- crewed and maintained by children
- invisible from the air (matches invisible German airpower)
- consumes no strategic materials
- armoured with plentiful rubble
- water or air for fuel
- armed with magic gun that hits first time, every time.
Ideal German tank?
- Thread starter DUWANG
- Start date
You would need to do this:
and then graduate to this:
Watch out Beetle - I have right of way.
Yes, but note that the OP says:"ignore those stupid restraints like resources or the war and and give the Germans the endless fields of the simple drawing board." Which is what I was going for, a proper tank disregarding all else. Cause if we go for real-world 1945, nothing short of a BOLO is going to help Germany...
Not to debate StuG vs Tank as a weapon, but given the relative ease/speed of construction vs a tank, it’s the only way the Germans can hope to produce numbers to counter the Allies. So I’m thinking a German version of the S-Tank. Fast, low silhouette, shoot and scoot “sniper”. Also harder to spot from the air, which is very important. Maybe with the Panthers L70 gun?
ric350
ric350
Shoot and scoot vehicles are well and good, but turreted tanks are still very necessary for counterattacks, which remained a relevant part of German capabilities up to the end of the war. The Panzer IV, while useful, had reached the limits of its chassis, and as such a replacement was certainly called for.
Last edited:
Is that a Comet followed by a Centurion? (Or even a Conqueror)You would need to do this:
and then graduate to this:
Watch out Beetle - I have right of way.
I suspect a Centurion with the 75mmL70 or 88mmL56 would have suited the German desires. Though a Comet might have been better in some ways.
You need to look at the design dates really a tank in 1945 needs to start development in 43 at the outside, So the Maus may have production orders in 43 but the design process starts in March 42 or earlier, march is the contract date.
There are P4 replacements specced pre war in the 20 ton range but do not offer much, and shows how the German tank programme had gone off track already. The VK30 MN series evolved into P5 the VK30 D is the lighter faster version that only gets one prototype and is allegedly going to carry the L70 one day , maybe but we will never know. Both are rushed designs dispensing with the work done on the VK20 in too many ways.
If you do get it the VK30 D what you end up with is a 35 ton. 80mm armour that does 56kph which is basically a lightweight Sherman 76 or a revision to that as a crash programme to get a Volkspanzer into use as soon as, which is the concrete armour ( its a thing BTW) smoothbore 88, crewed by untrained old men and children.
A design date starting in 1941 could give you that as its light, mobile and the P5 is chosen instead and series production ordered in May 42. A lot of the reasoning behind the decisions seem to be speed of production after the design decision date of October/December 1941 to get a tank into production and that results in the Panther.
The relative cost of the Panther and P4 is about 14kRM difference, a VK30 is likely to narrow the difference so not fantastically cheaper nor a vastly inflated number.
After 43 the P38t, P3 lines are shifted to Stug/Hetzer production ( their version of the S tank) and after 44 the P4 line is Stug 4 and Jagdpanzer 4 so more cheap mobile AT weapons.
At no point are the Germans looking at an MBT, thats a British concept from 43 at the outside evolving out of the Medium and Heavy cruiser roles and the tactical utilisation of armour which is weighted towards attachments to infantry divisions.
There are P4 replacements specced pre war in the 20 ton range but do not offer much, and shows how the German tank programme had gone off track already. The VK30 MN series evolved into P5 the VK30 D is the lighter faster version that only gets one prototype and is allegedly going to carry the L70 one day , maybe but we will never know. Both are rushed designs dispensing with the work done on the VK20 in too many ways.
If you do get it the VK30 D what you end up with is a 35 ton. 80mm armour that does 56kph which is basically a lightweight Sherman 76 or a revision to that as a crash programme to get a Volkspanzer into use as soon as, which is the concrete armour ( its a thing BTW) smoothbore 88, crewed by untrained old men and children.
A design date starting in 1941 could give you that as its light, mobile and the P5 is chosen instead and series production ordered in May 42. A lot of the reasoning behind the decisions seem to be speed of production after the design decision date of October/December 1941 to get a tank into production and that results in the Panther.
The relative cost of the Panther and P4 is about 14kRM difference, a VK30 is likely to narrow the difference so not fantastically cheaper nor a vastly inflated number.
After 43 the P38t, P3 lines are shifted to Stug/Hetzer production ( their version of the S tank) and after 44 the P4 line is Stug 4 and Jagdpanzer 4 so more cheap mobile AT weapons.
