60 degree slope is possible without being too overweight either, as the 43 ton version above suggests (and lighter than the OTL Panther). An 88mm L71 should be possible too, as the OTL Panther was supposed to get it in its turret with the Schmalturm:

http://ftr-wot.blogspot.com/2013/02/the-schmalturm.html

If that is possible, then mounting it in the hull is definitely possible. As it was the original VK30.01 took the 128mm gun (which was too big, so the 88mm Long should be perfect).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jagdpanther
Pretty much it would be the same as the OTL Jagdpanther, just with a little less weight and perhaps less armor around the mantel.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Not so small. The model I was thinking about was the allied 1918 offensives. But there are really no winning options for the German side in Russia after the failure of Blau..

The situation in 1918 was much different than Germany faced in the East; the Soviets had a material and manpower superiority that the 1918 and even 1919 could only dream of. Germany at the massive disadvantage it was at could not launch a Allied 1918 style offensive, because they didn't have the 1918 Allies 2:1 if not 3:1 manpower superiority, nor a worn down enemy was that incapable of defending and holding ridiculous terrain. Really though Kursk was a replay of the 1918 Amiens offensive that got the British their first major victory of the 100 days campaign. So in effect Kursk WAS an attempted replay of the Allied 1918 offensives (at least the first one).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Amiens_(1918)

Defence in depth, then, rather then mobile defence. A much more valid concept, particulary from late 1942 german air superiority was no longer a sure thing..

Sure.

An interesting scenario would be not trying to hold tunisia, rather evacuating NA after Torch and trying to win a major victory over the Wallies in Italy?.

That's the only option on that front IMHO; reinforcing Sicily and Italy with the Panzerarmee Afrika instead of sending them to their doom would have been a better option, but Tunisia was a political move to keep Italy in the war; Hitler was rightly afraid that Italy would try and jump ship once Italy was invaded. Still, it just wasn't militarily feasible to hold NA, just as trying to hold the Don Basin was a bad move too by mid-1943.

A revised Citadel either in favour of alternate offensives or defence in depth, allocations of freed LW units to Italy, no losses (in men, heavy weapons and critically aircraft and aircrews) in a futile battle in NA, etc.

Very much agree. If anything as Julian pointed out in another thread, they should have signalled an offensive until July, called it off and used the time to build up defensive lines in Orel as per OTL, just without actually launching Kursk.

Defeating Overlord in the circunstances of 1944 is virtually impossible. Defeating Husky in 1943 might not be....

The Allies were certainly very worried about it. If the Germans had the right idea where Husky was coming it would have been a defeat IMHO. The trouble is to get Hitler to figure out Sicily is the target and which beaches.

Of course since there was no chance of a peace deal with the Wallies it would only delay the inevitable.

Sure, but the Germans of the time clearly did not know that. As far as a strategy for them that was the plan for the July 1944 conspirators.

 

[AdA]

When I refer to the 1918 offensives I am talking about the concept of launching a series of large scale attacks, but with limited objectives rather
than a single huge one.
The Germans didn't, of course, have an adavantage in numbers, but their qualitative advantage allowed them to aply enough pressure to achive local success and either keep the soviets on the defensive or force them into a premature offensive.

The one 1918 operation that is a lot like Kursk (on a much smaller scale, of course) is the attack on the Saint Mihel salient.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Rather than arguing which strategy is better, I'm very curious to see where you think would be a good place to launch limited attacks in 1943 by Summer. Maybe some May attacks near Kirov?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Okay, you are just ignoring my entire previous statement that the Northern part of the attack would be called off as per OTL when it cannot breakthrough.

Then it fails as per IOTL. The Germans are quite simply unable to hold Orel, with or without the 9th Army.

The only way to kill it is to bring it to battle. By continuing the fight the Germans can chew it up on their terms.

The Germans are going to run out of tanks well before the Soviets do. Kursk was a slugfest that favored the side with greater resources... which inevitably means it favors the Soviets.

Not really; the Germans were scoring a massively favorable armor kill ratio at Kursk.

Good for them. Doesn't change the fact that Soviet tank losses were eminently more replaceable then German ones.

Subtract the Panther mechanical issues that resulted in so many being overrun after they were broken down and unable to recovered quickly due to not being upweighted here and the ratio is even more in Germany's favor.

There will still be ever increasing amounts of mechanical breakdowns stemming from the fact that these vehicles will be thrown into constant combat for weeks and weeks on end.

Include better recon from the earlier introduction of the Panther and they don't hit as many if not any mines early on and the losses are even further reduced.

