German Army (Heer) 1930s sanity options

You know the drill :)
The choices are allowed also for start of 1940s, for obvious resons. Points of interest include infantry gear (both wepons and non-wepons), artillery (field, AT, light AAA) and vehicles (whether armored or not; wheeled, tracked, half-tracks). Tactics, 'soft' parameters like logistics etc.
 
With a Pod of lutz and Guderian meeting Hitler in a train cabin for a long trip connecting munich and Berlin and really getting each others greatest fans: 1933 Opel, henschel and daimler Benz establishes hygge tractor plants with US equipment for the modernization of the german Agricultural sector.
Guderian gets his wish and with a focus on mobility and rubber sparing, torsion bars and interleaved or overlapping wheels are chosen day 1 (the reason are good enough, but the major effect is a system capable of carrying heavy loads chosen day one.
With this in place, an elite Corps (panzer divisions) is made based on full mecanization. Eg self-propeller artillery, AA etc. As the infantry is mobile and drive to combat, an emphasis of short range firepower is clear. Leads to the assault rifle for this elite corps.
The fuel projections ate quite severe, so Hitler decides to harness massive strategic reserves of Oil (by far the simplest solution for a few Quick campaigns), to supplement synthetic fuels as OTL.
 
Developing some military-grade diesel engines should've improved the mileage of thousands of military vehicles.
Infantry amament: either self-loading (but of realistic desings) or assault rifle, or both. SMGs also, as in OTL. Belt-fed MGs are German's forte, no change here. Mortars were also good, but don't wait for the Soviets to show the value of 120mm mortars.
Artillery: cut the number of calibers used. One 37mm round for light Flak, light AT gun, main gun of light tanks. One 5 cm round for medium ATG and tanks. Two, or three 7.5cm basic cartriges, eg. one from ww1, another for the L40.5 gun, third for L60 gun. Muzzle brakes all-around.
Have the 10.5cm howitzer and 8.8 cm field/AT cannon share the carriage. Erlier introduction of 12.8/12.7cm cannon, to accompany the 15cm L35 gun/howitzer, sharing the carriage. A 190 mm gun/howitzer, perhaps the 15cm cannon.
Light Flak: introduce the 60-rd drum for 2 cm, introduce the twin 2 cm, embrace the 3cm once available. Don't go for the 3.7cm round of low-ish power, choose something more powerful.
 
Refine the Vollmer M35 faster:

cI6L7Hp.png


Wouldn't change the war significantly, but should definitely help in reducing casualties, maintaining pace of infantry advances, and increasing efficiency in urban combat.



Get a simiautomatic rifle for the infantry.

Why bother when you can get a select-fire rifle?
 

Deleted member 1487

Refine the Vollmer M35 faster:

cI6L7Hp.png


Wouldn't change the war significantly, but should definitely help in reducing casualties, maintaining pace of infantry advances, and increasing efficiency in urban combat.


Why bother when you can get a select-fire rifle?
AFAIK the rifle wasn't particularly worthwhile due to expense and some undefined issues with the mechanism. Its the right idea in general, but the execution with this particular model was problematic, so the Wehrmacht procurement office moved on to the forerunner to the StG 44.

To OP's question clearly avoiding two 20 ton chassis designs would be beneficial, so only the Panzer IV chassis, not Pz III. Then replace it with the improved VK20 chassis.
Move to fixed price, multi-year contracting as von Blomberg wanted, rather than Cost Plus contracting.
Assassinate (or frame him for something) Goering so he's not running the 4 Year Program and screwing up so many things. Same with Udet.
I'd say also adopted the L40,8 75mm gun as a dual purpose cannon for the 20 ton chassis tank design, rather than having a special AT and HE pattern tank (OTL the Pz III and IV respectively). Also have rear drive designs for AFVs instead of front drive and make them shorter and less heavy. Also used frontal sloped armor earlier! Standardize on one pattern of trucks if possible like the Opel Blitz with diesel engines (use diesels with tanks too).

I'd say make a field gun out of the 88mm L56 too. I'm also partial to the 127/8mm L45 naval cannon getting made into a field gun instead of say the 105mm K18.
 
AFAIK the rifle wasn't particularly worthwhile due to expense and some undefined issues with the mechanism. Its the right idea in general, but the execution with this particular model was problematic, so the Wehrmacht procurement office moved on to the forerunner to the StG 44.
And evidence of this is? German Automatic Rifles 1941-1945 says the contrary:

The Vollmer M35 automatic carbine was the creation of one Heinrich Vollmer, and it ran along the lines of an earlier Vollmer self-loading design, the 7.92×57mm Selbstladegewehr 29 (SG 29), a design earlier rejected by the Heereswaffenamt. At this time, the German ordnance authorities were still somewhat suspicious – for no sound reason – of gas-operated weapons that tapped propellant gas directly off the barrel. Vollmer’s gun used a different form of gas mechanism, similar to the Bang system described earlier, with a gas-powered muzzle nozzle unlocking the bolt and pushing it through its recoil phase.

