Army equipment that should have seen service

Sorta, but not sure what that has to do with what you quoted from me.
What made you think I was talking about the Panzer IV rather than the III/IV?
I quite clearly stated:
"On a 1944 design meant to be able to do all the roles of armour in contemporary mobile warfare (ie the Panzer III/IV) it's completely unacceptable."

The III/IV was a napkinwaffe, it never left the paper it was drawn on. It was never approved, just proposed and a drawing created. Then it was cancelled.
Yeah, and that's the design that me and @BlackDragon98 were discussing, during which I pointed out that it using the Panzer IV suspension would have been a big weakness (especially since the III/IV would presumably be even heavier than the late model Panzer IVs which were already overloaded).
 
What made you think I was talking about the Panzer IV rather than the III/IV?
I quite clearly stated:
"On a 1944 design meant to be able to do all the roles of armour in contemporary mobile warfare (ie the Panzer III/IV) it's completely unacceptable."
Because in 1944 the Germans were using the Pz IV for that. One regiment of Pz IVs and one of V's per panzer division.

Yeah, and that's the design that me and @BlackDragon98 were discussing, during which I pointed out that it using the Panzer IV suspension would have been a big weakness (especially since the III/IV would presumably be even heavier than the late model Panzer IVs which were already overloaded).
The Pz III's suspension was rated even lower than the Pz IV. I think for the III/IV they were considering an interweaved suspension like the Panther.
I found pictures of transitionary test models of the Pz III with that in the Spielberger book on that tank, which fed into the Pz III/IV program. At that point though you might as well just go with the VK2401 MAN.
 
Because in 1944 the Germans were using the Pz IV for that. One regiment of Pz IVs and one of V's per panzer division.
Yeah, but it's not a new 1944 design. What's excusable (good even) on a 1936 design that has been up armoured and up gunned to serve as an interim tank while the next generation is rolled out is not excusable on a new 1944 design.

The Pz III's suspension was rated even lower than the Pz IV.
I agree, I generally think the III/IV was a waste of napkins.

I think for the III/IV they were considering an interweaved suspension like the Panther.
I'm sure that's one of the napkin designs. The wiki only ever mentions leaf springs though.
 
Yeah, but it's not a new 1944 design. What's excusable (good even) on a 1936 design that has been up armoured and up gunned to serve as an interim tank while the next generation is rolled out is not excusable on a new 1944 design.
K? It was used in that role though.

I'm sure that's one of the napkin designs. The wiki only ever mentions leaf springs though.
Yeah that's why I like to go to well regarded sources. Spielberger is about as good as you can get for the history of German tanks:
There is a section on the Pz III/IV that covered the interweaved wheel version.
 
K? It was used in that role though.
Where it provided an extremely unpleasant ride, inferior mobility compared to the medium tanks the allies fielded on both fronts, and, due to already being maxed out for weight bearing capacity, there's pretty much no further upgrade potential.

Again, fine as an interim solution, not ok on a new 1944 design.

One unified model, so no need for separate III or IV logistics train
Problem! The Germans in 1944 are keeping the IIIs and IVs in use because they can't produce their intended replacement fast enough to replace them all. While the III/IV maybe a wee bit easier the manufacture than the Panther, Germany still doesn't have the capacity to completely phase out the IIIs and IVs. So in reality it'd just add another separate logistics train to the Heer.
 
Where it provided an extremely unpleasant ride, inferior mobility compared to the medium tanks the allies fielded on both fronts, and, due to already being maxed out for weight bearing capacity, there's pretty much no further upgrade potential.
Source? The only difference in mobility the Pz IV had compared to say the Sherman or T-34 was track width and the resulting ground pressure.

