Germans adopt the Pz IV as their MBT in 1938

[Mad Missouri]

And in Post 1900 its usual to offer up a plausible POD; especially in a case like this where you have a sudden and radical departure from OTL and the expenditure of extra resources without any reasonable basis for doing so. So far your suggestions seem tenuous at best.

No it's not. Dozens of Post-1900 threads don't have plausible PODs. Some hugely popular. If we follow the tone of your comments there is no reason to have AH.com because history could have only gone the way it did. Having a person or group of people make a different decision isn't asking too much. All that's required is no aliens, magic, or geological changes. I see none of those yet.

There is no reason the Germans could not decided to focus production on a single tank hull design. Just like we saw with the Soviets who loved a mix of light tanks and heavy tanks in the pre-war years then switch to focus on the T-34 actually being in a war can change priorities.


I would image if the Germans did focus on the Panzer IV design it would have been built in two different versions before the invasion of the USSR. One a anti-tank armed with the gun from the old Panzer III and other an infantry support model armed with that short barreled gun. The Germans didn't have the doctrine for a MBT at that time so its IMO unlikely they focus on a single version.

 

[BlondieBC]

If the Germans can squeeze out some more transports and maybe a few more battleworthy infantry divisions, I think we could have seen the planned thrust up from Romania. If the combined strength and encirclements of AG South make support from AGC unnecessary, that could mean some big effects that may include the capture or at least ruin of the Moscow industrial areal

I don't think it is more division, but rather two infantry divisions converted to panzer units. And you get to the heart of any TL with a simple POD with lots of butterfly potential. How are decision made differently over the years? You can actually take one POD and move different ways.

 

[Alternate History Geek]

And prewar there is zero driver to go to such a larger more capable machine.

But again what's the driver.

There is a driver, if they decide that the early problems with the Panzer III are too great to justify keeping it in development rather than switching entirely to the Panzer IV.

 

[BlondieBC]

All true, but abandoning the Mark III would still offer considerable advsntages. Aside from increased production, the logistical situation would be simplified. Mark IIIs in 1940 often had to expose their relativvely thin srmour to get close enough for the 37mm to be effective. Mark IV would reduce this prooblem. The Panzer arm emphasised ergonomocs and distribution of labour for their crews, and the slightly lsrger Mark IV would have helped this. They would have also been able to store considerably more 37mm shells than a III.

Hitler initially favoered large numbers over quantity (hence the huge number of Mark Is), and this is a decision which, if it had occured to anyone) could have offered both.

We are reading Wiking POD differently. I am seeing mostly a common drive train and turret ring. So we end up with a Mark IV that is basically OTL tank with heavy front armor, weaker all around, and bigger gun.
We also have a second family of vehicles built for breakthrough. It will have balance all around armor, a smaller gun with more velocity, and probably a bit faster speed. It will weigh less. Probably about 50% common parts in 1940. Then Wiking is saying as the MBT concept emerges post T-34 appearance, we see the Panzer IV (Infantry Support) family of vehicles start to look like Panzer IV (breakout) family of vehicles.



Note: Been long time since look at nazi tank specs so may be making some detail of design mistake.

 

[sharlin]

What problems with the III? It was a successful and reliable machine for the time both mechanically and in regards to its equipment. And you'd be putting a support tank in the role of the main tank, and then end out with a 'heavy' tank with a dinky little gun on it.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

What problems with the III? It was a successful and reliable machine for the time both mechanically and in regards to its equipment.

It had issues with its suspension and drive train in the first several versions (the A-C series) before it matured and became reliable.

And you'd be putting a support tank in the role of the main tank, and then end out with a 'heavy' tank with a dinky little gun on it.

As BlondieBC said the chassis would be the same, but the armor level would be different. The early Pz IV's were under 20 tons thanks to weaker armor. It could be made into an exploitation model that would have less armor and the small gun, would cost less, and have the extra fuel and range of the Pz IV. Plus its not like the Pz IV couldn't be upgraded with a heavier gun as desired. Remember though, the Pz III was only 30 cm shorter than the IV's length, 18cm shorter in height, and had the same width.

