Ideal German tank?

The Germans rarely had more than a few thousand tanks at any one time, so trucks and aircraft are going to be much more prodigious users of fuel than armored vehicles. Going beyond just optimizing the drivetrain of an existing design within given parameters of performance and reliability would probably be a false economy. You could lighten the vehicle by reducing firepower or protection, control fuel consumption by governing power, or select a smaller and more highly tuned engine for better efficiency, but you have to balance reduced capabilities, mobility, and reliability (respectively) against the resources needed to compensate for higher casualties.
Your right on all counts. But keeping panzer units fueled was a major problem. More Tiger Tanks were abandoned because of breakdowns, and just running out of fuel, than were lost in combat. Your right that the weight of the Tigers, led to many of the breakdown problems, but running out of fuel because of high consumption was at least as big a problem. I think a Tiger II had 2.5 X the consumption rate as a PZ. kpfw-4. Today the biggest complaint about the M-1A2c is its high fuel consumption gas turbine engine. They've been debating for years about replacing it with a more economical diesel engine.
 
The Germans rarely had more than a few thousand tanks at any one time, so trucks and aircraft are going to be much more prodigious users of fuel than armored vehicles. Going beyond just optimizing the drivetrain of an existing design within given parameters of performance and reliability would probably be a false economy. You could lighten the vehicle by reducing firepower or protection, control fuel consumption by governing power, or select a smaller and more highly tuned engine for better efficiency, but you have to balance reduced capabilities, mobility, and reliability (respectively) against the resources needed to compensate for higher casualties.
So you're saying that the tank fuel consumption was probably less than 10% or so of their aggregate fuel consumption? Do you have an idea what the fractions are for trucks, aircraft and non-military usage (e.g. tractors and so forth)?
 
XXX corps - which is the main assault force has 5 ID and an army tank bde but of 4 tank bn, one retained at corps one each with 1 SA, 9 Aus, 51 ID. 2NZ has a tank Bde of its own for its 2x 4bn inf Bde annd a bn of stuarts in the divisional cavalry bn 4th Indian has no attached tanks. 9 Australian has the Bn from corps but its own Div level RTR, the detached amd bn being subordinated to one Bde, Their cav Bn has crusaders BTW, 51 ID has its attached RTR from Corps.
Again not quite that whole truth..

As you mention

Infantry divisions had their own "cavalry regt", a RAC RECCE regt, until mid war when Recce Corps was formed. The sub units had mainly carriers and a single cruiser sdn.
(Eg 9th Aust inf div had 2/9 cavalry regt). It's role is reconnaissance, including its cruisers.

NZ is an outlier, 4th bde was transformed into an ARMD bde. Like many dominion independent formations, it " hovers" BTW british corps (operationally) and its native division (administrative). But while the history equipped with "cruisers" (shermans), was crewed by many "tank" trained crewman from 1st tank bde back in NZ, it is used as a tank unit in Italy, as their is little scope for true "armoured" warfare.
 
The original Churchill having both 3" howitzer and 2 pdr AT, was very much an slow ASSAULT tank. Not a tank on tank.
..................
The 2 pdr on all AFVs never really fitted with any doctrine the British had ( and in reality had none). 2 pdr was compromise with infantry to find a gun.
Is the 2pdr not fine tank on tank early war? It's just Dunkirk and the FoF disaster that slowed down 6pdr to replace it thats the issue?
 
The Desert is misleading for three reasons, one is Hobart who is away with the fairies which is why he was fired in the UK but gets to implement his wrong notions of warfare with Western Desert force, after OConnor who fights per doctrine is out of the picture and Wavell too distracted. The converted cavalry regiments had in fact been cavalry regments until the tanks arrived serving in Palestine unlike the regiments in the UK which had been armoured for years and then Compass works so everyone thinks thats all right then, until the Grown ups from
The irony of armoured warfare, it is written by converts from outside, and not cavalrymen. (Hobart was RE, Liddell Hart & Fuller Light Infantry, and Guderian Signals.)

