No Tigers, Just Panthers and Panzer IVs

Jack1971

Banned
So if they'd stuck with panther and Panzer IV it would have helped the Heer?
IDK, did the the Heer ever beat an enemy who had well prepared, trained and equipped armoured forces? It’s one thing to smash through France’s terrible use of tanks, and another to face Wallies in North Africa, or Soviets post-Stalingrad.
 

Deleted member 1487

And that’s why the German tank would not be the VK 3002. However, Germans should have been aware of the Soviet A-20 tank designed from 1937, with prototype in summer 1939.

And sloped armour and easy to produce designs shouldn’t take a Nazi rocket scientist to figure out.
How? The USSR was a locked down nation that getting intelligence out of was nearly impossible. Everyone failed to do so pre-WW2, not just Germany, so it is no surprise that a Soviet prototype tank wouldn't be known about. No one in the world outside a small group in the USSR even knew about it.

Sloped armor was of course known about, the French used it in their tanks (they had more rounded armor, but the effect is the same), the issue was the belief that it limited the ability to angle the armor in combat (which was true to a degree and became more so when the Soviets got really crazy with sloping in the IS-3 front hull design) and that it would increase overall weight and size of a tank design while limiting internal crew space. That is true to a degree too, as the T-34 and Panther were both pretty cramped compared to say a Panzer III or IV. But the demonstrated combat ability of the T-34 proved the point that the advantages outweighed the drawbacks in a way that the French designs did not. Without the combat experience of a successful sloped armor design the Germans largely didn't see the benefits. I also think it might have had to do with the Heer's insistence on using front drive tank designs, which meant having sloped armor created a lot of weight and space issues up front, as the driver then had to compete for space with the front drive. The Soviets didn't have that issue due to the rear drive, while the German army kept rejecting industry's efforts to suggest a rear drive design (like the DB VK3002...and DB's VK2001 design).
Eventually the German army was forced to concede on the sloped armor part, but kept the front drive, which created a relatively cramped Panther. If they had just gone with DB's VK2001/2401 design they'd have had a much more versatile design:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/VK_20#Daimler_Benz
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Panther_tank#Development_and_production
The DB design resembled the T-34 in its hull and turret and was also to be powered by a diesel engine. It was also driven from the rear drive sprocket with the turret situated forward. The incorporation of a diesel engine promised increased operational range, reduced flammability and allowed for more efficient use of petroleum reserves. Hitler himself considered a diesel engine imperative for the new tank.[14] DB's proposal used an external leaf spring suspension, in contrast to the MAN proposal of twin torsion bars. Wa Pruef 6's opinion was that the leaf spring suspension was a disadvantage and that using torsion bars would allow greater internal hull width. It also opposed the rear drive because of the potential for track fouling. Daimler Benz still preferred the leaf springs over a torsion bar suspension as it resulted in a silhouette about 200 mm (7.9 in) shorter and rendered complex shock absorbers unnecessary. The employment of a rear drive provided additional crew space and also allowed for a better slope on the front hull, which was considered important in preventing penetration by armour-piercing shells.[10]


IDK, did the the Heer ever beat an enemy who had well prepared, trained and equipped armoured forces? It’s one thing to smash through France’s terrible use of tanks, and another to face Wallies in North Africa, or Soviets post-Stalingrad.
You're missing a pretty important component there, that is in air power. In 1940 the Germans ruled the skies over France, which won them the campaign. In North Africa largely the Allies ran the show in the air, which dramatically tipped the scales in their favor given the poor showing of US ground forces especially early on. Plus in North Africa there was the horrible Axis supply situation, lack of forces and equipment, and huge advantage of the Allies at sea and just in numbers on the ground. Meanwhile post-Stalingrad things weren't as clear cut either, 3rd Kharkov saw the victorious Soviet armor forces getting smashed while exploiting their victory by a mauled German force....which again was able to seize air control over the decisive ground battles. At Kursk during the German offensive the air war was a mixed affair, but still the Germans largely smashed the Soviets and if not for the huge Soviet reserves, the Wallies invading Sicily, and the huge Soviet army able to attack elsewhere at the same time the fighting around Kursk was not going the way of the Soviet tank armies; they were down to their last two uncommitted Tank Corps after having two entire Tank Armies largely rendered combat ineffective by individual Panzer Corps. Zitadelle was were the Tiger tank was at the pinnacle of it's relative power too and it performed extremely well, as that situation was exactly what it had been designed for.