The main differences were the suspension, armor, and IIRC transmission. Its the marginal greater size of the Pz IV which made it more upgradeable in term of turret ring, while the suspension and transmission could take more weight. Really its just a matter of standardizing the chassis for parts purposes and having two different types on different lines for different roles ('breakthrough' and 'exploitation').

 

[Somua2]

A fixation on terminology can really get in the way

What problems with the III? It was a successful and reliable machine for the time both mechanically and in regards to its equipment. And you'd be putting a support tank in the role of the main tank, and then end out with a 'heavy' tank with a dinky little gun on it.

They had a heck of a time getting the suspension to meet their satisfaction and therefore mass production was long delayed. It would be very easy to have a decision to concentrate PzIV with its simple, reliable and truly adequate suspension for now and try for torsion or some other more advanced suspension in the next generation.

I wouldn't get too hung up on terminology. MBT vs. SBT, support vs. main etc. The Pz III was in effect just a slightly smaller version of the PzIV with a different and ultimately, torsion bar suspension. It just turned out that little bit of extra space made a big difference for long term viability.

 

[Garrison]

Also looking at the development of the Panzer IV the Ausf A to D(1936-1940) had pitiful armour so I'm not sure how much of a tactical difference they make since they remain highly vulnerable to enemy fire and even with the 5cm Pak38 they would still have trouble with the armour on the Matilda and French tanks, in fact even the pak39 L60 has questionable penetrating power. The Pz IV of 1938 is not the same machine as the Pz IV of 1941. This is illustrated by the weight, which went up from around 15 tonnes on the first versions to 25 on the final ones.

On the Eastern front its still going to have the same problem as all the other German tanks did when the T-34 first appeared in the winter of 41; its going to be immobile and basically inoperative owing to the conditions and just as much of a sitting target as the Panzer IIIs.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Also looking at the development of the Panzer IV the Ausf A to D(1936-1940) had pitiful armour so I'm not sure how much of a tactical difference they make since they remain highly vulnerable to enemy fire and even with the 5cm Pak38 they would still have trouble with the armour on the Matilda and French tanks, in fact even the pak39 L60 has questionable penetrating power. The Pz IV of 1938 is not the same machine as the Pz IV of 1941. This is illustrated by the weight, which went up from around 15 tonnes on the first versions to 25 on the final ones.

On the Eastern front its still going to have the same problem as all the other German tanks did when the T-34 first appeared in the winter of 41; its going to be immobile and basically inoperative owing to the conditions and just as much of a sitting target as the Panzer IIIs.

No one is disputing that, I didn't in the OP either. Its the effects after the upgunning to 75mm that really matter, which is 1942 and on.

 

[Garrison]

No one is disputing that, I didn't in the OP either. Its the effects after the upgunning to 75mm that really matter, which is 1942 and on.

Well then again I come back to asking what the driver is for the change? Even allowing there were initial difficulties with the Pz III do those really override the issues of retooling production lines and the political infighting that would occur in the light of a decision to drop the Pz III? Given the Nazi record I can see a repeat of the Luftwaffe pattern of chopping and changing that leads to fewer tanks being available.

And by 1942 the Nazi's have already decided they need a replacement for the Pz IV so just at the time it might be beneficial if they had made a decision to standardize they throw it away. Bear in mind by that time its not so much the T-34 that worries them as the KV tanks and the Pz IV is just not seen as adequate to deal with them.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Well then again I come back to asking what the driver is for the change? Even allowing there were initial difficulties with the Pz III do those really override the issues of retooling production lines

There were no productions lines really for the Pz III until some time in 1938; until that point all units were pretty much custom built by Daimler-Benz. So its more a matter of setting up production lines for one or two different chassis.

and the political infighting that would occur in the light of a decision to drop the Pz III? Given the Nazi record I can see a repeat of the Luftwaffe pattern of chopping and changing that leads to fewer tanks being available.

The Nazi party had little/no involvement with the project; it was mostly military run at this point. Hitler was not CiC of the military in 1936-38 when the POD would come into effect. As it was IOTL the panzers were constantly being updated, but the basic chassis remained intact and mass production methods were much more utilized with panzers than aircraft.

Basically it was an army decision and assuming the suspension issues with the Pz III keeps going on for too long, then its not unrealistic to just see the military drop it in favor of the working design in the same weight class.