RTR was the only units with "real" tanks ( mediums) and laid down many concepts, (eg shoulder aimed guns for mobile aiming in moving vehicles) but like mobile division, never lasted long enough to evolve a true Armoured penetrative, deep battle doctrine. But when cavalry converted, it wanted to play cruiser / horse, and wanted the RTR to play boring slow tank.

Hobart was an old man, but a brain ahead of the times. It was the old horse cavalrymen that were away with fairies. Cavalry charges with horses in modern warfare was dumb, with tanks dumber!

It is the 1941-2 reform of British Army, rewriting training and selection, that drags BA thinking into a modern all arms army. Especially the cavalrymen!!
 
Is the 2pdr not fine tank on tank early war? It's just Dunkirk and the FoF disaster that slowed down 6pdr to replace it thats the issue?
And how many 2pdrs does RAC have in France?

Not many.

1st Armd has one bde of lights (HMGs), and a cruiser bde (2 pdrs)
Tank bdes have mainly Matilda 1 (mgs) and a few Matilda 2 (2pdrs)

(Infantry have none, RA in AT regts, and TA mostly 25mm french)

The greatest threat to tanks is AT guns, which 2 pdrs have no answer. The HE round for it base fused, and a failure. It was too late to correct past Dunkirk. Again ironically, Australia developed HE-D for Matilda as bunkers were the main threat in the pacific islands.
 
Last edited:
Again not quite that whole truth..

As you mention

Infantry divisions had their own "cavalry regt", a RAC RECCE regt, until mid war when Recce Corps was formed. The sub units had mainly carriers and a single cruiser sdn.
(Eg 9th Aust inf div had 2/9 cavalry regt). It's role is reconnaissance, including its cruisers.

NZ is an outlier, 4th bde was transformed into an ARMD bde. Like many dominion independent formations, it " hovers" BTW british corps (operationally) and its native division (administrative). But while the history equipped with "cruisers" (shermans), was crewed by many "tank" trained crewman from 1st tank bde back in NZ, it is used as a tank unit in Italy, as their is little scope for true "armoured" warfare.

I was just being mostly compete including the tank armed cavalry Bn. Ofc while the role is recon, they are still tanks, hence the use in Op Bulimba which could count as a cavalry raid. My mainpoint though is the Attatchment of amd Bde to the ID being a clear part of British Doctrine.


The irony of armoured warfare, it is written by converts from outside, and not cavalrymen. (Hobart was RE, Liddell Hart & Fuller Light Infantry, and Guderian Signals.)

RTR was the only units with "real" tanks ( mediums) and laid down many concepts, (eg shoulder aimed guns for mobile aiming in moving vehicles) but like mobile division, never lasted long enough to evolve a true Armoured penetrative, deep battle doctrine. But when cavalry converted, it wanted to play cruiser / horse, and wanted the RTR to play boring slow tank.

Hobart was an old man, but a brain ahead of the times. It was the old horse cavalrymen that were away with fairies. Cavalry charges with horses in modern warfare was dumb, with tanks dumber!

It is the 1941-2 reform of British Army, rewriting training and selection, that drags BA thinking into a modern all arms army. Especially the cavalrymen!!

This is of course nonesense. Unless you are using schoolboys to develop concepts of armoured warfare every officer will have been originally commissioned in another arm of service and ofc there were no Armor officers in the US army during WW2. They were commissioned into another branch.

The reason for the shoulder mounted guns and aiming from moving vehicles is it works. Pre war testing had a 33% first round hit between 500 and 200 yards, and in NW Europe almost all engagements of WW2 were at 500m or less. Until the later 1930s, when the Army in the UK but not Hobo moves away from fire on the move there are no purpose designed AT guns. This is important the field artillery available has a traverse of about 4-6 degrees. So if you can move out of the very narrow frontal arc the enemy has to pick up the trail and move the gun. PAK 36 has 60 degrees, 2lb famously 360.

