Most suitable successor to the Panzer IV

[Deleted member 1487]

Germany was more developed industrial nation then the Soviet Union, yet SU outproduced Germany even before 1944 (before bombing took the dent in German production) in tanks, guns and aircraft. Was also forced to relocate a good part of their industry, not good for production numbers.
One of German problems was opting to design & produce way too heavy, complicated and expensive tanks - Tiger I & II, Panther. Dispense with 'rear engine, front drive' layout (eats into volume, and hence in weight, and hence in armor; adds to production time & effort), ditto with compicated suspension system.
Going out with 45 ton tank (= size & weight of a heavy tank) that fires 6 kg HE shell and has armor as other people's 32 ton stuff??? Give me a break.

Germany also have major military restrictions on it until 1933, so it didn't start developing its first major tanks until then. The Pz III and IV dated from then, while the Soviets had been producing tanks since the 1920s. Plus due to the Soviet strategic depth their factories were able to be built US mass manufacturing style, while German industry was developed to be small and nimble to respond to international trade demands, as Germany lacked an internal market to sustain its industry, so had to find them abroad, which meant it needed to be able to respond to market demands rapidly, which is the opposite of mass manufacturing Soviet or American style. Part of the issue too was that the Soviets were able to fixate their weapons production on a few categories of weaponry and outsource the rest to their Allies either via LL or having them run that part of the war effort (strategic bombing, the naval war). Germany meanwhile had to produce all the weapon systems itself and supply its allies with weapons and materials, so was at a critical production disadvantage there, as it couldn't just fixate on Panzer production. Also the Soviets were able to source a lot of labor and material saving high capacity machine tools from the US, while Germany machine tool production was a smaller industry and more able to produce the general purpose tools, which required skilled labor, a shrinking commodity in Germany during the war.

The reality is that the Soviets have major advantages that Germany lacked when it came to producing tanks, same with the US and UK vs. Germany. So Germany opted to redress that issue of never being able to match production output with technical superiority. The problem then was trying to get revolutionary technology matured when you are facing strategic aerial bombardment and a rushed development cycle; clearly they were unable to master that.

 

[Tallil2long]

That's certainly the NATO model during the Cold War, where they relied on superior kit vs. massive WARSAW Pact forces.

However, the Germans never brought forward a qualitative advantage, especially when on the offensive, where their tanks and aircraft were at best equal to the enemy. They were still using the PzIV and Bf-109 from pre-1939 in most frontline units right to 1945.

Its been the model for EVERYONE who thinks they can field a more effective weapon. Especially if it is clear that victory is unlikely otherwise.

During the early years, tbe Nazi regime was counting largely on lack of enemy prepararedness and on an innovative tactical system. When the USSR proved to be too big and too resistant, it was a bit late to develop superior weapons. They tried, but enemy pressure, the internal disfunctions of Nazi Germany, plus the fact that their opponents (much richer in resources, and no slouches in technology themselves) were working just as hard, meant that in some ways they had to try too radical solutions -- solutions either too far beyond their own experienced competence, or pushing the bounds of existing tech, or that they lacked the resources to implement properly.

We might also note that wartime innovation will tend to favor the side with the greater resources (the Allies, by a long way); the disadvantaged side thus has to pursue even more radical solutions, if they are able. They have to get to the "generation after next" because their enemies will do better fielding the current, and "next generation" of weapons. Predictably, Nazi Germany failed at this. In fact, its efforts only spurred greater Allied efforts.

 

[CrimsonKing]

I have to say I just don't buy the argument about Germany needing technological superiority in the face of superior enemy resources. What made the panzer divisions so formidable was not their tanks but their tactics and training, plus the specific decision to equip all tanks with radios. Look at the 1940 and 1941 campaigns in which Panzer Is and IIs repeatedly defeated far better French and Soviet tanks. A cheap, easily produced and reliable tank would have been a far better idea than an expensive, overengineerd mess like the Panther.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Its been the model for EVERYONE who thinks they can field a more effective weapon. Especially if it is clear that victory is unlikely otherwise.