And by 1942 the Nazi's have already decided they need a replacement for the Pz IV so just at the time it might be beneficial if they had made a decision to standardize they throw it away. Bear in mind by that time its not so much the T-34 that worries them as the KV tanks and the Pz IV is just not seen as adequate to deal with them.

By that point the are going to produce the Panther and Tiger, but just as IOTL they didn't throw away the Pz III or IV chassis, as it had too many other uses. So by 1943 they are going to act as per OTL with regard to the Panther, but instead of ramping up Pz III and IV as they did IOTL in 1943-44, they are going to just have the Pz IV chassis to ramp up, which will scale better thanks to the production path for it being grooved in near isolation since 1938.

You can say the Germans decided to abandon the Pz IV in 1942, but IOTL 1944 was the peak year for Pz III and IV production:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

 

[Garrison]

There were no productions lines really for the Pz III until some time in 1938; until that point all units were pretty much custom built by Daimler-Benz. So its more a matter of setting up production lines for one or two different chassis.


The Nazi party had little/no involvement with the project; it was mostly military run at this point. Hitler was not CiC of the military in 1936-38 when the POD would come into effect. As it was IOTL the panzers were constantly being updated, but the basic chassis remained intact and mass production methods were much more utilized with panzers than aircraft.

Basically it was an army decision and assuming the suspension issues with the Pz III keeps going on for too long, then its not unrealistic to just see the military drop it in favor of the working design in the same weight class.



By that point the are going to produce the Panther and Tiger, but just as IOTL they didn't throw away the Pz III or IV chassis, as it had too many other uses. So by 1943 they are going to act as per OTL with regard to the Panther, but instead of ramping up Pz III and IV as they did IOTL in 1943-44, they are going to just have the Pz IV chassis to ramp up, which will scale better thanks to the production path for it being grooved in near isolation since 1938.

You can say the Germans decided to abandon the Pz IV in 1942, but IOTL 1944 was the peak year for Pz III and IV production:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_armored_fighting_vehicle_production_during_World_War_II

Which just illustrates the inertia at the heart of Nazi decision making.

I am still not seeing this making any practical difference. It's not as if there were going to be warehouses full of 75mm guns waiting to be fitted in 1942 and I don't think swapping guns is exactly a field retrofit so you still have Panzer divisions equipped with undergunned tanks that only get replaced as new models become available; the tanks are just Panzer IV instead of Panzer III.

I can't see it making a difference in France(hard for the Nazi's to do better), or the Desert campaign(logistics were the key and a tank that needs more fuel hardly makes things better), Barbarossa(weather is the decisive factor), Kursk(the German tanks were superior in fire-power anyway), or Normandy(again German tanks were superior and Allied air supremacy rendered it moot) and by 1944 in the East even an upgunned Pz IV isn't going to hack it as the main German tank.

And it isn't like the Allies couldn't have responded; in fact if certain tanks did worse sooner that might benefit the Allies overall.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I am still not seeing this making any practical difference. It's not as if there were going to be warehouses full of 75mm guns waiting to be fitted in 1942 and I don't think swapping guns is exactly a field retrofit so you still have Panzer divisions equipped with undergunned tanks that only get replaced as new models become available; the tanks are just Panzer IV instead of Panzer III.

The 75mm short was as effective at tank busting (with AP shell) as the 50mm long. Both weapons were effective still in 1942, its just that more of them will mean more firepower where its needed and lost units could be replaced much more quickly as needed. There will be a spare parts bonus too, which keeps more tanks in service that were hampered by lack of spares and logistic mismatching of spares with the right type of tanks needing them.

I can't see it making a difference in France(hard for the Nazi's to do better), or the Desert campaign(logistics were the key and a tank that needs more fuel hardly makes things better), Barbarossa(weather is the decisive factor), Kursk(the German tanks were superior in fire-power anyway), or Normandy(again German tanks were superior and Allied air supremacy rendered it moot) and by 1944 in the East even an upgunned Pz IV isn't going to hack it as the main German tank.

Barbarossa would see less German losses due to not having enough armor/armor replacements not being available.

1942 sees there being more tanks available after the losses of the winter of 1941-42, so makes a difference in terms of losses in 1942 and potentially with having enough armor around for Stalingrad.