I don't see how this follows at all. Giving the Germans a more reliable tank somehow allows them to magically know where all of the Soviet minefields are? Including, apparently, the ones located behind the first line of defenses and the ones laid mid-battle? What?

What counterattacks are you referring to that were chewing up German infantry?

The July 17th Mius was only stopped by the commitment of forces that had previously been engaged in offensive operations in Citadel, the German infantry on their own were completely unable to stop the attack. Without a cancellation of Citadel, the panzer divisions are still engaged fighting through Soviet defenses.

What are you talking about? The German loss rate at Kursk was minor as I posted above. The Soviet's was totally unsustainable, especially considering how long it took to return the shattered Soviet armor units to combat readiness after Kursk.

The Soviets were constantly feeding in fresh formations. IOTL, the Soviet armored formations were rebuilt from armor drawn from the Soviet reserve armored formations. ITTL the front line armored formations would just be withdrawn to be reconstituted in the rear (or dug in amidst the considerable defenses still in front of the Germans) and replaced with the Soviet reserve formations. With 7 armies (including another Guards Tank Army) and 8 additional tank and mechanized corps still uncommitted, they have the resources for it. The Germans don't have any uncommitted formations.

So the German crews will progressively get more and more tired, suffer ever increasing mechanical breakdowns, and simply lose more and more tanks. This is not a recipe for either the Germans sustaining their kill ratio or achieving a victory.

In the meantime, the completely uncommitted Southwestern and Southern Fronts (the former of which alone has 8 armies alongside 3 mobile corps) are going to launch the counterattack at the Mius which the German infantry by themselves won't be able to handle...

Not if they can hold the flanks, which they did IOTL for the most part in the South until August, as they were butchering Soviet armor at Kursk.

The Germans were only able to halt the Soviet Mius counterattack by bringing back the forces that were previously engaged at Kursk.

German armor reserves will have already broken through at Kursk

It took the southern pincers from July 4th to July 12th to make it halfway through the Soviet defenses. The Soviet Mius counterattack was on July 17th. Applying this to ITTLs timetable: the Germans fight halfway through the Soviet defenses between June 24th and July 2nd. Assuming Citadel is not cancelled, they will only be approximately 3/4 of the way through the Soviet defenses on July 7th, when the Soviets launch the Mius counterattacks. At that point the Germans have two options: either abandon the attack to stop the Soviet attack or be cut-off and destroyed.

which means they won't be wasted being transferred around to the Mius river. Instead they can continue to attrit the Kursk armor reserves,

If the Germans don't bring back their spearheads to blunt the Soviet attacks on the Mius, then they'll be encircled and annihilated while still gnawing their way through considerable Soviet offenses. IOTL, cancelling the Kursk offensive allowed the Germans to bring back their armor and blunt the Mius attacks.

Earlier start means less AT defenses!

A 10 day earlier start affects precisely jack in the Soviet AT defenses. By the end of June, Soviet defenses were already so thoroughly dug in as to be impenetrable.

 

[Nekronion]

Rather than arguing which strategy is better, I'm very curious to see where you think would be a good place to launch limited attacks in 1943 by Summer. Maybe some May attacks near Kirov?

Not him but I might as well give my opinion.

One alternative would be:

Leningrad.

An offensive there would have several advantages over Kursk:

1. The Place is already cut off and starved and has to be supplied by transporting stuff across Lake Ladoga ,meaning little reinforcements (especially heavier stuff like tanks or supplies) from the Soviets would arrive. So a buildup like Kursk isn't really possible. Also the Luftwaffe would have a field day shooting all the slow moving boats on the lake.
2. The German Fleet can give Naval support to the siege.
3. A Soviet counterattack from the East would have to gather around the areas of Tikhvin and Demyansk, which if the map is correct would force the Soviet troops to attack Northwest into a swampy area with few major railways, so not exactly good territory for them to lead a counter offensive.
4. A moral and propaganda boost for the Axis, taking the "birthplace of Bolshevism" and the old Russian Capital.
5. The Russian Baltic Fleet would be either captured or destroyed during the fight, making the Baltic Sea an unchallenged German Lake till the end of the war. So no Soviet Subs wrecking havoc, if/when the Soviets retake the Baltics later on.
6. Bringing in Supplies is a lot easier for the Germans, thanks to the nearby ports, like Riga, Narva, Helsinki and Tallinn.
7. Taking the city would actualy free up a lot of troops (Both Finnish and German), that can be used elsewhere.
8. A succsessfull Encirclement would net at least some captured equipment both arms and whatever industry remnants are still there.