During the early years, tbe Nazi regime was counting largely on lack of enemy prepararedness and on an innovative tactical system. When the USSR proved to be too big and too resistant, it was a bit late to develop superior weapons. They tried, but enemy pressure, the internal disfunctions of Nazi Germany, plus the fact that their opponents (much richer in resources, and no slouches in technology themselves) were working just as hard, meant that in some ways they had to try too radical solutions -- solutions either too far beyond their own experienced competence, or pushing the bounds of existing tech, or that they lacked the resources to implement properly.

We might also note that wartime innovation will tend to favor the side with the greater resources (the Allies, by a long way); the disadvantaged side thus has to pursue even more radical solutions, if they are able. They have to get to the "generation after next" because their enemies will do better fielding the current, and "next generation" of weapons. Predictably, Nazi Germany failed at this. In fact, its efforts only spurred greater Allied efforts.

Superior numbers generally trumps technical superiority provided you hit the golden ratio between the two. There needs to be a minimum of technical attainment to make the numbers works, just as their needs to be sufficient numbers of technical superior weapons to triumph over superior numbers. Germany needed to tone down the leap it was taking to get a more reliable next generation AFV, but they also needed to be able to counter Allied strategic bombing for that to have any impact, plus have a more realistic foreign policy and military strategy. So they really just over did everything in the wrong direction to the point that even with a sufficient successor to the Pz IV wouldn't have changed the outcome. I mean something in the 35 ton category with the long 75, wide tracks, and torsion bar suspension with sloped armor was doable (probably with a weight closer to 38-40 tons), but that armor would have have to be significantly thinner than the Panther's.

Even then replacing the Pz IV would only be part of the deal, as the Pz III chassis would have to stay in production for StuG III production and ideally a Marder IV with the PAK42 version for longer range killing than the StuG could do.

 

[NoMommsen]

However, the Germans never brought forward a qualitative advantage, especially when on the offensive, where their tanks and aircraft were at best equal to the enemy. They were still using the PzIV and Bf-109 from pre-1939 in most frontline units right to 1945.

The tanks they started the war were - by the paper - far inferior to everything the french, the russians and , in some models even what the british had at that time. The PzKw IV just matured during his time to match what the wallies as well as what the SU had. The last versions of the PzKw IV could still hold against T-34, though not easy.

However, this shows that technology and numbers are not the only (main ?) reason for winning a battle or a war :

you have to know how to use it. That was the "match-winning" know-how of the germans ... until the gröfaz took over (and the numbers just became too high on the eney's side).

 

[Deleted member 1487]

The tanks they started the war were - by the paper - far inferior to everything the french, the russians and , in some models even what the british had at that time. The PzKw IV just matured during his time to match what the wallies as well as what the SU had. The last versions of the PzKw IV could still hold against T-34, though not easy.

However, this shows that technology and numbers are not the only (main ?) reason for winning a battle or a war :

you have to know how to use it. That was the "match-winning" know-how of the germans ... until the gröfaz took over (and the numbers just became too high on the eney's side).

The Pz IV was certainly outclassed by the T-34/85 and I'd argue that by 1943 the Pz IV was outmatched; the late versions of the Pz IV were seriously overloaded and were not performing well:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panzer_IV#Ausf._F2_to_Ausf._J

The longer 7.5 cm guns were a mixed blessing. In spite of the designers' efforts to conserve weight, the new weapon made the vehicle nose-heavy to such an extent that the forward suspension springs were under constant compression. This resulted in the tank tending to sway even when no steering was being applied, an effect compounded by the introduction of the Ausführung H in March 1943.[28]

During its production run from March 1942 to June 1943, the Panzer IV Ausf. G went through further modifications, including another armor upgrade. Given that the tank was reaching its viable limit, to avoid a corresponding weight increase, the appliqué 20-millimetre (0.79 in) steel plates were removed from its side armor, which instead had its base thickness increased to 30 millimetres (1.18 in). The weight saved was transferred to the front, which had a 30-millimetre (1.18 in) face-hardened appliqué steel plate welded (later bolted) to the glacis—in total, frontal armor was now 80 mm (3.15 in) thick.[30] This decision to increase frontal armor was favorably received according to troop reports on 8 November 1942, despite technical problems of the driving system due to added weight.