And being able to fire on the move does not make it mandatory. For the germans halt and fire was mandatory. But the German sights are different. You estimate range lay on the sight and then match the crosshairs on the gun traverse ( which is by spinning wheels) with the sight and bang. Its very accurate particularly at longer ranges where range estimation becomes important. If you are moving the movement of your own vehicle will throw off the sight so the gunner has to be stopped.

The British gun is balanced and light enough to be physically aimed by the gunners upper body, and up to 600 yards the scope is essentially a battlesight lay on and bang after that its graduated. That changes later but then the British don't normally fire on the move later on at AFVs.

The British in fact did develop an clear role for mobile forces thats what the mobile division is for thats why Montgomery refers to a Corps de Chasse and Alamein thats why Compass, why the Pursuit after Alamein goes on for about 1500 miles about double the distance from Warsaw - Moscow, thats why the pursuit after Normandy only stops when it runs out of fuel and at no point do they lose 5-6 whole armies because the enemy reserves can cut them off, the enemy reserves have been destroyed, See also Operation Diadem of for that matter the reconquest of the Ukraine in 43 and Bagration.

But in the end the whole of the British Army is mobile and armoured ( unlike the German or Soviet) and when you refer to Armoured warfare what you are referring to is either bewegungkreig which goes back to maybe 1670 and is most recently codified a couple of years before the Nazis come to power and does not include panzer divisions.

The Trotskite - Zinovievite fascist conspiracy of Deep Battle is not in fact approved in the USSR in 41 and really only used poetically during the war but practiced in the field- and derives from the cavalry experience of the civil war nothing to do with armour per se,

But the concept is basically - Deep Battle requires the first echelon – mainly infantry – directly supported by tanks and artillery to contact the enemy frontage, fixing them in place and preventing reaction to the second echelon – mostly tanks – attacking on a narrow frontage, creating a breakthrough. The exploitation/pursuit force then passes through the breach assaulting the rear echelon.

The failure on the soviet part up to lateish 43 is their failure to prevent reaction to the second echelon resulting in numerous tank armies being destroyed by the German reserves. Its not until they sequence multiple attacks which do suck in german reserves that they are able to launch a deep operation which runs to the end of its ligistics then stops.

To quote the fascist conspirator Tukhachevskii “ In mounting a penetration operation, the transition from breaking-in battle, to turning movement, must be carefully thought out and adequately planned. These offensive phases must follow one another without any gap in time, let-up in intensity, or hiatus in communication and re-supply.”

One of the differences between the British or Soviet perspective and the German is the Germans want to avoid the breaking in battle by maneuver and surprise that's kinda the whole point.
 
So with the knowledge that Germany learned through the war through its own tanks and the tanks of its enemies...
How would you think the Reich's perfect tank look like in 1945?
Now of course in 1945 the Reich was pretty much kaputt, so let us ignore those stupid restraints like resources or the war and and give the Germans the endless fields of the simple drawing board.

How close to a first gen MBT do you think it would be?
Anything that does not involve Hitler and his dream Tank projects.
 
quote the fascist conspirator Tukhachevskii “ In mounting a penetration operation, the transition from breaking-in battle, to turning movement, must be carefully thought out and adequately planned.
Charming.....

Are you dog whistling, quoting Stalin's description of Tukhachevsky?

Or another McPherson?
 
Last edited:
How would you think the Reich's perfect tank look like in 1945?
I'm thinking surplus Easy 8. :p

But that's not what you meant, is it?;)

If I had my way, it'd have the Panzer V hull profile and Panzer IV running gear, in a new chassis, with a 25 liter or so turbodiesel, driving the rear sprocket. I'd start with the 88mm L/71, with upgunning capacity to 105mm available at need.
 
The ideal late war German tank would be something like an AMX-13. Light so it doesn’t use much fuel. Fast so it can fight in many places on the same day, an autoloader reduces crew requirement, and an oscillating turret that permits a big gun in a small tank to take on almost anything.

