Cost reduce the Mark IV Panzer

trajen777

Banned
Ive found data in the past but often it has been conflicting. Could you reduce the cost and man hour of production of the Mark IV or was their an inherent issue with the design. Also would this cost and man hour of production reduction have increased output or was the raw material supply bottle neck such an issue as to keep production down?

Thoughts - alternative design options : IE:
1. No Pz 3
2. Utilize mass production concepts(car plants / concept) vs heavy manf concept (Train production plants / concept)
 
Ive found data in the past but often it has been conflicting. Could you reduce the cost and man hour of production of the Mark IV or was their an inherent issue with the design. Also would this cost and man hour of production reduction have increased output or was the raw material supply bottle neck such an issue as to keep production down?

Thoughts - alternative design options : IE:
1. No Pz 3
2. Utilize mass production concepts(car plants / concept) vs heavy manf concept (Train production plants / concept)
My recollection is that by 1945 the PZ4 had been subject to considerable changes to reduce production costs ? So yes changes to the detailed design of the original versions could have been made earlier ?
 
My recollection is that by 1945 the PZ4 had been subject to considerable changes to reduce production costs ? So yes changes to the detailed design of the original versions could have been made earlier ?
Changes which made the turret traverse slower than grass growing.
 

trajen777

Banned
I guess what i am looking for is could the plans, if focused on a "continual product improvement basis " focused on ease of production and cost cutting allowed for more units coming off the production line at a cheaper cost ? Or was the unit inherently a custom production unit?
 
Well, one thing would be to simplify the Hull, like use the M24 as an example
M24_Chaffee-1.jpg

One upper glacis plate, with a large hatch to allow access to the diff and steering components, than the stepped plates with multiple flush-fit hatches and direct vision ports removed.
piv-ref2-1.jpg

That it's better ballistic-wise, is gravy.

It's far faster to put together
 
I guess what i am looking for is could the plans, if focused on a "continual product improvement basis " focused on ease of production and cost cutting allowed for more units coming off the production line at a cheaper cost ? Or was the unit inherently a custom production unit?
I believe you also need to specify if you are prepared to loose capability (ie deleting power traverse and if I recall correctly ? stereoscopic sights) in order to reduce costs.
 

Deleted member 1487

Well, one thing would be to simplify the Hull, like use the M24 as an example

One upper glacis plate, with a large hatch to allow access to the diff and steering components, than the stepped plates with multiple flush-fit hatches and direct vision ports removed.

That it's better ballistic-wise, is gravy.

It's far faster to put together
You can't just change the chassis like that without major production disruption and impact on the suspension from changed center of gravity as well as internal layout change.
 
You can't just change the chassis like that without major production disruption and impact on the suspension from changed center of gravity as well as internal layout change.
Not much change, really, going to one big glacis. Layout stays the same
Pic1.JPG
Mk IV Model
M24-Chaffee-Interior-Bronco-Verlinden-2735.jpg
M24 Model

The better slope of the Glacis lets a thinner plate protect the same as the thicker drivers plate
imgpz4h.jpg
It may weigh less than the OTL setup
 
In 1944 aluminum situation was very good with 455 thousand tons for production value.

1944 copper consumption was 219 thousand tons, they had a surplus of 452,000 tons and could have lasted to at least 1947.

In 1 June 1945 (chromium ore) stockpile was gone and chrome ore shipments from Turkey stopped 5 September 1944. The armaments industry would have shut down at the beginning of 1946 because of this.

Rubber production was no natural rubber, in 1944, and 104 thousand tons of Buna, a bottleneck.

This could require more manpower for factories as well.

Edited.
 
Last edited:
Gets us back to the old question, if it were so easy why didn't the Germans do it IOTL?
No one's said it was easy. Retooling factories can cause major delays. What should have happened is the Germans designed the Pzkw IV from the onset for quick production, meaning fewer plates for starters.
 

Deleted member 1487

No one's said it was easy. Retooling factories can cause major delays. What should have happened is the Germans designed the Pzkw IV from the onset for quick production, meaning fewer plates for starters.
Should have, would have, could have. What do they do when the war starts? They should have had rear drive AFVs, one 20 ton chassis instead of both the Pz III and IV, and started with a medium length 75mm guns.
 

Deleted member 1487

Where did the Driver hatches go? How do you get in the hull of that?

For delays, how much did Stug production do for the Mk III?
AFAIK the StuG III used the basic chassis without alteration and added an armored casement on top of that instead of a turret, which actually reduced production time by 25% without altering the basic chassis production line. As to the hatch I have no idea, that is a basic line drawing proposal.
 
Top