These modifications meant that the tank's weight increased to 25 tonnes (27.56 short tons). In spite of a new six-speed SSG 77 transmission borrowed from the Panzer III, cross country speed dropped to as low as 16 km/h (10 mph) on anything but hard, level surfaces. An experimental version of the Ausf H was fitted with a hydrostatic transmission but was not put into production.[28]

Despite addressing the mobility problems introduced by the previous model, the final production version of the Panzer IV—the Ausf. J—was considered a retrograde from the Ausf. H. Born of German necessity to replace heavy losses, it was greatly simplified to speed production.[39] The electric generator that powered the tank's turret traverse was removed, so the turret had to be rotated manually. The space was later used for the installation of an auxiliary 200-litre (53 US gal) fuel tank; road range was thereby increased to 320 km (200 mi),[40] The pistol and vision ports in the turret were removed, and the engine's radiator housing was simplified by changing the slanted sides to straight sides.[38] In addition, the cylindrical muffler was replaced by two flame-suppressing mufflers. By late 1944, Zimmerit was no longer being applied to German armored vehicles, and the Panzer IV's side-skirts had been replaced by wire mesh, while the number of return rollers was reduced from four to three to further speed-up production.[41]

In a bid to augment the Panzer IV's firepower, an attempt was made to mate a Schmalturm turret — carrying the longer 75 mm (2.95 in) L/70 tank gun from the developing Panther Ausf. F tank design, and partly developed by Rheinmetall from early 1944 onwards — to a Panzer IV hull. This failed and confirmed that the chassis had reached the limit of its adaptability in both weight and available volume.[39]

 

[tomo pauk]

I have to say I just don't buy the argument about Germany needing technological superiority in the face of superior enemy resources. What made the panzer divisions so formidable was not their tanks but their tactics and training, plus the specific decision to equip all tanks with radios. Look at the 1940 and 1941 campaigns in which Panzer Is and IIs repeatedly defeated far better French and Soviet tanks. A cheap, easily produced and reliable tank would have been a far better idea than an expensive, overengineerd mess like the Panther.

Agree 100%.
My point is that Germans did not produce the tanks that were that good. If there was a tank with 88mm cannon (better yet 105 mm one), 100 mm armor on front, 75 mm on the sides, that weights 45 tons, can be reasonably easy to mass produce, (optionally) has range of 300 km, than yes, that tank is superior, even if it is expensive. But Panther was no such tank, nor was the Tiger.

Superior numbers generally trumps technical superiority provided you hit the golden ratio between the two. There needs to be a minimum of technical attainment to make the numbers works, just as their needs to be sufficient numbers of technical superior weapons to triumph over superior numbers. Germany needed to tone down the leap it was taking to get a more reliable next generation AFV, but they also needed to be able to counter Allied strategic bombing for that to have any impact, plus have a more realistic foreign policy and military strategy. So they really just over did everything in the wrong direction to the point that even with a sufficient successor to the Pz IV wouldn't have changed the outcome. I mean something in the 35 ton category with the long 75, wide tracks, and torsion bar suspension with sloped armor was doable (probably with a weight closer to 38-40 tons), but that armor would have have to be significantly thinner than the Panther's.

Even then replacing the Pz IV would only be part of the deal, as the Pz III chassis would have to stay in production for StuG III production and ideally a Marder IV with the PAK42 version for longer range killing than the StuG could do.

If we are to design the 33-35 ton tank to be such a convoluted machine as it was the Panther, than yes, the armor will be thin. Germans can take a page from Soviets, once the KV-1 is captured, and copy it blind, with as good 7,5 cm gun as possible, later continue with 8,8.
Why it took the Germans to produce a 'super StuG-III' is beyond me.

Allied strategic bombing is an excuse that really does not work, both Tiger and Panther are products of design thinking that precedes the Allied bombing.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

If we are to design the 33-35 ton tank to be such a convoluted machine as it was the Panther, than yes, the armor will be thin. Germans can take a page from Soviets, once the KV-1 is captured, and copy it blind, with as good 7,5 cm gun as possible, later continue with 8,8.
Why it took the Germans to produce a 'super StuG-III' is beyond me.