At no point are the Germans looking at an MBT, thats a British concept from 43 at the outside evolving out of the Medium and Heavy cruiser roles and the tactical utilisation of armour which is weighted towards attachments to infantry divisions.
The British didn't see the Centurion as a Universal tank/MBT either. It was a Heavy Cruiser and was to have an Infantry version (A45).
The Daimler-Benz VK 30.01 seems to be mentionned a lot, so it might be worth addressing some misconceptions here:
- by the time the designs were submitted, the MAN Panther was expected to weigh 36 metric tonnes, while the DB was between 32 and 35 metric tonnes. The actual MAN Panther prototype weighed 43 metric tonnes. Considering the size and the fact that both tanks had the same armor specs, there is no reason to think that the DB Panther would have been any lighter than 40 metric tonnes, and most likely would have been heavier.
- the Maybach HL 210/230 became the preferred engine for both tanks since sufficient production of the MB 507 diesel engine could not be ensured. So same engine problems.
- Even discounting all of the other reasons to prefer the MAN design, the DB offer was a nonstarter because the turret needed to be redesigned and the tank was not compatible with the Rheinmetall turret used on the MAN. This meant that the tank simply could not meet the requirement for a start of production in December 1942 which outweighed any other argument.
So no, the Daimler-Benz wouldn't have been notably better than the MAN Panther and would have entered production even later which was unacceptable for the German leadership (not just Hitler).
- by the time the designs were submitted, the MAN Panther was expected to weigh 36 metric tonnes, while the DB was between 32 and 35 metric tonnes. The actual MAN Panther prototype weighed 43 metric tonnes. Considering the size and the fact that both tanks had the same armor specs, there is no reason to think that the DB Panther would have been any lighter than 40 metric tonnes, and most likely would have been heavier.
- the Maybach HL 210/230 became the preferred engine for both tanks since sufficient production of the MB 507 diesel engine could not be ensured. So same engine problems.
- Even discounting all of the other reasons to prefer the MAN design, the DB offer was a nonstarter because the turret needed to be redesigned and the tank was not compatible with the Rheinmetall turret used on the MAN. This meant that the tank simply could not meet the requirement for a start of production in December 1942 which outweighed any other argument.
So no, the Daimler-Benz wouldn't have been notably better than the MAN Panther and would have entered production even later which was unacceptable for the German leadership (not just Hitler).
The Swiss Panzer 58:
-35.1 tonnes (filling Germany's lack of a tank in the 30 tonne range)
-German 600hp engine (the Pz 58 used a diesel, but one of Germany's existing gas engines could be substituted)
-belleville washer suspension (cheap, easy to replace, intended for the E-series tanks)
-84-105mm gun (so the 88mm should fit fine)
Would need to be welded rather than cast which likely changes the geometry and specific weight, but I think it'd be a good model to aim for.
-35.1 tonnes (filling Germany's lack of a tank in the 30 tonne range)
-German 600hp engine (the Pz 58 used a diesel, but one of Germany's existing gas engines could be substituted)
-belleville washer suspension (cheap, easy to replace, intended for the E-series tanks)
-84-105mm gun (so the 88mm should fit fine)
Would need to be welded rather than cast which likely changes the geometry and specific weight, but I think it'd be a good model to aim for.
Last edited:
I agree, keep it Kiss
Keep the weight down to 35tonne
Spaced armour. Use poorer steels for cast body and turret. Use better steel for thick very hard outer (eg MBT 70 / LEO 1). Outer armour is more a decapping / yawing layer and tungsten core shatter, than HEAT protection.
Definitely, 75mm, probably L60, to keep shorter, better for forest and urban. Make HE long and slow, howitzer type shell. Uranium carbide APHC and SAPHE for lesser armour and bunkers.
Diesel engine. A jumo 205, 6/12 straight evolved into an inverted "V"6/12 or "V" 8/16.
Gives 600hp to 800hp. Keep the tiger fuel and fans, and run them by the two bottom cam shafts. Have raised rear deck like most modern tanks.
In German tanks, the 5th crewman is the radio operator, and considering radios at that time probably needed. Especially the MG, which was put back in Elephant after battle experience.
Every AFV. needed IR equipment for driver, gunner and commander.
Tank vs Stag.
