I could be mistaken Claymore, I know we've both made several alt-Pz.II's, it's just hard to keep track.
Alternative History Armoured Fighting Vehicles Part 4
- Thread starter Claymore
- Start date
Here's a quickie I did, enlarged the length and width of the Pz.II turret to house the 3.7cm gun but I can't say for sure this would work.
Looking at the pic now I think I should've raised the roof too.
Actually, you are right and I was being a bit of a whisky befuddled biff because not only have I drawn up a 3.7mm armed Panzer II StuG but I also have a half complete model made up! What threw me was the 3.7cm which, like most, I assumed was the KwK 36 or perhaps the PaK 36 whereas my drawing and subsequent model is based around the much larger 3.7cm Flak 36/37. Have had so much of the amber nectar this evening that I am now, strangely, once again sober! 😳🥃🏴😵💫🤡☠️☠️
Last edited:
A good weapon-choice for a re-purposed PzKpfW II would have been the Puppchen...or more specifically, two or four of them...mounted on a pivot at the balance point, with a pivoting gunshield protecting the notch in a fixed casemate.
Or maybe develop a larger-caliber variant of the Puppchen (~120mm?) so that the ammo would have more omnidirectional bang (and with notched-wire-wrapping, fragmentation) around the 15% of the energy that goes into the jet, so that a single ammo-type would serve both AP and HE needs.
Or maybe develop a larger-caliber variant of the Puppchen (~120mm?) so that the ammo would have more omnidirectional bang (and with notched-wire-wrapping, fragmentation) around the 15% of the energy that goes into the jet, so that a single ammo-type would serve both AP and HE needs.
I drew up a pic of a Pz.II with 4 panzerschrecks incased in an armoured box mounted on top and to one side of the turret.
Can't for the life of me find the pic now.
ctayfor
Monthly Donor
Sober! You've fitted a supercharger to your liver and twin turbochargers to your kidneys, haven't you, you cunning Scottish engineer.
Garrison
Donor
This is cool, and do remember that working well wasn't what I had in mind.
I am thinking this might suffer the problem that plagued the earlier models of the Panzer IV and StuG III armed with the long 75mm, being nose heavy and putting increased stress on the suspension. Also maybe to accommodate the bigger gun there's a bustle on the back of the turret intended to house radio gear?This is cool, and do remember that working well wasn't what I had in mind.
The idea that the transmission shouldn't be on the opposite end to the engine was a concept that Nazi German engineers struggled with.
Garrison
Donor
Yeah I have to admit I've been reading up on some German armour and still can't fathom the logic behind that design choice.
One possibility comes to mind: these handsome fellows.
The charmingly named Neubaufahrzeug, literally translated as "new construction vehicle", could be right up your alley. Descending from a couple of different cracks at an earlier design called the Grosstraktor (which itself is an obscure piece of tanklore, but you can read up on it here), the Neubaufahrzeug actually had (seemingly) enough momentum behind it as a project that it was briefly considered (not by Germany, mind) as being the actual Panzer V by Soviet intelligence (note that this was after the actual Panzer IV was developed - the Panzer "V" in this case predates the IV by three years or so; military intelligence is funny that way, as it isn't like they have the exact timetable of what came when, especially as Germany was trying to be sneaky with the thing and took photographs from different angles, etc). Five units were built, as well as two testbeds out of mild steel, and they ultimately ended up being little more than a propaganda piece, and the only one that ever went into battle was shot up by anti-tank rifle fire and lost a crewman. But if you ignore the benefit of hindsight, the "Panzer V" has some selling points to consider; it has guns for days in a good three turrets, including the same 7.5cm KwK 37 that we'd see on the early Panzer IV and the same 3.7cm that went on the Panzer III and three machine guns, including one in a rear mounted turret, whilst also seemingly (if Wikipedia is right) having the same on road speed as the Panzer IV of the day, so it isn't likely to get rejected for being too slow. Without the various lessons as to why multi-turreted landships probably aren't the best idea, the thing looks pretty sound by specifications alone. There's also the fact that the USSR is just over there, with the T-35 and T-28, which are fairly similar multi-turreted designs, and perhaps some element of "keeping up with the Jones" could be described to be in play if you wanted to use it in ATL; the Soviets have built them, so maybe some German officer goes "y'know what, they might be onto something with this" and pushes for the project. Else, you could say that a designer managed to get a sneak peek at the then state of the art T-28 before the Kama tank school closed, or something along those lines which you can use for in a story/timeline. There may be some exaggeration in this for comedic effect
But as Wikipedia helpfully describes, the thing has...problems.
If you wanted to be cruel with your evil idea, you could have the Neubaufahrzeug actually do a little better in its testing stage with reliability, leading to it actually getting accepted for mass production as the Panzer IV, pushed into an infantry support niche. A few hundred units later, refinement of the concept of a medium tank eventually leads to something similar to the historical Panzer IV as the new Panzer V, which has the advantages of being mechanically simpler to build and maintain due to having just one turret, making it easier to put together; useful for a country in the midst of building up for war. The older Panzer IVs/NBFZs are kept, as a tank is still a tank and Germany isn't exactly in a position to be picky, and when war comes, they're sent forth in their role as infantry support...
...only for their reliability issues to rear their ugly head once more, with issues with engines and front drive, all the bonus complexity that comes with a tank with three turrets, then the issue of being nearly ten foot tall and wide, twenty feet long, with a crew of six men in a metal box with 20mm of front armor and much less on the sides.
Does that qualify for being a bad enough tank, or is it outside the realm of possibility for mass production for you?
If they did have enough
It was apparently based on the notion that the track would have the upper run to go to shed stones and mud before getting into the sprocket and the fact that the initial weakly armored vehicles didn't need a rear transmission for balance, but the cleaning property was a misconception.
I have just downloaded a shitload of Aussie archives pertaining to the development of the Sentinel tank and its main designer, Alan Chamberlain, talked about how the issue was seen in the US and Australia. Chamberlain noted the following arguments in favor of front drive:
- cleaning property
- apparently less prone to track throwing (another misconception)
- separates the transmission, steering and clutch elements for easier access and greater simplicity than single unit designs in use by the British. I think this particular issue has more to do with the design of British transmissions and engine bays in 1941 (date of the letter).
With all that said Chamberlain himself admits this is what he heard in the US and he can't explain why rear drives were more prone to track throwing. He had little choice regardless as simplified M3 gearboxes was all he could expect and reworking everything for rear drive would have been too problematic. He did however care a lot about minimizing the drawbacks of front drive, definitely moreso than the Americans.
I will talk later about what I found in the Australian archives but they are really interesting, especially the observations made by Chamberlain and the British Purchasing Commission (BPC) on automotives and tank layout. The TL
R I could do is that after the Fall of France it seems tons of good Commonwealth tank designers started popping up and much more thought was given to simplifying assemblies as much as possible (specifically transmissions and hulls), using castings in very efficient layouts and looking for high power power plants. The Australians and Canadians with help from some French engineers who joined the BPC were going particularly hard here.I have the impression that British tank design was somewhat excessively insulated from discussions going on in the Commonwealth and North America.