Allied strategic bombing is an excuse that really does not work, both Tiger and Panther are products of design thinking that precedes the Allied bombing.

The KV-1 was a mechanical mess in 1941. Which is why they opted to make the IS series instead.

Yes the Tiger and Panther designs preceded strategic bombing, but it was strategic bombing that seriously hampered their production and availability of spare parts; by 1944 even the Pz IV was having major mechanical problems due to the lack of parts due to bombing. The reasoning being making designs like the Panther and Tiger were sound, but getting them working in that situation was not a viable idea. Something lighter, less heavily armored, and less complex was necessary. Say something between the VK3001H and VK3002MAN. Or even just keep the original 3002MAN design minus the interweaved road wheels and 80mm of frontal armor. Having a regular torsion bar suspension and say 50-60mm frontal sloped armor would have saved several tons of weight. Having a much better designed turret would also have helped.

 

[tomo pauk]

Tiger was a mess in 1942, the Panther in 1943. Of the best Soviet tanks in 1941, the T-34 was the mess, not KV-1. Reason for going with JS tanks was that Soviets though they can do better, not because the KV-1 was that bad.
Tiger was a white ellephant, Panther only slightly less so.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Tiger was a mess in 1942, the Panther in 1943. Of the best Soviet tanks in 1941, the T-34 was the mess, not KV-1. Reason for going with JS tanks was that Soviets though they can do better, not because the KV-1 was that bad.
Tiger was a white ellephant, Panther only slightly less so.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kliment_Voroshilov_tank#Further_development

It also had serious flaws all of which were rectified with the introduction of the KV-1S:[8] it was difficult to steer, the transmission (which was a twenty-year-old Caterpillar design)[9] was unreliable (and was known to have to be shifted with a hammer),[9] and the ergonomics were poor, with limited visibility and no turret basket.[10] Furthermore, at 45 tons, it was simply too heavy. This severely impacted the maneuverability, not so much in terms of maximum speed, as through inability to cross many bridges medium tanks could cross.[11] The KV outweighed most other tanks of the era, being about twice as heavy as the heaviest contemporary German tank. KVs were never equipped with a snorkelling system to ford shallow rivers, so they had to be left to travel to an adequate bridge. As applique armor and other improvements were added without increasing engine power, later models were less capable of keeping up to speed with medium tanks and had more trouble with difficult terrain. In addition, its firepower was no better than the T-34.[9] It took field reports from senior commanders "and certified heroes", who could be honest without risk of punishment, to reveal "what a dog the KV-1 really was."[9]

Further development

By 1942, when the Germans were fielding large numbers of long-barrelled 50 mm and 75 mm guns, the KV's armor was no longer invincible, requiring the installation of additional field-expedient appliqué armour. The KV-1's side (favorable approach: 30° degree at 300-500m distance), top, and turret armor could also be penetrated by the high-velocity MK 101 carried by German ground attack aircraft, such as the Henschel Hs 129 [12] The KV-1's 76.2 mm gun also came in for criticism. While adequate against all German tanks, it was the same gun as carried by smaller, faster, and cheaper T-34 medium tanks. In 1943, it was determined that this gun could not penetrate the frontal armour of the new Tiger,[13] the first German heavy tank, one of which was captured near Leningrad. The KV-1 was also much more difficult to manufacture and thus more expensive than the T-34. In short, its advantages no longer outweighed its drawbacks.

When production shifted to the Ural Mountains 'Tankograd' complex, the KV-2 was dropped. While impressive on paper, it had been designed as a slow-moving bunker-buster. It was less useful in the highly mobile, fluid warfare that developed in World War II. The turret was so heavy it was difficult to traverse on uneven terrain. Finally, it was expensive to produce. Only about 300 KV-2s were made, all in 1940-41, making it one of the rarest Soviet tanks.