Post-Zitadelle though despite the German army smashing up the Soviet armored forces during the Soviet counter offensives on the flanks of Kursk at that point the Soviets were simply able to grind through due to numbers. I know a certain other poster here will vehemently disagree with that take, but look at the casualties during the entire Kursk period; the Soviets simply used their reserves to absorb appalling losses until the Germans ran out of men and equipment. I don't think you could really say that was a function of a well prepared armor force deciding the day, rather it was deep pockets and a willingness to take any losses to force a breakthrough (or absorb an enemy offensive). It worked. Of course then later by 1944 German forces were so depleted and fighting on so many more fronts that virtually any advantage at the tactical level basically didn't matter anymore, as the forces arrayed against them were so numerous and powerful that it was simply a matter of time until collapse came. Arguably that was true post-Stalingrad too.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Okay so it wouldn't have helped at all? Both panther and Panzer were medium tanks the former was just rushed before it was ready.

The Mk IV D of 1939 was 20tons, and the underpowered H of 1943, 25 tons. The Panther was almost twice that weight. Even with better materials, the post-War French Panthers were hardly any better mechanically. That tank needed to be 30 tons as it was originally planned
 

Deleted member 1487

The Mk IV D of 1939 was 20tons, and the underpowered H of 1943, 25 tons. The Panther was almost twice that weight. Even with better materials, the post-War French Panthers were hardly any better mechanically. That tank needed to be 30 tons as it was originally planned
That, but the French Panthers were using 1945 captured models and spare parts. IIRC those Panther and the spares were noted to be faced with sabotage and the French themselves weren't interested in bettering them as they were only being used due to being effectively free.
 
Without the combat experience of a successful sloped armor design the Germans largely didn't see the benefits. I also think it might have had to do with the Heer's insistence on using front drive tank designs, which meant having sloped armor created a lot of weight and space issues up front, as the driver then had to compete for space with the front drive.

Though with the M18 Hellcat, you could do the slope and have room for two guys up front
ACD00013255_2_l.jpg

Cozy, though.

And then that big radial in the rear, still had a very low silhouette. The problem the Panther had with access to the transaxle and final drive (pull the turret, remove top hull armor and fish it out) were addressed with the M24 Chaffee and Hellcat by a large bolt on plate, or the Sherman where the entire front housing could be unbolted for access.
differential3.JPG


So, do you want maximum protection the Panther way, or make allowances for maintenance like the US? A busted tank that can't be repaired easily is a loss
 
Without surmising if it changes the outcome of the war itself, my take would be that based on how things were, the III needs replaced by the IV as the primary battle tank, effectively merging the infantry support and breakthrough/anti-tank mission into one, as far as I am aware its 75mm could defeat enough likely foes to make it the German equivalent to the Sherman, general-purpose, numerous enough, reliable enough, good enough. The Tiger remains a special purpose breakthrough and heavy tank vs tank, it simply needs improved to get the most out of it but not take away from the IV. That frees the III chassis to be converted into tank hunters and other supporting roles. If you get a Panther it is the 30-ton IV replacement streamlined for high production, but likely the same improvement can keep the IV competitive long enough to postpone things. Germany needs mechanical reliability first, adequate protection and better gunnery, it needs enough tanks to fight with rather than pushing for supremacy on too few chassis so quantity becomes the quality that defeats them. Of course such things as petrol, tungsten and skilled labor have as much to do with failure than simply avoiding the design flaws.
 
That, but the French Panthers were using 1945 captured models and spare parts. IIRC those Panther and the spares were noted to be faced with sabotage and the French themselves weren't interested in bettering them as they were only being used due to being effectively free.

Postwar, the French found that the 2nd weakest mechanical area after the Final Drive, was the engine with failures by 1000km: an 8 hour job to pull and replace the engine. Sherman took four, and the hellcat even less.

That was from the original engines being radials, that had to be pulled to preform most work on them, and were expected to be pulled frequently
 

Pax

Banned
The Germans were fighting a very different war in 1943-45 than the Allies were. The Soviets and Wallies needed tanks that could go on the offensive - the Germans wanted tanks that could act as fortresses and be sent as fire brigade type units. In this role a heavy tank like the Tiger or Tiger II make more sense. They weren't meant as offensive tanks, they were meant to stem the tide of Allied tanks long enough for Germany to bring in bigger and better weapons. IMO a better plan may have been to scrap the Tiger I and go for the Tiger II (IIRC the Tiger II had better reliability than the Tiger I) earlier, but how they'd do that I don't know.