 

[thaddeus]

Quote:
Originally Posted by thaddeus View Post
don't think the Panther or Tiger had enough benefit to attempt the transition at the time, should have fought on with the Panzer IV.

launch a tank with diesel engine circa 1945-46 if they had survived.

build something like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nashorn using parts in widespread use, something the force knew how to repair, able to be towed away, etc.

""Gudernian apparently was recommending something like this, but still wanted the light Panther to supplement the Pz IV. Also keep in mind the Panther wasn't replacing the Pz IV, but new capacity was being brought online that tooled from the beginning for the Panther. So it was either tool for just the Pz IV in the new capacity or the Panther; it seems to me if the light Panther is ready by 1943 it should start to replace the Pz IV as the MBT due to being much better equipped to survive against the T-34.""

take somewhat opposite view, Axis should grasp production of tanks vs. Allied production and change strategy. build massive number of antitank guns, deploy them on any number on variants, towed, self-propelled, salvage any armored vehicles, etc., build the Nashorn (not that it is a great design but it used what they HAD.)

deploy the Panzerfaust and Panzerschrek on massive scale and a version of R4M rocket for use against armor.

all towards the goal of moving much faster than the Allies but having weapons that can destroy their tanks.

 

[ObssesedNuker]

Leningrad.

I don't think the Germans are very eager to get into another city fight after their experience the previous winter. Not to mention the Soviet troops are seriously entrenched, the terrain is unfavourable for armor even before you get into the city, and the routes for supplies and reinforcements over Lake Ladoga are well established even if they cut the land corridor the Soviets opened back in January. In all likelihood, the Germans grind themselves apart in the southern parts of the cities as a Stalingrad-redux while the Soviets happily launch offensives further south to clear the Germans from the eastern part of the Denieper.

 

[thaddeus]

Not him but I might as well give my opinion.

One alternative would be:

Leningrad.

An offensive there would have several advantages over Kursk:

1. The Place is already cut off and starved and has to be supplied by transporting stuff across Lake Ladoga ,meaning little reinforcements (especially heavier stuff like tanks or supplies) from the Soviets would arrive. So a buildup like Kursk isn't really possible. Also the Luftwaffe would have a field day shooting all the slow moving boats on the lake.
2. The German Fleet can give Naval support to the siege.
3. A Soviet counterattack from the East would have to gather around the areas of Tikhvin and Demyansk, which if the map is correct would force the Soviet troops to attack Northwest into a swampy area with few major railways, so not exactly good territory for them to lead a counter offensive.
4. A moral and propaganda boost for the Axis, taking the "birthplace of Bolshevism" and the old Russian Capital.
5. The Russian Baltic Fleet would be either captured or destroyed during the fight, making the Baltic Sea an unchallenged German Lake till the end of the war. So no Soviet Subs wrecking havoc, if/when the Soviets retake the Baltics later on.
6. Bringing in Supplies is a lot easier for the Germans, thanks to the nearby ports, like Riga, Narva, Helsinki and Tallinn.
7. Taking the city would actualy free up a lot of troops (Both Finnish and German), that can be used elsewhere.
8. A succsessfull Encirclement would net at least some captured equipment both arms and whatever industry remnants are still there.

THIS! better than fighting Soviet tanks on steppes.

if they finished Leningrad they could possibly carry out Operation Eisenhammer on the power plants between Leningrad and Moscow?

 

[ObssesedNuker]

better than fighting Soviet tanks on steppes.

Oh? How did fighting in a Soviet city turn out for the Germans the last time they tried it?

 

[AdA]

Rather than arguing which strategy is better, I'm very curious to see where you think would be a good place to launch limited attacks in 1943 by Summer. Maybe some May attacks near Kirov?

Considering the aim of the attack is to create conditions for the soviets to engage tank armies in counter attacks were they can be depleted, the possibilities would be Kirov (early May), Belgorod (late May), south from Orel(early June), South of the Donets (June), back to Kirov or Belgorod in July. Local commanders must understand that their aim is not to seize objetives, but to make the russian suffer large assymetrical losses while believing that they have foiled a major german offensive. LW assets must focus on decimating VVS fighter, attack and bomber units.
Ideally, once this is achived, the Germans should retreat to defensive line.

 

[Nekronion]

Oh? How did fighting in a Soviet city turn out for the Germans the last time they tried it?

Well the fight in Stalingrad was quite a different situation than it would be here.

For one the German troops wouldn't be as overextended as the troops in the final phase of Fall Blau, since the area covered by the hypothetical offensive is much much smaller and wouldn't outrun supply lines.