As the war continued, the KV-1 continued to get more armour to compensate for the increasing effectiveness of German weapons. This culminated in the KV-1 model 1942 (German designation KV-1C), which had very heavy armour, but lacked a corresponding improvement to the engine. Tankers complained that, although they were well-protected, their mobility was poor and they had no firepower advantage over the T-34 medium tank.[

 

[tomo pauk]

A 'simple too heavy' KV-1 is lighter than Tiger and not heavier than Panther. Don't know what the quoting of capability of hostorical KV-1 armament has to do with this thread, since I've suggested better guns to be installed. The Germans even went to the expedient of installig the long barrel 7,5 cm on the KV-1 (46 or 48 cal?), guess they didn't think of it being the dog.
That Soviets didn't installed 85 mm cannon in late 1942 on the KV-1 was a big mistake.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

A 'simple too heavy' KV-1 is lighter than Tiger and not heavier than Panther. Don't know what the quoting of capability of hostorical KV-1 armament has to do with this thread, since I've suggested better guns to be installed. The Germans even went to the expedient of installig the long barrel 7,5 cm on the KV-1 (46 or 48 cal?), guess they didn't think of it being the dog.
That Soviets didn't installed 85 mm cannon in late 1942 on the KV-1 was a big mistake.

The Germans were desperate and put anything on it possible. My point was the KV tank family design, the mechanics, were atrocious and would effectively need to be thrown out and a fresh start used instead. They did install an 85mm on the KV design, but it was a bad chassis, the T-34 ended up being a better platform for that gun.

At that point there isn't a basis for using the design to start a German 45 ton chassis. They were just better off going on what they already had; the problem was they tried to add too much to their existing designs. Had the VK3002 stuck to a 35 ton weight it would have been fine other than the interweaved road wheels. BTW the 75mm L70 of the Panther was lighter than the 88mm kwk36 of the Tiger and not that much heavier than the L48 of the Pz IV.

Part of the problem of the Panther design was putting front drive on the Panther to get better climb performance, which increased the height and weight of the design; the T-34 was able to keep weight down by being very cramped, more than the lighter Pz IV in fact, and having an inferior rear drive. It was the push to increase mobility that upped the weight of the Panther so much, in addition to the extra frontal armor and complex suspension system.

 

[Blue cat]

The KV-1 was a mechanical mess in 1941. Which is why they opted to make the IS series instead.

Yes the Tiger and Panther designs preceded strategic bombing, but it was strategic bombing that seriously hampered their production and availability of spare parts; by 1944 even the Pz IV was having major mechanical problems due to the lack of parts due to bombing. The reasoning being making designs like the Panther and Tiger were sound, but getting them working in that situation was not a viable idea. Something lighter, less heavily armored, and less complex was necessary. Say something between the VK3001H and VK3002MAN. Or even just keep the original 3002MAN design minus the interweaved road wheels and 80mm of frontal armor. Having a regular torsion bar suspension and say 50-60mm frontal sloped armor would have saved several tons of weight. Having a much better designed turret would also have helped.

just to add to this..

My understanding is that the final drives (key drive train components) of the Panther could not be mass produced as originally designed, and the ones that were mass produced were not reliable enough in practice. This switch would have happened before strategic bombing began have a major effect on Germany industry but I agree that bombing wouldn't have made the situation any easier and the lack of spare parts would have magnified the impact of failure prone components.

That being said, it does seem strange that the same army that switched from the relatively complex MG34 to the easier to produce MG42 put a tank into mass production that apparently had key parts that were not suited to mass production.

 

[CrimsonKing]

just to add to this..

My understanding is that the final drives (key drive train components) of the Panther could not be mass produced as originally designed, and the ones that were mass produced were not reliable enough in practice. This switch would have happened before strategic bombing began have a major effect on Germany industry but I agree that bombing wouldn't have made the situation any easier and the lack of spare parts would have magnified the impact of failure prone components.

That being said, it does seem strange that the same army that switched from the relatively complex MG34 to the easier to produce MG42 put a tank into mass production that apparently had key parts that were not suited to mass production.

There's always the DB. It was much simpler and more reliable, see the thread I linked to on page 1.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

just to add to this..