Also, Germany can't just make more tanks without losing something else. More tanks means more fuel to drive them, but getting that fuel would cut things like the Luftwaffe out.
 

Deleted member 1487

Postwar, the French found that the 2nd weakest mechanical area after the Final Drive, was the engine with failures by 1000km: an 8 hour job to pull and replace the engine. Sherman took four, and the hellcat even less.

That was from the original engines being radials, that had to be pulled to preform most work on them, and were expected to be pulled frequently
Again 1945 production leftovers made with slave labor and left over materials.

Though with the M18 Hellcat, you could do the slope and have room for two guys up front
ACD00013255_2_l.jpg

Cozy, though.
Panther did too, even with much thicker armor.
panther_by_joseph_mnbc-d510vbk.png




And then that big radial in the rear, still had a very low silhouette. The problem the Panther had with access to the transaxle and final drive (pull the turret, remove top hull armor and fish it out) were addressed with the M24 Chaffee and Hellcat by a large bolt on plate, or the Sherman where the entire front housing could be unbolted for access.
differential3.JPG


So, do you want maximum protection the Panther way, or make allowances for maintenance like the US? A busted tank that can't be repaired easily is a loss
The Panther had a lot more armor, was overall quite a bit larger, had a bigger gun, and was just heavier, requiring bigger, heavier parts. All the vehicles you mention were very lightly armored and relied on speed for protection. The Sherman was also nearly as tall as the Panther BTW, but had much less armor and slope all around...plus a much smaller, less powerful gun.
Personally I'd prefer something like the M26 Pershing's layout, that is rear drive with good armor at the front.
 
Again 1945 production leftovers made with slave labor and left over materials.

That they rebuilt first. They took all the best bits from the captures, made two Battalions and that's how it was discovered about the extent of the sabotage.
 

Deleted member 1487

That they rebuilt first. They took all the best bits from the captures, made two Battalions and that's how it was discovered about the extent of the sabotage.
Taking the best of the worst is still a problem obviously. Again that doesn't mean the design was as bad as all that, it was the result of the situation at the time the parts were made. You really thank that Panthers made by motivated German industrial workers in the supply/production situation that existed in of 1939-40 would have been nearly as problem-ridden? That said the design was flawed IMHO due to at a minimum the weight issue and the front drive, but the OTL design was workable provided a better production situation.
 
Germany went from being the Panzerfaust that swept through France, North Africa and the Mediterranean to having being on the defensive from 1942 onwards.
 
Again 1945 production leftovers made with slave labor and left over materials.


Panther did too, even with much thicker armor.
The Panther had a lot more armor, was overall quite a bit larger, had a bigger gun, and was just heavier, requiring bigger, heavier parts. All the vehicles you mention were very lightly armored and relied on speed for protection. The Sherman was also nearly as tall as the Panther BTW, but had much less armor and slope all around...plus a much smaller, less powerful gun.
Personally I'd prefer something like the M26 Pershing's layout, that is rear drive with good armor at the front.

Hellcat proves they didn't need to be as tall, the original M4X improvement program was to have a modified hull, but Ordnance and Tank Board fell into the T20/22/23 development Hell
sherman-tank.jpg


The basic M4A3E2 Jumbo at 42 tons didn't have worse reliability, only real change was a lower gear in the final drive, same with the 3rd Armys field made Jumbos from the new E8 they were receiving, that torched plates from US M4s to double the thickness of the front hull
M4A3E2-picture-009-640x433.png
f658a105a4440136de843a5b822a2264--general-sherman-steel-plate.jpg

Over in 1st Army, Crews used sandbags and concrete that really didn't add much in armor value, but in some cases heavier than actual jumbos, and reliability suffered. That's why Patton forbade that practice, and opened his rework centers to put real armor plate on in Fall '44
 
Taking the best of the worst is still a problem obviously. Again that doesn't mean the design was as bad as all that, it was the result of the situation at the time the parts were made. You really thank that Panthers made by motivated German industrial workers in the supply/production situation that existed in of 1939-40 would have been nearly as problem-ridden? That said the design was flawed IMHO due to at a minimum the weight issue and the front drive, but the OTL design was workable provided a better production situation.