There seems to have been considerable promise in the Vollmer system. During early firing trials at Biberach in June 1935, it demonstrated the ability to eat through the contents of 20-round detachable box magazines at a rate of 1,000rpm, although the high ammunition consumption did not endear it to the authorities. Revised and improved models were produced later in the year, curing feed and ejection problems. In its A35/II version, the Vollmer rifle gave impressive performance during further trials in 1937, especially in terms of its reliability. Following rate-of-fire reductions to 300–400rpm, by early 1938 the Heereswaffenamt seemed to be considering adopting the rifle as an official weapon of the Heer. Testing continued to produce glowing results with the updated A35/II, but then in August 1938 the interest from the Heereswaffenamt stopped dead, with little explanation.

The Vollmer was essentially history’s first automatic rifle to fire an intermediate cartridge, and why development ceased is puzzling. Automatic rifles are certainly more complicated and expensive to produce than bolt-action counterparts, and war-production considerations might have been foremost in the minds of the Heereswaffenamt. However, the former director of Geco, H.G. Winter, after the war gave his thoughts on the reason:

The weapons developed by Vollmer in the years 1935–39 were excellent, and were especially attractive through their reliability, as was the ammunition. However, the responsible military departments at the time, by and large, did not recognize the uniqueness of this new type of weapon and ammunition, to have encouraged and recommended its further development by all means possible. Only General Kittel, who at that time still only held the rank of Major, had realized its importance. (Quoted in Senich 1987: 49)

From one perspective, Winter’s explanation certainly seems plausible. The combination of bolt-action rifle, submachine gun and machine gun that armed the Heer probably didn’t seem to have pressing problems when it came to killing people on the battlefield. Furthermore, the Germans had not yet encountered the combat advantages possessed by an opponent armed with a semi-automatic rifle; fighting against the Soviets from 1941 and the Americans from 1942 would remove this veil from German eyes.

In fact, 7.92x33mm Kruz came as a result from the Heereswaffenamt trying to continue to support development of automatic rifles, albeit with a focus on more realistic war-production costs. This means that it wasn't the gun that was problematic, it was the surrounding circumstances of political interference (just like how Adolf tried to kill off the MP 42) and the necessity of the upcoming war that killed the Vollmer.
 
To OP's question clearly avoiding two 20 ton chassis designs would be beneficial, so only the Panzer IV chassis, not Pz III.
I second that.

Instead of the smaller ZKW build a range of vehicles based on the Panzer I chassis. AFAIK the Vickers-Carden-Lloyd light tanks and tankettes it was descended from were built from commercially available parts and were intended to be inexpensive. IIRC from reading The Tanks Volume II either Carden or his rival Martel intended that an infantry battalion riding in their tankettes would cost as much to maintain as two "normal" infantry battalions.

Build the mid-range ZKW using the Panzer II or LT-38 chassis. I'm not so sure about how good an idea that is. They might cost more, but I thought it would reduce the variety of spare parts that have to be supplied.

Ditto basing the heavy ZKW on the Panzer IV chassis instead of developing a separate range of vehicles. I'm even less sure if that would be an improvement than basing medium weight ZKW on the Panzer II. Though like that it might make the supply of spare parts less of a nightmare.

Start the rationalisation of the motor vehicle industry to reduce the number of models in production 5 years earlier. It might not increase the number of cars and trucks actually built, but it would help with the supply of spare parts.
 

Deleted member 1487

Elimination of the panzer I as anything but training vehicle.
It had promise as a mortar carrier actually, not much different than the British universal tracked carrier system. Put a 120mm mortar on it and you've got a highly mobile artillery platform with the near equivalent firepower of a 150mm infantry gun.
 

Deleted member 1487

And evidence of this is? German Automatic Rifles 1941-1945 says the contrary:
This book?
https://www.amazon.com/German-Automatic-Rifles-1941-45-Weapon/dp/1780963858
There was a German book about German automatic rifles that I have (not with me ATM) that said there were issues with it. I think I referenced it last time this specific rifle POD was talked about.

In fact, 7.92x33mm Kruz came as a result from the Heereswaffenamt trying to continue to support development of automatic rifles, albeit with a focus on more realistic war-production costs. This means that it wasn't the gun that was problematic, it was the surrounding circumstances of political interference (just like how Adolf tried to kill off the MP 42) and the necessity of the upcoming war that killed the Vollmer.
Perhaps, what is the source your book gives for the Vollmer?