My understanding is that the final drives (key drive train components) of the Panther could not be mass produced as originally designed, and the ones that were mass produced were not reliable enough in practice. This switch would have happened before strategic bombing began have a major effect on Germany industry but I agree that bombing wouldn't have made the situation any easier and the lack of spare parts would have magnified the impact of failure prone components.

That being said, it does seem strange that the same army that switched from the relatively complex MG34 to the easier to produce MG42 put a tank into mass production that apparently had key parts that were not suited to mass production.

The MG42 had its flaws due to too high of a cyclic rate, but then the issue was that Hitler was micromanaging tank not MG designs. Hitler demanded it rushed with his specs and he got what he wanted. Had he let the military handle that procurement it wouldn't have been introduced until 1944 with less weight, armor, and probably a lower velocity gun.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

There's always the DB. It was much simpler and more reliable, see the thread I linked to on page 1.

Except it had no turret ready with the gun Hitler wanted. Plus there is the case to be made that a copy of the T-34 was too close to the Soviet design and would have caused identification problems and friendly fire issues. Also the design didn't really have a lot of stretch to it, as it would have required a major redesign to take the L70 75mm gun, a delay of about 1 year. There was no hope of putting an 88mm gun on it.

 

[tomo pauk]

The Germans were desperate and put anything on it possible. My point was the KV tank family design, the mechanics, were atrocious and would effectively need to be thrown out and a fresh start used instead. They did install an 85mm on the KV design, but it was a bad chassis, the T-34 ended up being a better platform for that gun.

Stating that KV chassis was bad is, I'm afraid, your opinion, based heavily on 1st series. I know that 85 mm was installed in the KV, the series was cut short since a) the IS was at the doors with not 85 mm gun, but 100 mm (didn't followed up in series) and 122, and b) T-34 being a cheaper and lighter platform.

At that point there isn't a basis for using the design to start a German 45 ton chassis. They were just better off going on what they already had; the problem was they tried to add too much to their existing designs. Had the VK3002 stuck to a 35 ton weight it would have been fine other than the interweaved road wheels. BTW the 75mm L70 of the Panther was lighter than the 88mm kwk36 of the Tiger and not that much heavier than the L48 of the Pz IV.

(my emphasis)
They already had nothing, in a sense of real next-gen tank.
The 75mmL/70 was a fine anti-armor gun, problem is that there were plenty of non-armor targets around. Part of it being lighter was sacrifice of 2/3rds of life (rounds fired) vs. Tiger's gun, 2000 vs. 6000.
link

Part of the problem of the Panther design was putting front drive on the Panther to get better climb performance, which increased the height and weight of the design; the T-34 was able to keep weight down by being very cramped, more than the lighter Pz IV in fact, and having an inferior rear drive. It was the push to increase mobility that upped the weight of the Panther so much, in addition to the extra frontal armor and complex suspension system.

The front drive was a thing of legacy, how the tank was designe in Germany in 1930s/40s. If one 45-ton tank has problems with current bridge capacities, another 45-ton tank has same problems, let alone an AFV that weights 10 or 20 tons more. What was so inferior with rear drive?
The T-34 was not a wonder wepon, but it shows that one does not need a 56 ton tank if they want a gun that fireas a 9 kg projectile at decent MV.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

Stating that KV chassis was bad is, I'm afraid, your opinion, based heavily on 1st series. I know that 85 mm was installed in the KV, the series was cut short since a) the IS was at the doors with not 85 mm gun, but 100 mm (didn't followed up in series) and 122, and b) T-34 being a cheaper and lighter platform.

The KV-2 and other prototypes weren't much different mechanically. Even the later versions of the KV-1 weren't great. There is a reason the Soviets discontinued the design despite their love of mass producing old stuff as long as possible to maximize numbers.

(my emphasis)
They already had nothing, in a sense of real next-gen tank.
The 75mmL/70 was a fine anti-armor gun, problem is that there were plenty of non-armor targets around. Part of it being lighter was sacrifice of 2/3rds of life (rounds fired) vs. Tiger's gun, 2000 vs. 6000.
link

They had the VK3001 and 3601 prototypes that were starting delivery before Barbarossa. The Germans apparently found that their armor ended up fighting enemy armor more often than not, so decided to focus on AT ability rather than general all around ability to fight any target. The concept for an MBT did not yet exist. I agree that a chassis with the 88mm Kwk was the way to go, especially for an MBT type tank, but that would be a 45 ton minimum design due to the weight of the gun and turret to handle it. So we are looking at something like the VK4501 that was ordered in May 1941 and later became the Tiger.

