Probably the Panzer I and II or something, since they were the lightest.Which models (aside from the aforementioned Teutonic knight) were the most fuel efficient?
Nice diagram.Note that the Mk III Hull is wider, but doesn't have the overhang on the superstructure, and is shorter
For a unified tank chassis, you want as few plates as possible to speed assembly, so the hull shape is better on the IV, but make it to the wider III Width, and then have longer and short hulls as needed for the application, and leave off a suspension pair if needed.
The Germans wanted to avoid large castings, not sure why, as their RR manufacturers would have been set to do large pours for frames.Nice diagram.
Or simply the Pz3 glacis plate and rear...?
Over hang of Pz4 upper hull many adds more plates.
I would have cast the upper hull, turret and hull front, and added hardened de-capping plates.
Sentinel castings. I would not cast hull sides, rear and turret roof.
View attachment 699182
Would such a change impact tank productionThe Germans wanted to avoid large castings, not sure why, as their RR manufacturers would have been set to do large pours for frames.
Yeah applique armour often was either just welded on to existing hulls or holes were drilled and it was just bolted on. There was a lag for armour improvements to be incorporated into production line though. Fitting a bigger gun tended to involve changes in the layout of the turret that reset the learning curve and cost a certain amount of efficiency until the manufacturers learned the in and outs of the new design, same thing happened when new models of the Bf109 were introduced.Would such a change impact tank production
I used to have a good link to a website that listed monthly German tank production and events like changes to guns calibre etc were obvious by the reduction and then slow ramp up of tanks produced every time this happened
Might be this one?
Yes note the disruption to tank production between Aug -Dec 1940 when the PZIII up-gunned to the 5cm L42 and a lesser disruption when later changing to the L60
I would imagine that 'adding' armour was far less disruptive than switching to a casting
I always understood the PZIII design to have had the larger gun capability 'built in' - to the design, there was a desire to have a 50mm gun but they lacked the industry etc until late 1940Yeah applique armour often was either just welded on to existing hulls or holes were drilled and it was just bolted on. There was a lag for armour improvements to be incorporated into production line though. Fitting a bigger gun tended to involve changes in the layout of the turret that reset the learning curve and cost a certain amount of efficiency until the manufacturers learned the in and outs of the new design, same thing happened when new models of the Bf109 were introduced.
I'm sure it was, but even planned change could disrupt the 'flow' on the production line for a time.I always understood the PZIII design to have had the larger gun capability 'built in' - to the design, there was a desire to have a 50mm gun but they lacked the industry etc until late 1940
They could have used the Czech 47mm, Skoda had been producing them for years before the WarI always understood the PZIII design to have had the larger gun capability 'built in' - to the design, there was a desire to have a 50mm gun but they lacked the industry etc until late 1940
Again given the 5 month disruption experienced in late 1940 when they up gunned to the L42 5cm - where monthly production of 50-60 plus tanks a month dropped to just 13 between Aug-Dec - a loss of at least 250 tanks, any earlier disruption to production to fit the Czech gun is going to likely rob Germany of a Panzer Division during the fighting in 1940 and a large percentage of the PzIII then in service given the low numbers made up to early 1940They could have used the Czech 47mm, Skoda had been producing them for years before the War
Is it as good as the 50mm? Not really.
But far better than the 37mm
Thinking that the upgrading to 47mm would happen pre-war when overallproduction was low while they were also sorting out the suspension issues, and even if not, don't have all plants change to 47mm at the same time.Again given the 5 month disruption experienced in late 1940 when they up gunned to the L42 5cm - where monthly production of 50-60 plus tanks a month dropped to just 13 between Aug-Dec - a loss of at least 250 tanks, any earlier disruption to production to fit the Czech gun is going to likely rob Germany of a Panzer Division during the fighting in 1940 and a large percentage of the PzIII then in service given the low numbers made up to early 1940
Do we have any idea what 47mm production was during this period?Thinking that the upgrading to 47mm would happen pre-war when overallproduction was low while they were also sorting out the suspension issues, and even if not, don't have all plants change to 47mm at the same time.
Only 96 IIIE chassis were built thru 1939 by Daimler and MAN, with Alkett and Krupp supplying the turrets, who in turn were getting 37mm from Rheinmetall.
CKD company built two prototype mediums before the war with a Skoda 47mm, the V8H in 1938. Pretty much an enlarged LT vz 35, with 50mm armor and Praga 250 hp engine.I also have not been able to find a turret mounted version of the gun suitable for the PZIII
Did you mean this thing?CKD company built two prototype mediums before the war with a Skoda 47mm, the V8H in 1938. Pretty much an enlarged LT vz 35, with 50mm armor and Praga 250 hp engine.
I always understood the PZIII design to have had the larger gun capability 'built in' - to the design, there was a desire to have a 50mm gun but they lacked the industry etc until late 1940
That sounds like the T-21, which later became the 40M Turan. Sure you aren't thinking of Skoda not CKD?CKD company built two prototype mediums before the war with a Skoda 47mm, the V8H in 1938. Pretty much an enlarged LT vz 35, with 50mm armor and Praga 250 hp engine.