These are complementary! Need Jagd version with 88 in every unit for overwatch. And a CS turret version with 150mm for smoke and bunker busting.
Every company needed a BMPT PLT with 37mm flak, and pz grenadiers to hold off air and secure vehicles against Russian masses.
The Germans rarely had more than a few thousand tanks at any one time, so trucks and aircraft are going to be much more prodigious users of fuel than armored vehicles. Going beyond just optimizing the drivetrain of an existing design within given parameters of performance and reliability would probably be a false economy. You could lighten the vehicle by reducing firepower or protection, control fuel consumption by governing power, or select a smaller and more highly tuned engine for better efficiency, but you have to balance reduced capabilities, mobility, and reliability (respectively) against the resources needed to compensate for higher casualties.
In theory, Germany could have applied its early mastery of fuel injection in aircraft engines to ground versions to reduce fuel consumption in gasoline engines. OTL the fuel injection programs were all too late to give anything in WW2.
Well depends on the date. The A45 Infantry support tank is later redesignated FV200 and Universal tank but then redesignated as Tank, Heavy No1.
The Universal tank role having already been filled by Centurion.
But the point is the entire concept derives from the British understanding of how to use tanks
For Germans all tanks are 'universal' because they are all in the PZ divs which are designed a a maneuver unit to rapidly encircle an enemy and compel his surrender. The only other Tank concept involved on their part is the Breakthrough tank which has a specific, limited and offensive role. Stugs are an artillery piece and Panzerjager are anti tank weapons conceptually they match the US TD corps and a lot of the doctrine and tactics are interchangeable - basically a tank force can concentrate enough armour to break through any conceivable AT defence ergo we need a fast response force that can bring massive AT firepower to bear once the attack has been identified
The British concept arises because in their model each Armoured Div would have one tank bde, and each infantry division would have, one tank bde. Err. The Amd Div is the exploitation force so its tank prioritises mobility and AT firepower ( like the German Pz Div) but the Infantry divisions have to both attack and defend so their tank prioritises protection and AT firepower - because the most dangerous thing on the attack would be a tank like thing and the British believe they can defeat any concievable armoured force with enough AT firepower integral to the division, because all divisions are mobile.
However there comes a point where the balance of mobility firepower and protection reaches a sweet spot so you don't need separate vehicles to achieve both goals which is the Universal Tank, and because you are using it in all phases of the battle it gets called the Main Battle Tank.
The German issue has to be understood by date. The P3/4 Replacement is started in 38 but by 41 its clear that this will not deliver something comparable to the T34 and KV types which are now proven to be feasible so ditched along with the design work on engines running gear etc designed around that weight class and order in early 42 work on a larger successor. But its early 42, the Plan for that year will result in the defeat of the USSR so while their might be defensive fighting in 43 the main focus will be on the west in 43 and more likely 44/5 on and primarily defensive.
Over the course of 42 its apparent that the USSR will not be defeated that year and it becomes urgent to try to replace the P3 and 4 and defensive fighting is more important The German ID do not have their own tanks, assault artillery is needed less and less for assault and what you need is something that can both act as an AT fire brigade and offensively when they will be counterattacked by large armoured units as that is what the panzer forces are about now.
The decisions around Panther are because they are trying to make something with what they can make now. So the interleaved running gear is standard for a lot of manufacturers, the engines are an attempt to get power out of existing machinery and sometimes its a bill of goods. Waiting on another set of designs means in 43 you are still fighting with P3 and 4 which are no longer capable on their own.
Not quite true.
The language gives you away. The armd division had ARMOURED brigades (ie cruisers) and infantry (corps) was supported by TANK bdes (ie infantry tanks).
Only later, did British Armd divisions be reorganised into "balanced" formations. A process Germany a lot went through. British inf divisions were pure for most of the war, except a finite period mid war, while trying out a mix with a 2 inf / 1 tank bde. This structure was a failure.
For most of the war, British infantry divisions had a ratio of one regiment (cav) / battalion (RTR) attached from a corps Tank bde. This being the Churchill for the second half of the war. The original Churchill having both 3" howitzer and 2 pdr AT, was very much an slow ASSAULT tank. Not a tank on tank.