It’s original 75mm gun was derived from the Panther gun and this type of turret first appeared on the Kugelblitz.
 
Last edited:
I'm thinking surplus Easy 8. :p

But that's not what you meant, is it?;)

If I had my way, it'd have the Panzer V hull profile and Panzer IV running gear, in a new chassis, with a 25 liter or so turbodiesel, driving the rear sprocket. I'd start with the 88mm L/71, with upgunning capacity to 105mm available at need.
What part of the Panzer IV running gear could support the 40+ ton weight of a tank that would be need to handle such a large gun?
 
I'm thinking surplus Easy 8. :p

But that's not what you meant, is it?;)

If I had my way, it'd have the Panzer V hull profile and Panzer IV running gear, in a new chassis, with a 25 liter or so turbodiesel, driving the rear sprocket. I'd start with the 88mm L/71, with upgunning capacity to 105mm available at need.
Something like this?
FVSq0Tl.jpg
 
The ideal late war German tank would be something like an AMX-13. Light so it doesn’t use much fuel. Fast so it can fight in many places on the same day, an autoloader reduces crew requirement, and an oscillating turret that permits a big gun in a small tank to take on almost anything.

It’s original 75mm gun was derived from the Panther gun and this type of turret first appeared on the Kugelblitz.
Not so sure...

Combat experience showed it was too light to serve as a medium tank. Both india and Israel used them as such, but quickly moved onto "real" tanks.

The auto loader is great, but only 6AP and 6HE, means a lot of time disengaging and reloading.

I would suggest such a AFV would be very useful to Germany as a very useful hull for many different support vehicles because of it front engine. A heavy APC/IFV for pzgdr, artillery SPG, and a Recce vehicle with a long 50mm with 2 X 9 drum autoloader??.

Instead of a turreted light 75mm, maybe a low profile tank destroyer with 75mm, like Hetzer might be better and cheaper??
 
Last edited:
Something like this?
FVSq0Tl.jpg
Something like this.....but

Have a more tiger 2 turret, with bustle and escape hatch at rear. Allows for some AP ready rounds closer to loader.

Not so worried about rear transmission. Tiger and co run their turret drives directly off the drive shaft.

A raised engine deck would protect the rear turret ring and allow a taller engine.

Unlike the standardpanzer concept, I would make the E-50 a "E-35" with 75mm, and the E-75 a "E-55" with 88mm as Germany's heavy tank in separate 500 bns.
 
Something like this.....but

Have a more tiger 2 turret, with bustle and escape hatch at rear. Allows for some AP ready rounds closer to loader.

Not so worried about rear transmission. Tiger and co run their turret drives directly off the drive shaft.

A raised engine deck would protect the rear turret ring and allow a taller engine.

Unlike the standardpanzer concept, I would make the E-50 a "E-35" with 75mm, and the E-75 a "E-55" with 88mm as Germany's heavy tank in separate 500 bns.
How about this old pic I did of an E-50 with the 8.8 KwK.43/L71?
E-50  w KwK43 L71 & Maybach HL-234.jpg

Non interleaved wheels, engine is the Maybach HL-234.
 
I was thinking something a little bigger than the Panzer 4 with sloped armor and the same 75mm that the Panther had.
Armor thickness of 70mm on the front, 50mm on the sides and 40mm on the rear
 
One issue the Germans have is their insistence of putting the transmission at the front, and unlike the Americans giving no easy way to get at it. This means changing the transmission can only be done at a depot, as it requires first removing the turret.
 
Last edited:
So if you can move out of the very narrow frontal arc the enemy has to pick up the trail and move the gun. PAK 36 has 60 degrees, 2lb famously 360.
Pak 36 combat weight 721 pounds
2 pdr QF weight 1795

the gun crew of the PaK 36 could roll it around without too much difficulty
not at all possible with the 2pdr
Now in the Pacific, the Marines used the 37mm offensively that way, rolling it forward to engage new targets by hand, err foot.
Front_line_of_Kwajalein.jpg
 
Top