In 1943 the major Axis problem was not having enough armor on the front lines. German production couldn't keep up with need and Guderian was struggling to keep up with attrition at the front; having thousands more panzers with the 75mm L48 gun is going to make a serious difference during and after Kursk. Panzer units which were effectively neutralized due to lack of replacements stay viable, while inflicting losses they weren't around to inflict IOTL. 1943 was one of the worst years for Soviet casualties of the war, so fighting in a period where they weren't as skilled at maneuver warfare, nor as well equipped as in 1944 will give the Axis a much better chance of inflicting crippling losses (for the year) and keeping the Soviets east of the Dniepr.

As it was the Soviets took nearly 900k losses around Kursk (during Zitadel and in the Soviet counter offensives) to 200k German losses, with another 1.5 million Soviet casualties in the Low Dniepr Offensive from August-December. The Germans committed their armor reserves to Kursk, which sucked in nearly 2/3rds of available armor, leaving everything else open to the Soviets, which is the major reason for their success in the aftermath of the battle (plus having the vast reserves of armor to spend at Kursk and everywhere else simultaneously). Having extra German armor reserves makes the Soviet advance after Kursk much more difficult and costly, while giving the Axis the ability to recover their operation armor numbers in the wake of major fighting, something they couldn't do IOTL.

By 1944 this effect escalates if the Axis can hold on the Dniepr in 1943. The West is still a major problem, as is the bombing, but the Soviets can be checked further East, weakened by the added resistance, and the Axis can avoid a sudden collapse like during Bagration, which changes a fair bit of the politics around the post war settlement in the East if places like Poland can liberate themselves, like Yugoslavia did. A weaker USSR in the post war makes it more difficult for them to enforce their will in Eastern Europe, not to mention might take them out of the equation in Asia, which changes a ton of things about the end game there.

And it isn't like the Allies couldn't have responded; in fact if certain tanks did worse sooner that might benefit the Allies overall.

Which would those be?

 

[oldironside]

By 1944 this effect escalates if the Axis can hold on the Dniepr in 1943. The West is still a major problem, as is the bombing, but the Soviets can be checked further East, weakened by the added resistance, and the Axis can avoid a sudden collapse like during Bagration, which changes a fair bit of the politics around the post war settlement in the East if places like Poland can liberate themselves, like Yugoslavia did. A weaker USSR in the post war makes it more difficult for them to enforce their will in Eastern Europe, not to mention might take them out of the equation in Asia, which changes a ton of things about the end game there.


Which would those be?

This is all very positive, but it would also mean that the death factories in Poland and elsewhere would be able to run for longer and even more German cities would be flattened by the Allied air forces.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

This is all very positive, but it would also mean that the death factories in Poland and elsewhere would be able to run for longer and even more German cities would be flattened by the Allied air forces.

That is true; I never said this was going to be a good outcome, just that it would change the course of events. Its the sad fact of any Axis benefit PODs that it generally means more death and destruction compared to OTL.

 

[oldironside]

That is true; I never said this was going to be a good outcome, just that it would change the course of events. Its the sad fact of any Axis benefit PODs that it generally means more death and destruction compared to OTL.

It wasn't meant as a criticism, merely an observation. Unfortunately Germany was in the grip of a gang of murderers who would quite happily have dragged the whole of humanity down with them. The carnage of the war itself post war situation were bad enough for the people of central and eastern Europe as it was OTL. Another six or eight months of war would be unimaginable.

 

[oldironside]

I used to wonder how stupid you had to be to do a duplicate post. Now I know.

 

[oldironside]

That is true; I never said this was going to be a good outcome, just that it would change the course of events. Its the sad fact of any Axis benefit PODs that it generally means more death and destruction compared to OTL.

It wasn't meant as a criticism, merely an observation. Unfortunately Germany was in the grip of a gang of murderers who would quite happily have dragged the whole of humanity down with them. The carnage of the war itself post war situation were bad enough for the people of central and eastern Europe as it was OTL. Another six or eight months of war would be unimaginable.

 

[Vjacheslav Malyshev]

The Pz4 as a MBT will probably butterfly the IS and the T-34-85 which will be replaced by the KV-13 as the standard tank of the Red Army.

 

[Garrison]

Which would those be?

Sherman and the British cruiser tanks.