The 2 pdr on all AFVs never really fitted with any doctrine the British had ( and in reality had none). 2 pdr was compromise with infantry to find a gun. The inter-war medium had a 47mm 3 pdr. RTR developed a lot of concepts of mobile warfare, while cavalry regts were still fighting to keep horses. But it was mechanised cavalry regts driving a lot of bad procedures of RAC. Especially in the desert. As said they ever truly had a functional doctrine.
As you said, the centurion was a heavy cruiser, ie for armd divisions. It became a universal tank, partially by default, as tank bdes were abolished, post war.
Ps Germans had Pz 3 & 4 for a reason. Pz 3 was AT tank (in 3 coy) and Pz 4 was the support tank ( in last company of bn). Tiger 1 started off as breakthrough tank, and served mainly in independent bns. They never had a true " universal " either.
Last edited:
The Pre war desired structure was for a binary division - its discussed in the 39 cabinet papers on rearmament the confusion arises because a) in the 1939 the division is not reorganised from its pre war structure it is however relabelled from The Mobile Division to the Armoured division.
While the actual reorganisation is later the intention is there from the start and the distinction between Cruiser and I tanks from the start as they are functionally different roles which cannot be achieved with the same vehicle at the time.
The problem with the armoured Bde Tank Bde distinction is its interchangeable and for example 21 Amd Bde in all its designations never serves within an amd div. 8th armoured Bde serves with 3 different Amd Div in North Africa but lands in Normandy as an independent Bde.
Theoretically but not really. For example at Alamein 8th army has 1 amd Bde of reforming units at Army level , X corps has the amd divs. 10th which operates with 2 amd bde ( the third with the NZ div) 1 inf Bde 8th has all its combat Bde detached elsewhere, 1st operates with 2 Bde ( and hammerforce) one each inf and amd.
VIII corps has 7th amd 44 and 50 ID. 7th amd has 2 Bde Group and a lorried Inf Bde. which comes from 44 ID. Another of 44 ID bde is with 10th Amd but it gets French bde Grp. 50 ID has 4 Bde, 2 British one each French and Greek.
XXX corps - which is the main assault force has 5 ID and an army tank bde but of 4 tank bn, one retained at corps one each with 1 SA, 9 Aus, 51 ID. 2NZ has a tank Bde of its own for its 2x 4bn inf Bde annd a bn of stuarts in the divisional cavalry bn 4th Indian has no attached tanks. 9 Australian has the Bn from corps but its own Div level RTR, the detached amd bn being subordinated to one Bde, Their cav Bn has crusaders BTW, 51 ID has its attached RTR from Corps.
The Mixed Div is a short term experiment, again before and after it was a 3 bde inf div with amd attachments, usually at least 1 bn per div but possibly more.
This is not neat it is however the British Army.
By 1944 in NW europe there are 8 non divisional Amd Bde Sized units, 5 with Shermans 3 with Churchills and while the Churchill is conceived of as an assault tank that requirement is dropped in 1940 and replaced with the A22 spec which is the Churchill but designated as a Heavy Infantry tank. But it exists as kind of a prototype noone likes much until it is discovered that its actually a heavily armoured mountain goat that can carry bridges and flamethrowers.
The British did have a very clear tank doctrine, lots everywhere with a few fast ones kept in the exploitation force and its in the pre war service regulations in which the 2lb fits reasonably well. What it does not have is enough tanks to implement it in active theatres until 43. One f the reasons for attaching the Tank Bn down to divisions is it adds a lot of armoured mobile AT guns to the attacking ID to deal with an armoured counterattack the British being confident that their artillery and infantry firepower would be able deal with the unsupressed machine gun.
Someone will say HE vs AT guns but any armoured formation that tries to duke it out with an AT ambush will lose, badly anyway.
The Desert is misleading for three reasons, one is Hobart who is away with the fairies which is why he was fired in the UK but gets to implement his wrong notions of warfare with Western Desert force, after OConnor who fights per doctrine is out of the picture and Wavell too distracted. The converted cavalry regiments had in fact been cavalry regments until the tanks arrived serving in Palestine unlike the regiments in the UK which had been armoured for years and then Compass works so everyone thinks thats all right then, until the Grown ups from England arrive and push them back onto doctrine. and destroy PAA in about a month.
marathag
Banned
They never seemed to come across the simple US method used in the M3 onward, to have a small engine what's now called an APU to charge batteries and run the radio without the main engine being spun up.
US had a long history using Pony or Donkey engines that way to warm up and act as a starter for the main engine.