AFV what if: Germans adopt transverse engine for Panther

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

I've been intrigued by the T-44 and the adoption by the Soviets of the transverse engine layout of all subsequent designs, which significantly lowered weight by shrinking length and height of tank designs. Though this makes the AFVs somewhat more cramped they reduce complexity by quite a bit compared to the Western European/American style of having a power train run under the tank to run the front drive.
Transverse engines also existed in car designs in the 1930s, so there is no reason that it couldn't have been applied to AFVs if someone wanted to try it.

Which brings me to my what if: Given that historically German designs had the issue with the front drive what if Daimler Benz when designing their VK20.01 entry decided to really cut weight and improve their design by turning the engine 90 degrees and leaving it perpendicular to the rear drive? Their entry had a rear drive already, which helped cut the height of the design due to not having the power train running underneath the tank. Which means when they move on to the VK30.02 their version then allows for a lighter, more compact design and could accommodate the historical Panther turret and wins the design competition. So the Panther ITTL is laid out like the T-44, so having heavy frontal armor, but the weight is only about 34-35 tons and thus not mechanically overloaded.

So how does this version of the Panther actually perform if it is mechanically reliable, considerably lighter, and simpler?
 
I'd say that It would've been a much better tank, since that means an affordable and reliable hard-hitter. 10 tons less does wonders for reliability, producibility, ease of towing away damaged tanks. It gets better mileage, not irellevant for German logistics, that are also helped now with catering for a tank that needs less servicing.
Sorta better armored & earlier Sherman Firefly, with extra crew member and better HE shell.
Shorter and smaller tank also means it is a much smaller target than OTL Panther. Also easier to conceal.
 
Last edited:
The wikipedia article is interesting. The design was treated skeptically at the time. I wonder if the Germans who could afford to take less risk (the Russians already had a T34 improving during the war) would be willing to take such risks.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T-44

Obviously 10 tons helps overall fuel consumption, probably means more survive the retreats (less getting stuck in mud, more bridges to escape, quicker servicing etc.). By 1944 there are just more tanks accumulating, especially on the eastern front. Allows the Germans to do a bit better here and there. If the Germans hold the Tizza river in Hungary December 1944, economically they are in better shape with the factories around Budapest still working. Perhaps in the west they can do a little better in Lorraine.

Off topic. The Soviets seemed just good at tank design, innovative, not what you think a inefficient commie bureaucracy could produce, but they did!
 

SwampTiger

Banned
I had considered transverse engine rear drives in other contexts. The Ansaldo Carro Veloce L3 series and the Lorraine 37L derivatives used transverse engines. Both appear to be front drive. The Ansaldo has the engine in the rear. The Lorraine places the engine in the center of the chassis. The Ansaldo especially failed to improve the efficiency of the layout. Simply moving the engine to the front of the crew compartment would have vastly increased the flexibility of the design.
 

Deleted member 1487

If there's one thing command economies proved to be actually good at, it's the armaments industry.
Not really sure that is true given all the non-Soviet examples out there. The Soviets seem to have done better than just about any other command economy in that realm and is probably a function of it being a successful part of the Russian economy pre-WW1, so there was a solid tradition of armaments development for the Soviets to build on. After all they did innovate quite a bit during WW1.
 
Not really sure that is true given all the non-Soviet examples out there.

The non-Soviet examples are rather limited though. Most WarPac command economies were restricted to copying Soviet designs by politics, since the Soviets didn't really want the WarPac states to develop independent armaments industries for... obvious reasons. The one exception was Czechoslovakia, which had loose enough restrictions to go with some of it's own designs... and also did a pretty outstanding job of it. Moving outside WarPac, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba did respectably enough given their countries size, resource constraints, and external issues. The Chinese example is a bit strange as Mao's buy into the People's War concept led to a relative de-emphasis on mechanized warfare that required such an extensive armaments-industrial base and the post-Mao leadership was more interested in moving away from command economy to build the economy with a view of reinvesting the gains from that economic reform into the military a few decades down the line (as they are doing now).