Again, fine as an interim solution, not ok on a new 1944 design.
Sure.
Problem! The Germans in 1944 are keeping the IIIs and IVs in use because they can't produce their intended replacement fast enough to replace them all. While the III/IV maybe a wee bit easier the manufacture than the Panther, Germany still doesn't have the capacity to completely phase out the IIIs and IVs. So in reality it'd just add another separate logistics train to the Heer.
The Pz III was only produced as the StuG by 1944. They did that in 1943 when the Pz III with a turret left production.
Otherwise agreed.
 
I recall the Panzer III/IV had a pretty wide tracks.
Ground pressure should have been around 0.75 if it was made.
And the III/IV can be made into a StuG, just as the III and IV were both made as StuGs.
The Panzer III/IV would have only been useful to Germany if it replace the Panzer III and IV before the war.
After the war started, changing it would have been too big of a production disruption.
 
The Panzer III/IV would have only been useful to Germany if it replace the Panzer III and IV before the war.
After the war started, changing it would have been too big of a production disruption.
Exactly.

Now the VK2801/Mehrzweckpanzer would have been the way to go as early as reasonable (probably 1942):
Guderian requested it in June 1943 however and in light of the development cycle (planned to be ready in April 1945), it was cancelled.
 
Here's something that came across my mind earlier today after watching videos about the history of both the L85 and the rifle it copied in the AR 18/AR 180. The AR 18's mostly known as being the preferred weapon of choice for the IRA but what if the British, after testing a couple of examples from Sterling/Armalite, abandoned the bullpup idea after failing to get the EM2 into service and chose to purchase a license for Royal Ordinance to co-produce with Sterling a variant of the AR 18 to the standards the British Military wanted? The gun would have been arguably cheaper to manufacture than that of the L85, as well as it would have been lighter and more compact to carry in APCs and Helicopters than the SLR. On top of that, the British could have had input on upgrading elements of the design to their liking such as accepting of multiple scope options, how versatile they wanted the platform to be in terms of layout variants (ie Squad Automatic Weapon version, Marksman version, etc), and possibly even have the gun being re chambered to test the 4.85x49 cartridge the Brits wanted to use in the SA80 originally.
 
Last edited:
Source? The only difference in mobility the Pz IV had compared to say the Sherman or T-34 was track width and the resulting ground pressure.
Weren't the Sherman and T-34 faster? I know they both were on road and the T-34 at least was faster off road as well (having a hard time tracking down an off-road speed for the M4).

The Pz III was only produced as the StuG by 1944.
Weren't some still in service though running off existing stocks?
 
Weren't the Sherman and T-34 faster? I know they both were on road and the T-34 at least was faster off road as well (having a hard time tracking down an off-road speed for the M4).
Than late model Pz IVs? Sure, because it was overweight and weighed down, while those Allied tanks were 7 tons heavier with more powerful engines and within weight spec, plus were more modern designs at least 6 years 'younger' than the Pz IV.

Weren't some still in service though running off existing stocks?
Probably some survived into 1944. Doesn't mean they were making new ones though.
 
Errr, the Horniss/Nashorn was a Panzer III/IV chassis. It was 24 tons in weight. Both seem to negate the claims that the Panzer III/IV wasn't built and that it's suspension was useless over 18 tons.

The German transmissions, particularly for their heavier vehicles were based off of the same truck transmissions as the British used for theirs. So, they weren't all "garbage", nor was their suspension. Yes, the Panzer IV and deravitaves were weight limited but not to 18 tons. More like 30 tons. Yes, the interleaved suspension presented problems in the heavy mud/frost/snow of the Eastern Front but they also offered unparalleled movement for heavier vehicles on good ground. They would have been better going with the leaf suspension of the Daimler Benz Panther. It would have been simpler and easier to repair. However what the Germans most missed out on was time - time to perfect their designs. Something the Allies didn't lack.
 
Errr, the Horniss/Nashorn was a Panzer III/IV chassis. It was 24 tons in weight. Both seem to negate the claims that the Panzer III/IV wasn't built
Nein, the Nashorn was derrived from the Geschützwagen III/IV. The Panzer III/IV is a completely separate (and much later) project.

and that it's suspension was useless over 18 tons.
No one is claiming that.