The Germans can apply at least some of their experiences from Stalingrad in the fighting.

The defenses in the South might be formidable, but the Germans can outflank them East (which cuts off Lake Ladoga completely) and North of Leningrad, where the defenses were much weaker.



So the Battle wouldn't end for the Germans like Stalingrad, but more like the first Battle of Kiev at best or the Battle of Sevastopol at worst.

 

[AdA]

Defensive lines

Here are possible defensive lines. Unless a retreat to the Dvina is considered, retreating to the Dnieper line does not shorten the front much. Of course, a planned retreat allows the whole area to be militarily "devaluated" (rail lines and bridges destroyed, etc)

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I should note that on the map there are only major river lines noted, which leaves out favorable potential positions. South of the Dniepr north of Crimea is the city of Melitopol, which is on a river IIRC, where the line can be held in a straight line, which prevents the extension of the southern bend

 

[The Mahnovite]

Surpisingly they were quite effective and pretty much indestructible in combat. Still IMHO the gun was what mattered, so the Nashorn, which also debuted at Kursk, was a more effective weapon, engaging the Soviets outside of any of their weapons' ranges and scooting before they were ranged in on. Same effect, far less mechanical issues and much easier to produce. Good enough until the Jagdpanther comes online in 1944. If used effectively both could be extremely deadly in the Orel battles on and the Steppe South of Kursk when the Soviet offensives against Manstein happen. Nashorns engaging Soviet armor spearheads at 2-2.5km will certainly be frustrating to deal with, not to mention the less mechanically reliable Panthers that can just be parked in the path of an armor column and shoot it up. At this point the Soviets only have a handful of SU-152s and ISU-152s, so they are unlikely to be present to match the Panthers, Nashorns, and Tigers in terms of range, especially once the front lines are breeched; then its up to the T-34 (not 34/85 yet), which did not fair well against any of the above due to being heavily outranged and unable to be effective unless at very close ranges.

This post from the cancelled Kursk thread opens up a really interesting question- where would the balance between individual tank quality and simplicity of production/ease of maintenance be, for Germany?
Obviously Elefants are unbeatable if they don't break down, but a broken down tank is no good. Germany obviously can't mass produce as much as her 2 biggest foes, so it does need a tough tank design that can achieve impressive kill ratios.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

This post from the cancelled Kursk thread opens up a really interesting question- where would the balance between individual tank quality and simplicity of production/ease of maintenance be, for Germany?
Obviously Elefants are unbeatable if they don't break down, but a broken down tank is no good. Germany obviously can't mass produce as much as her 2 biggest foes, so it does need a tough tank design that can achieve impressive kill ratios.

Losing vehicles to mechanical breakdown, especially on retreat where you don't have the same chances to recover and put them back in the field trumps toughness. Look at the number of Panthers, Tigers, and Elefants lost to mechanical issues in the retreats from 1943-45. Almost as many Tigers were lost to breakdown as combat causes; in fact due to the number of lost for reasons unknown mechanical issues may in fact have been more than combat losses.

Getting more units in the field and keeping them operational is better IMHO, which bled over to the Cold War where armor was actually secondary to firepower and gun control, due to new weapons making armor less effective. For the Germans ease of production and reliability would have been much more useful in 1943-45 due to the high quality of their guns that allowed long range engagement of Soviet forces, so having a lighter platform for the Panther's gun would have been ideal, as it would have been mobile, relatively reliable, and use the same weapon. Having hundreds more Panthers after July would have been helpful too, especially in the mobile battles after Kursk. Volume of fire matters too, so having more long range 75s replacing Pz IVs and the OTL Panthers would have more of an impact on the outcome than fewer more armored Panthers and more less armored, shorter ranged Pz IVs. Part of the issue is keeping the Pz IV around as the main weapon of the Panzer division; Panthers IOTL couldn't replace them due to mobility issues and lack of production; having a lighter one would mean more production and they could start phasing out the Pz IV as a turreted tank; even with a less combat surviveable weapon in terms of armor, having more of them and an improved MBT over the Pz IV would have actually saved more crews that would have perished fighting in the underarmored and less ranged Pz IV.

So IMHO the argument for heavy vehicles like the Tiger II, upweighted Panther, and Elefant fall short when the lighter Panther and Nashorn were just as effective in terms of main gun and were overall more effective due to less mechanical issues, greater mobility allowing them to stay active more, and of course greater numbers (90 Elefants vs over 400 Nashorns).

 

[hasdrubal barca]

The Germans should have just focused on production of the secret weapon.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kugelpanzer