With that said, I could see how the success of Soviet command economy when it comes to their military-industrial complex probably does contain a degree of historical-cultural context. The idea that it was an aligning of the traditional strengths of Russian armaments industry with the quirks of a command economy that allowed the Soviet armaments industry to be relatively innovative and productive (in glaring contrast to the rest of it's economy) is a thesis I can get behind. One could apply it to the Czechoslovak example as well. That the Chinese lacked the same sort of industrial-armaments background in their history at the time the command economy was dominant is likewise a point in it's favor.
 
Hull will be just as tall since it's a Maybach, but will shrink the length some. slightly lighter, as the Panther really didn't have a lot for top, side and bottom armor on the hull

Finals drives will still be popping anywhere from 75 miles on up, , fuel leaks will be unchanged, unprotected ammo stored above the sponsons, and terrible visibility for the crew, excepting the TC.

Little change.
 

Deleted member 1487

Hull will be just as tall since it's a Maybach, but will shrink the length some. slightly lighter, as the Panther really didn't have a lot for top, side and bottom armor on the hull

Finals drives will still be popping anywhere from 75 miles on up, , fuel leaks will be unchanged, unprotected ammo stored above the sponsons, and terrible visibility for the crew, excepting the TC.

Little change.
The Daimler Panther was less tall due to the suspension system and used a different engine, a diesel, which was smaller than the Maybach used in the MAN design. So it weighed in at about 34 tons. Unlikely to be popping final drives like IOTL. Fuel systems may be a different story, who knows.
http://aviarmor.net/tww2/tanks/germany/vk3002db.htm
vk3002db_a1.jpg
 
Part of the Soviet advantage in tank design over the Germans was that in Germany, the Wehrmacht had very strong influence over all stages of production. That could produce a tank well suited to the actual needs of tankers, but it also meant a lot of tinkering, a lot of line stoppages, a lot of incompatible parts. I've heard the German tank industry referred to as "artisinal" before.

The Soviets, OTOH, had far less army micromanagement in production. Tanks would be built to a certain spec and mass produced on those lines. They could make greater use of efficiencies, gain line experience, and get more tanks to the front faster. So even though on paper the Germans should have been able to outdo the Soviets in tank production, their system couldn't even best the Soviet system in efficiency.
 

kernals12

Banned
I know that in cars, a transverse engine gives you more interior space for a given exterior size, so I guess it's a good thing for tanks too?
 

Deleted member 1487

Part of the Soviet advantage in tank design over the Germans was that in Germany, the Wehrmacht had very strong influence over all stages of production. That could produce a tank well suited to the actual needs of tankers, but it also meant a lot of tinkering, a lot of line stoppages, a lot of incompatible parts. I've heard the German tank industry referred to as "artisinal" before.
It was less that German military oversight created the less than mass manufacturing industrial base and more that the German economy was set up differently and was operating on what the civilian structure had created in the post-WW1 ToV restricted heavy industries. For one thing Germany is a quite small nation with exceptionally good infrastructure, so having huge factories where mass manufacture could happen as in the USSR or USA at the time was sort of unnecessary, as small subcontractors could easily get their subcomponents out to larger facilities very quickly, while in large countries like the US or USSR transport was over large distances, so you needed huge facilities in one place that did everything (or nearly everything) under one roof. Plus the German economy was designed to rapidly change it's production to service international export trends and simply could not compete against the US with it's huge mass production model. Furthermore the restrictions of the ToV meant that armaments manufacturing was still being rebuilt when WW2 started (they figured they'd be done rebuilding the industry in 1942 assuming there was no slow down in rearmament spending that was starting to hit in 1939), while the tariff wars of the 1920s-30s meant that the German economy was relatively stunted compared to where they were at relative to the other European countries and the US in 1914-18. All that coupled with army demands for quick improvements in models on the production lines at the drop of a hat meant that production was limited compared to other countries like the USSR or US, but generally they were producing much more reliable, longer lasting models than say the USSR (google the US army's report on the T-34 in 1942). The Soviets even turned captured German tanks into modified weapons for their own use due to how much more reliable they were than Soviet tanks in the first half of the war:
http://www.tanks-encyclopedia.com/ww2/soviet/soviet-su-76i.php

The Soviets, OTOH, had far less army micromanagement in production. Tanks would be built to a certain spec and mass produced on those lines. They could make greater use of efficiencies, gain line experience, and get more tanks to the front faster. So even though on paper the Germans should have been able to outdo the Soviets in tank production, their system couldn't even best the Soviet system in efficiency.
Not exactly the case. Their biggest advantage was simply having huge facilities where production was done under one roof and were given the order that output was more important than reliability due to how huge losses were; why build a harder to make, but long lasting tank when it's survival was measured in weeks? So due to being able to make effectively knock off versions of their own tank the Soviets could make a lot more than they even should have been able to due to being able to cut corners to ensure output. As the war went on and things stabilized Soviet production quality improved due to a variety of things including experience, lack of needed to cut quality at the expense of output, L-L aid (think machinery and even raw materials), and phasing in upgrades.