Yes, the Panzer IV and deravitaves were weight limited but not to 18 tons. More like 30 tons.
No it was pretty much at its limit at 25tons. The Fins nicknamed the Panzer IVJ "shaker" because its suspension wasn't doing its job. The Panzer IV/70 was less than a ton heavier than that and it had severe issues that earned it the nickname "duck".

However what the Germans most missed out on was
Bogies. Existing technology, easy to replace, can carry a lot more weight than leaf springs can.
 
Last edited:
Errr, the Horniss/Nashorn was a Panzer III/IV chassis. It was 24 tons in weight. Both seem to negate the claims that the Panzer III/IV wasn't built and that it's suspension was useless over 18 tons.

The German transmissions, particularly for their heavier vehicles were based off of the same truck transmissions as the British used for theirs. So, they weren't all "garbage", nor was their suspension. Yes, the Panzer IV and deravitaves were weight limited but not to 18 tons. More like 30 tons. Yes, the interleaved suspension presented problems in the heavy mud/frost/snow of the Eastern Front but they also offered unparalleled movement for heavier vehicles on good ground. They would have been better going with the leaf suspension of the Daimler Benz Panther. It would have been simpler and easier to repair. However what the Germans most missed out on was time - time to perfect their designs. Something the Allies didn't lack.
The British and the Germans both had trouble with their engines and transmissions with their tanks. The Germans late war and the British early to mid war. Not that this was not a problem for the Russians and the Americans, too, but it was noticed by the end users and REPORTED in British and German records that they had those problems.
 
Nein, the Nashorn was derrived from the Geschützwagen III/IV. The Panzer III/IV is a completely separate (and much later) project.


No one is claiming that.


No it was pretty much at its limit at 25tons. The Fins nicknamed the Panzer IVJ "shaker" because its suspension wasn't doing its job. The Panzer IV/70 was less than a ton heavier than that and it had severe issues that earned it the nickname "duck".


Bogies. Existing technology, easy to replace, can carry a lot more weight than leaf springs can.
The Geschützwagen III/IV used the Panzer III's engine (Panzer III and IV had the same Maybach HL 120TRM engine), drive wheel, final drive and transmission and the Panzer IV's hull design, suspension, and road wheels.
This proves that the Panzer IV suspension system was fully capable of handing over 25 tons. The max it could handle was probably 28-30 tons.
The main problem with both the Panzer III and IV was it's shitty underpowered engine.

The Germans were fully capable of making a better engine yet they never did.
One solution would be to take one of the Argus aircraft engines and modify it into a tank engine, just like what the US did OTL.
 
This proves that the Panzer IV suspension system was fully capable of handing over 25 tons. The max it could handle was probably 28-30 tons.
Actually no, at 25tonnes it's just as heavy as the Panzer IVJ, which was noted to be overburdened.

The max it could handle was probably 28-30 tons.
Given the quite severe problems with the 25.8tonne Panzer IV/70 I really wouldn't want to push it to 28tonnes, let alone 30.
 
Given the quite severe problems with the 25.8tonne Panzer IV/70 I really wouldn't want to push it to 28tonnes, let alone 30.
More that most of the weight from the gun and armor were on the nose.

A front/mid engine and rear fighting compartment would balance that better, as was done on the III/IV Geschützwagen, and not on the 'Duck'
 
Actually no, at 25tonnes it's just as heavy as the Panzer IVJ, which was noted to be overburdened.
There is a solution.

Given the quite severe problems with the 25.8tonne Panzer IV/70 I really wouldn't want to push it to 28tonnes, let alone 30.
1588605291657.png


Kind of makes for a difficult to maintain throwaway tank if not designed for the application. Might have been nicer with rear sprocket drive but then that drives one into this...
1588605799398.png




That was where the Germans were going to end if they pushed a PZKWIII/IV evolution of their own. They went for the Panther and screwed up.
 
Last edited:
Top