Army equipment that should have seen service

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'
Fair enough, though I still wouldn't want to push the Panzer IV suspension to 28tonnes
 
What does a torsion bar Sherman have to do with the Panzer IV's suspension?
One can start with a torsion bar Panzer IV which CAN take a 40 tonne load, and then one tries to fix the power train. That goes into something like the T2X program and then one ends up with an object sort of like the German version of the M26 that does not work and then loses the war. Or one goes straight for something totally new and ridiculous like the Panther and loses the war.

Note the end result in either case?
 
But do they chuck the towel in with the Soviets on the Elbe or the Anglo Americans in Berlin and the Soviets on the Oder? A relatively simple tank to produce could allow the Germans to have enough to slow the Soviet advance in the East enough for that to happen.
 
But do they chuck the towel in with the Soviets on the Elbe or the Anglo Americans in Berlin and the Soviets on the Oder? A relatively simple tank to produce could allow the Germans to have enough to slow the Soviet advance in the East enough for that to happen.
Hard to determine. The Russians were more tank reliant than the Wallies who emphasized artillery and tactical airpower more. The Russian front favored more tank centric type cavalry tactics structurally (space) and topologically (plains crossed by rivers until one hits the swamps in Poland.) but there is an argument to be made, that Stalin prolonged the eastern war by diverting nearly 40% of his combat strength into a Balkan Peninsula campaign of his own instead of walling the Germans in the Peninsula off and heading straight for Berlin. I am of two minds. The logistics target sets to me do suggest that the Russians do have to knock out Ploesti and do Romania. Maybe Hungary, too. If one goes that deep into the south, one might as well go for the whole enchilada. Just not with so much force and not into terrain sets where a tank centric army is going to be chewed up by infantry (Mountains down thataway, Sverdlov.).

I doubt a few hundred more "mediums" in Poland is going to save Herr Hitler or buy him much time, when the Russian tanks roll into Bucharest and Budapest and territories surrounding and turn off the oil tap.
 
Last edited:
I doubt a few hundred more "mediums" in Poland is going to save Herr Hitler or buy him much time, when the Russian tanks roll into Bucharest and Budapest and territories surrounding and turn off the oil tap.
It might buy the a couple of weeks which would give the western allies time to take most of central Germany, including Berlin, which would save untold thousands of German women and girls from being gang raped and worse by the Soviets.
 
It might buy the a couple of weeks which would give the western allies time to take most of central Germany, including Berlin, which would save untold thousands of German women and girls from being gang raped and worse by the Soviets.
Hosea 8;7 aside, will two weeks matter once the Wallies pull back to the Yalta Agreement lines?


17;00 onward. You will not like it, one bit.
 
Nein, the Nashorn was derrived from the Geschützwagen III/IV. The Panzer III/IV is a completely separate (and much later) project.
It bears the same designation and was a mix of the Panzer III and IV. It negates the points attempted to be made that the chassis was not up to the job.

No one is claiming that.
I was claimed in the post I was replying to.

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".
Who cares what the Finns called it. It functioned at higher weights than the claimed limit. The Brummbar was 28 tons. The Nashorn was 24 tons. Jagdpanzer IV was 25 tons.

Bogies. Existing technology, easy to replace, can carry a lot more weight than leaf springs can.
Leaf springs work, are cheap and easily repairable. Don't allow the best of things blind you to what works.
 
It bears the same designation and was a mix of the Panzer III and IV.
No it doesn't. The idea of mixing the III and IV is the only similarity between the two projects.

It negates the points attempted to be made that the chassis was not up to the job.
No, it really doesn't. At 25 tonnes it's the exact same weight as the Panzer IVJ.

I was claimed in the post I was replying to.
You didn't quote any post though.

The Brummbar was 28 tons.
And its suspension frequently broke down...

The Nashorn was 24 tons.
Which is less than the Panzer IVJ...

Jagdpanzer IV was 25 tons.
Ah yes the Panzer IV/70. As I mentioned, it's called the Duck for a reason.

Leaf springs work, are cheap and easily repairable.
So are bogies. There's a reason why pretty much all rail cars use them.

Don't allow the best of things blind you to what works.
Maybe a valid point if I was advocating for torsion bars. Bogies however, are another economy option.
 
Last edited:
Who cares what the Finns called it. It functioned at higher weights than the claimed limit. The Brummbar was 28 tons. The Nashorn was 24 tons. Jagdpanzer IV was 25 tons.
IIRC the Brummbar was heavily overloaded even with upgraded parts, but both it and the Nashorn used the Geschutzwagen III/IV, which was a modified bigger chassis than the Panzer III or IV.

The Jagdpanzer IV L70 was also quite the mess
Installing the much heavier Pak 42 meant that the Jagdpanzer IV was nose heavy, especially with the heavy frontal armour. This made them less mobile and more difficult to operate in rough terrain, leading their crews to nickname them Guderian-Ente ("Guderian's duck"). To prevent the rubber rims of the roadwheels being dislocated by the weight of the vehicle, some later versions had steel roadwheels installed on the front.
 