There is this version of events, which suggests the change in caliber was a problem, as was the complex mechanics of the weapon:
https://books.google.com/books?id=a...epage&q=Vollmer M35 automatic carbine&f=false
 
It had promise as a mortar carrier actually, not much different than the British universal tracked carrier system. Put a 120mm mortar on it and you've got a highly mobile artillery platform with the near equivalent firepower of a 150mm infantry gun.

Can i rewrite eliminate the panzer 1 machine gun tank in its current form. It's more the machine gun tank that annoys me.

And how are you going to make up for the deficit of vehicles?

Either replace the construction with additional construction for panzer ii or later or redesign it so that it carries a heavier weapon or is used as a mortar carrier or fulfils a more useful purpose.
 

Deleted member 1487

Either replace the construction with additional construction for panzer ii or later or redesign it so that it carries a heavier weapon or is used as a mortar carrier or fulfils a more useful purpose.
Agreed. Either Wespe or Grille artillery system.
 
This book?
https://www.amazon.com/German-Automatic-Rifles-1941-45-Weapon/dp/1780963858
There was a German book about German automatic rifles that I have (not with me ATM) that said there were issues with it. I think I referenced it last time this specific rifle POD was talked about.

Maybe it's about how the Bang-style design wasn't as good as gas operations. It's not a big flaw, and I figure if there was more investment in the concept, there might have been changes which would make things easier to manufacture and whatnot. It's like how the Garand progressed from a similar system to what we know it as.
 

Deleted member 1487

Maybe it's about how the Bang-style design wasn't as good as gas operations. It's not a big flaw, and I figure if there was more investment in the concept, there might have been changes which would make things easier to manufacture and whatnot. It's like how the Garand progressed from a similar system to what we know it as.
The Bang system was a gas operated one. The problem noted in the last thread on the Vollmer was that such as system was too problematic and none survived to the modern era. At a certain point it's just better to start over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1922_Bang_rifle
This too had a series of issues relating to the complexity of the gas operating system.
 
Un-armored vehicles:
Standardize on just several models of trucks. Half-tracks are fine, but make them as simple as possible.
Tanks/AFVs:
A simple tracked chassis, front engine besides the driver. The 20mm auto-cannon or 37mm single-shot weapon is mandatory in tank role. The Vickers light tanks can serve as model here. See whether 20mm can fit in Flak set-up. The APC in stretched version.
As a step ahead - a 10-12 ton tracked vehicle, same shape as the lighter one. 37mm minimum, but with 3 crew members in turret. Upgrades might include the 5cm in casemate, and 7.5 cm bigger gun in Marder shape. SP 10.5cm arty, heavy mortar, 15cm infantry gun. Twin or triple 2 cm, single or double 3 cm - space permitting.
A proper tank: aim at 20 tons initially, 'all rear' powerpack, the 7.5cm cannon in turret as big as possible, 8.8cm in Stug-like version, 12.7/12.8 or 15 cm in open-topped, reverse-drive version, five crew members in tank version, perhaps a double 3.7cm Flak version. Hopefully by now the diesel is available.
Big tank: 40-45 tons, similar shape as the 'proper tank', with 8.8cm (with 7.5cm L60 as backup), 8.8L71 in non-turreted vesion while trying to come out with a turret for the long 8.8cm, 12.7/12.8 in 'ISU-122' shape, plus maybe the German take on SU-152/ISU-152.
Above 50 tons: don't bother.
 
Instead of the smaller ZKW build a range of vehicles based on the Panzer I chassis. AFAIK the Vickers-Carden-Lloyd light tanks and tankettes it was descended from were built from commercially available parts and were intended to be inexpensive. IIRC from reading The Tanks Volume II either Carden or his rival Martel intended that an infantry battalion riding in their tankettes would cost as much to maintain as two "normal" infantry battalions.

Build the mid-range ZKW using the Panzer II or LT-38 chassis. I'm not so sure about how good an idea that is. They might cost more, but I thought it would reduce the variety of spare parts that have to be supplied.

Ditto basing the heavy ZKW on the Panzer IV chassis instead of developing a separate range of vehicles. I'm even less sure if that would be an improvement than basing medium weight ZKW on the Panzer II. Though like that it might make the supply of spare parts less of a nightmare.

Start the rationalisation of the motor vehicle industry to reduce the number of models in production 5 years earlier. It might not increase the number of cars and trucks actually built, but it would help with the supply of spare parts.
Is there merit in any of the above?
 
The Bang system was a gas operated one. The problem noted in the last thread on the Vollmer was that such as system was too problematic and none survived to the modern era. At a certain point it's just better to start over.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M1922_Bang_rifle
This too had a series of issues relating to the complexity of the gas operating system.
I specifically mentioned Garand because the gas-trap was how the rifle started. Just as Garand saw the light, a more vigorous pursuit by Vollmer might have resulted in a similar epiphany.
 
Top