Worst problems after the final drives was in poor fuel delivery(fires), poor visibility for all crew except the TC, and then the maintenance access issues, the double torsion bar setup, the interleaved roadwheels, ammo stowage unprotected in sponson stowage......

It needed to be a smaller, lighter tank. so less armor, for starters
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
The PzIV was a dog to make - artisanal. Lots of small pieces of metal put together.
The Tiger was the first step towards mass production - with larger pieces cast and then welded. E.g. the turret sides and back was a single casting, bent into U shape. With top and mantlet - 3 pieces. Look at the Pz.IVs turret and count the crazy number of pieces of armour.
The Panther was also designed for mass production but was simply too big - stick to c.30 tons and L43 7,5cm and call it a day.
If you really want to go big then stick to L56 8,8cm.
 

Deleted member 1487

Hellcat proves they didn't need to be as tall, the original M4X improvement program was to have a modified hull, but Ordnance and Tank Board fell into the T20/22/23 development Hell
sherman-tank.jpg
The Hellcat not only had a smaller gun, it was overall smaller and had very little armor, which meant it was less than half the weight of the Panther. Part of the reason the Panther was taller was the more powerful engine, the bigger, wider tracks to take all the weight, and the fully enclosed much larger turret. If we are talking the Hell cat compare it to a StuG or Hetzer, AFVs that served in the same role.

As to the 90mm Sherman above, that was just a drawing. The Tiger I drawing listed it as a 45 ton AFV...we know how that ended up.
Also relevant:
283a31f37111cf2a1a72b174e2ad96ce.jpg





The basic M4A3E2 Jumbo at 42 tons didn't have worse reliability, only real change was a lower gear in the final drive, same with the 3rd Armys field made Jumbos from the new E8 they were receiving, that torched plates from US M4s to double the thickness of the front hull
M4A3E2-picture-009-640x433.png
f658a105a4440136de843a5b822a2264--general-sherman-steel-plate.jpg

Over in 1st Army, Crews used sandbags and concrete that really didn't add much in armor value, but in some cases heavier than actual jumbos, and reliability suffered. That's why Patton forbade that practice, and opened his rework centers to put real armor plate on in Fall '44

So other than restricting the speed of the vehicle (which was also a solution to the Panther issues) it worked fine. You should note too that the Sherman design used components that were rated for a heavier vehicle to handle anticipated upgrades and weight increases as time went on, so it isn't exactly like that is so shocking that a heavier Sherman was able to handle extra weight. Also though the gun stayed the same, as did the turret size, which meant that the vehicles didn't get the same sort of overweigh 'upgrades' that pushed the Panther over the edge. Take for example the VK3002; it was pushed over the edge by the upgraded 75mm gun and turret changes, so the reason it wasn't picked was due to needing extra time to accommodate the changes, while MAN just tossed it on and said they could handle it to win the contract.
 

Deleted member 1487

Worst problems after the final drives was in poor fuel delivery(fires), poor visibility for all crew except the TC, and then the maintenance access issues, the double torsion bar setup, the interleaved roadwheels, ammo stowage unprotected in sponson stowage......

It needed to be a smaller, lighter tank. so less armor, for starters
Was the Panther's visibility any worse than most other tanks? 'Poor visibility' is relative. What do you mean by poor fuel delivery? The only fires I've heard of it causing was when the engine was encased in rubber in 1943 for river crossing, which was quickly dropped. You sure that wasn't just a shitty 1945 build model?
The double torsion bar/interweaved wheel situation had advantages and disadvantages. Was the Panther's ammo storage any worse than average?

The weight fix is a rear drive; it shortens the entire tank, both horizontally and vertically, which then makes it overall several tons lighter, plus harder to hit, while eliminating a lot of moving parts and keeps the entire thing in a concentrated engine-drive unit in the rear for better access. Hence the Leopard 1 design based on WW2 experiences:
Leopard_1.jpg
 
Esentially the Tiger was a sligtly more effective TOG II. That actually got built.

They were designed for basically the same heavy breakthrough role.

At first glance I'm thinking the Tiger I probably was a fairly good acquisition for the Germans in WW2. It was made in enough numbers to have been able to make an impact and my understanding is that it's reliability wasn't to bad by the standards of the day ?
 
Top