The front drive was a thing of legacy, how the tank was designe in Germany in 1930s/40s. If one 45-ton tank has problems with current bridge capacities, another 45-ton tank has same problems, let alone an AFV that weights 10 or 20 tons more. What was so inferior with rear drive?
The T-34 was not a wonder wepon, but it shows that one does not need a 56 ton tank if they want a gun that fireas a 9 kg projectile at decent MV.

The reason the front drive was used was because it was superior in climbing ability to a rear drive, which is why they continued using it.

As to the T-34 you're right, it had its own problems. Its just that the Germans couldn't develop a better version of it for less than 40 tons (the weight of VK3002MAN design before the 80mm armor demand from Hitler). A redesign of the turret would have saved more weight (IOTL the Schmalturm), as would a simpler suspension system, while a herring bone final drive was necessary too.

 

[tomo pauk]

The KV-2 and other prototypes weren't much different mechanically. Even the later versions of the KV-1 weren't great. There is a reason the Soviets discontinued the design despite their love of mass producing old stuff as long as possible to maximize numbers.

KV-2 featured the horrendeous turret, in order to house a 152 mm hovitzer, all of what added some 25% more weight, totaling at 52 tons. Not goning to make the transimison, suspension, nor engine more reliable vs. the start at 45 tons.
Soviets loved mass production, but they were not that stupid to cast off the opprotunity for a better weapon. The KV-1 won't carry well the turret with 100-122 mm cannon (the 85 mm gun is not that appealing for 45-ton tank since the 32-ton one can carry it), it's turret won't go much, if any above current armor protection, let alone once a bigger gun is installed, the hull will also remain on the current level of production. The IS series allowed all of this.

They had the VK3001 and 3601 prototypes that were starting delivery before Barbarossa.

I'm afraid that term 'delivery' for hulls, without turret & guns, carries no weight when compared with delivery of real tanks.

The Germans apparently found that their armor ended up fighting enemy armor more often than not, so decided to focus on AT ability rather than general all around ability to fight any target. The concept for an MBT did not yet exist. I agree that a chassis with the 88mm Kwk was the way to go, especially for an MBT type tank, but that would be a 45 ton minimum design due to the weight of the gun and turret to handle it. So we are looking at something like the VK4501 that was ordered in May 1941 and later became the Tiger.

The concept of MBT is there, whether we look at BT series of tanks, or Somua S35, or Pz-III, even the Vickers 6 ton.
A 45 ton tank is one thing, allowing it to bloat at 56 tons is sometning else. One can wonder what kind of weight would we see for the German tank with a full-power 105mm or 128mm gun - 70 tons (I won't say Mouse yet)?
If a tank design deliberately dispenses with it's ability to engage one set of targets, that is hardly a sign of a superior design, but just the contrary.

The reason the front drive was used was because it was superior in climbing ability to a rear drive, which is why they continued using it.

I hear you loud and clear, but still not buying it.

 

[Deleted member 1487]

I'm afraid that term 'delivery' for hulls, without turret & guns, carries no weight when compared with delivery of real tanks.

Which is why they ran them with concrete fake turrets to simulate the right weight and tested them.

The concept of MBT is there, whether we look at BT series of tanks, or Somua S35, or Pz-III, even the Vickers 6 ton.
A 45 ton tank is one thing, allowing it to bloat at 56 tons is sometning else. One can wonder what kind of weight would we see for the German tank with a full-power 105mm or 128mm gun - 70 tons (I won't say Mouse yet)?
If a tank design deliberately dispenses with it's ability to engage one set of targets, that is hardly a sign of a superior design, but just the contrary.

None of what you describe above is an MBT, that concept came post war.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Main_battle_tank#History

I hear you loud and clear, but still not buying it.

Alright, then there is no point in having that discussion further.