Also even on paper the Germans weren't set up to produce en masse like the Soviets were, so I'm not sure where you're getting that from. Hitler and various German officials marveled at the huge Soviet tank facilities they overran in 1941 that dwarfed anything they had. The secret recording of Mannerheim and Hitler from 1942 specifically mentions that; Hitler even apparently told Guderian in 1941 that if he had known intel on Soviet production was correct he might not have invaded.

The non-Soviet examples are rather limited though. Most WarPac command economies were restricted to copying Soviet designs by politics, since the Soviets didn't really want the WarPac states to develop independent armaments industries for... obvious reasons. The one exception was Czechoslovakia, which had loose enough restrictions to go with some of it's own designs... and also did a pretty outstanding job of it. Moving outside WarPac, North Korea, Vietnam, and Cuba did respectably enough given their countries size, resource constraints, and external issues. The Chinese example is a bit strange as Mao's buy into the People's War concept led to a relative de-emphasis on mechanized warfare that required such an extensive armaments-industrial base and the post-Mao leadership was more interested in moving away from command economy to build the economy with a view of reinvesting the gains from that economic reform into the military a few decades down the line (as they are doing now).

With that said, I could see how the success of Soviet command economy when it comes to their military-industrial complex probably does contain a degree of historical-cultural context. The idea that it was an aligning of the traditional strengths of Russian armaments industry with the quirks of a command economy that allowed the Soviet armaments industry to be relatively innovative and productive (in glaring contrast to the rest of it's economy) is a thesis I can get behind. One could apply it to the Czechoslovak example as well. That the Chinese lacked the same sort of industrial-armaments background in their history at the time the command economy was dominant is likewise a point in it's favor.
Basically yes. None of the communist states outside of those with a history of quality weapons production were able to take advantage of the command economy mass production model. Mao's China also had the serious problem of lacking an industrial base capable of producing mechanized warfare weapons/equipment, so only developed it from scratch and Soviet knockoffs. Going forward perhaps they will develop their own innovations, but thus far it doesn't seem like they've really broken from existing design paradigms.

I know that in cars, a transverse engine gives you more interior space for a given exterior size, so I guess it's a good thing for tanks too?
That was basically what the Soviets found with the T-44 vs. the T-34. Also they apparently first experimented with that transverse engine for the T-18 tank in 1928, which was an upgraded Soviet version of the French FT-17. Though only a small tankette, they were able to cut weight and get a better tank out of it, even if it was just an upgraded WW1 model. It gave them experience to use on making their own designs, which they then were also able to parlay into applying the transverse concept into the T-44.
 
Final drive will still be horrible due to material quality which was the main issue with the pather. New engine location will not fix that. You'll still have a ludicrously short amount of time between every time the thing has to come out.
 

Deleted member 1487

Final drive will still be horrible due to material quality which was the main issue with the pather. New engine location will not fix that. You'll still have a ludicrously short amount of time between every time the thing has to come out.
The material quality issues were the 1945 production models. The final drive issues in 1943-44 were more a function of being designed around a tank in the 32-34 ton range, not the 43-44 ton MAN Panther design. The engine location lowers weight and turning it so that it takes up less space means even less weight due to a shorter overall design. Hence the gains of the T-44 over the T34. I'm not sure what you mean about short time between it coming out...the Germans had been working on a 30 ton design since the late 1930s, so turned their work into the historical Panther design; the upweighting of the MAN design meant that the parts were not rated for the 40 ton weight class. The Daimler design, even potentially lighter here due to the transverse design, would be right in the weight class that the parts, including the final drive, were designed around.
 
not to provide a distraction but wonder how this would work in casemate vehicle? (and really out there, with a PAW weapon? just considering the low profile and weight savings)
 
Top