So are bogies. There's a reason why pretty much all rail cars use them.
Some Railroad Trucks used leaf springs rsther than coil, as leaf spring have inherent friction that acts as a damper. Coil and torsion bars really need external dampers.
RRs found that Volute Springs, like on the Sherman, acted like coil springsbwith the dampening ability of leaf springs
 
Last edited:
IIRC the Brummbar was heavily overloaded even with upgraded parts, but both it and the Nashorn used the Geschutzwagen III/IV, which was a modified bigger chassis than the Panzer III or IV.

The Jagdpanzer IV L70 was also quite the mess
I am not referring to the L/70 version but rather the L/48 version. It functioned at higher weights. QED.
 
No it doesn't. The idea of mixing the III and IV is the only similarity between the two projects

No, it really doesn't. At 25 tonnes it's the exact same weight as the Panzer IVJ.
Still heavier than the stated weight...

And its suspension frequently broke down...

Which is less than the Panzer IVJ...

Ah yes the Panzer IV/70. As I mentioned, it's called the Duck for a reason.
I didn't mention the L/70. You do and quite often. I was referring to the L/48 version.
So are bogies. There's a reason why pretty much all rail cars use them.
Who is referring to railway cars? I am not. Leaf Springs are cheap, easily repaired and easily replace. QED.
Maybe a valid point if I was advocating for torsion bars. Bogies however, are another economy option.
The enemy of good enough is always the better version. Germany was facing a total war. Leaf Springs fitted the scenario they faced.
 
Still heavier than the stated weight...
Of 25 tonnes? Because 25 tonnes is 25 tonnes...

I didn't mention the L/70. You do and quite often. I was referring to the L/48 version.
Which is a lighter vehicle and therefore indicates even less about the Panzer IV's suspension's ability to handle much over 25 tonnes

Who is referring to railway cars?
I'll get to that.

Leaf Springs are cheap, easily repaired and easily replace. QED.
As are bogies.

The enemy of good enough is always the better version.
Except leaf springs aren't good enough for a high performance vehicle approaching 30 tonnes.

Germany was facing a total war. Leaf Springs fitted the scenario they faced.
Nien. Specialized factories which were never fully staffed making vehicles in the 20 tonne range with industrial processes scaled up from the tractor industry is not the way to fight a total war. Train factories using their existing tooling and manufacturing procedures to cheaply and quickly produce cast hull tanks with strong, easily repaired and replaced, bogie suspensions is the way to wage total war.

Unsurprisingly the industry best suited to build tanks was the only one that built vehicles of the same weight class on a regular basis.
 
Nien. Specialized factories which were never fully staffed making vehicles in the 20 tonne range with industrial processes scaled up from the tractor industry is not the way to fight a total war. Train factories using their existing tooling and manufacturing procedures to cheaply and quickly produce cast hull tanks with strong, easily repaired and replaced, bogie suspensions is the way to wage total war.


Apparently stage coach makers can make tanks.

Unsurprisingly the industry best suited to build tanks was the only one that built vehicles of the same weight class on a regular basis.

Summary; Chrysler, to my knowledge, was not known for its locomotives.
 
Which is a lighter vehicle and therefore indicates even less about the Panzer IV's suspension's ability to handle much over 25 tonnes
The weight is unevenly distributed. The glacis and gun are disproportionally at the front of the vehicle in the L/70. Initially they had to replace the front bogies with all steel wheels to prevent wear. Later, stronger springs helped. The L/48 version doesn't have as heavier a gun but still has as heavier glacis. The weight difference is relatively minor (IIRC about two tons). It is still heavier than the indicated 20 tons. QED.
 
The weight is unevenly distributed. The glacis and gun are disproportionally at the front of the vehicle in the L/70. Initially they had to replace the front bogies with all steel wheels to prevent wear. Later, stronger springs helped. The L/48 version doesn't have as heavier a gun but still has as heavier glacis. The weight difference is relatively minor (IIRC about two tons). It is still heavier than the indicated 20 tons. QED.
You just described a bow plow.
 
Apparently stage coach makers can make tanks.

Summary; Chrysler, to my knowledge, was not known for its locomotives.
Yeah but Germany didn't have American magic.

edit: also, it's worth noting that both those factories still employed the aforementioned train manufacturing techniques rather than the automobile ones of their parent companies.
 
Last edited:
The weight is unevenly distributed. The glacis and gun are disproportionally at the front of the vehicle in the L/70. Initially they had to replace the front bogies with all steel wheels to prevent wear. Later, stronger springs helped. The L/48 version doesn't have as heavier a gun but still has as heavier glacis. The weight difference is relatively minor (IIRC about two tons). It is still heavier than the indicated 20 tons. QED.
Who indicated 20 tonnes?
 
Top