No Tigers, Just Panthers and Panzer IVs

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
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:
View attachment 400463
On the left the c.70 ton Tiger II, or the right the c.30ton Sherman ... what strikes the eye is the same height ... and vertical sides of the M4 which somehow nobody complains about ... what did I miss?
 

Deleted member 1487

On the left the c.70 ton Tiger II, or the right the c.30ton Sherman ... what strikes the eye is the same height ... and vertical sides of the M4 which somehow nobody complains about ... what did I miss?
Same height, which is the only way they made the front drive work. Of course the Sherman is also top heavy and has worse weight displacement on the tracks...
 
The 76mm and extra armor did put a strain on the suspension system. Hence why the HVSS suspension system was created it also coped with the 105mm the Israelis later put in their Shermans.
 
The need to retool factories for a different design meant that less tanks would be produced overall. Between the Tiger and the Panther, I think the Panther should have been axed as a tank. Somewhere between a medium and a heavy- but Germany already had good solutions for both tank classes.
 
......... That frees the III chassis to be converted into tank hunters and other supporting roles. .......... [/QUOTE]
——————————————————————————-

Sturmgeschutz, SP AT, etc. we’re mostly stop-gap, short-term improvisations to fill the shortages of medium or heavy Panzers. Given the choice, most Stg crews would have been happier with the same gun in a turret.
German logistics and maintenance crews would have been much happier with fewer different chassis.

Consider how few Stg were built since 1945.
 
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.

Hellcat was also able to go 55mph, as it had the same engine as the M4A1, and same turret ring, so was even tested with the M36 Slugger 90mm mount.
Could have been built to have Sherman level of Armor(with a lid on the turret), but then wouldn't go 55mph then, but would have still been far lighter( and smaller target) than the M4, for same combat ability
 

Deleted member 1487

Hellcat was also able to go 55mph, as it had the same engine as the M4A1, and same turret ring, so was even tested with the M36 Slugger 90mm mount.
Could have been built to have Sherman level of Armor(with a lid on the turret), but then wouldn't go 55mph then, but would have still been far lighter( and smaller target) than the M4, for same combat ability
I highly doubt you could double the weight of a design and expect it to work. I know the Hellcat was tested with the 90mm gun and it didn't work. Hence the M36.
 
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?

Gunner's only vision device was his telescope. That's rough to acquire new targets with that small field of view.
Engines catching fire went on with the French.

No one else has used the double torsion bar/interleaved wheel suspension since 1945.
Panther also burned from ammo going off, just like the early Shermans that didn't have proper ammo bins
 
I highly doubt you could double the weight of a design and expect it to work. I know the Hellcat was tested with the 90mm gun and it didn't work. Hence the M36.
It was after the M36, but the chassis was too light when firing broadside. More weight from armor would keep it on the ground better. The slightly later M41 light tank 76mm had near the same recoil energy of the M3 90mm proved that, and that only had a 1" armor basis, a few tons heavier than the M18
 

Ifor

Donor
Forgive me, but I think there's two strands to this which are very closely linked. First of all there would always have been pressure to build better. The Russians did it with the T44/54 development we did it with the early mark Centurion/Pershing. Now the issue of whether they were in answer to German tank development for me is a moot point as the pressure to look for better would always be there(the Germans on the whole got it wrong)
The other point is that Hitler didn't see the need to keep on refining and developing better designs(same for aircraft, logistics etc).
I don't think, with the history and situation Germany found itself in, it would end up other than being defeated.
Just some thoughts
 
What the Germans needed was a standard, easy to manufacture, operate and maintain medium tank, designed for winter operation. That means Germany needs a T-34.

What the Germans really needed was to not be at war with Britain, the USSR and the USA all at once.

As @Garrison makes clear, the T34 alone was produced in such numbers that unless Germany wins by the summer of 1943 at the latest, the war is lost, regardless of what tanks Germany builds.
 
That's not his job.
Finding targets is the commander's job - he gets a cupola to do that.

Yeah, it is, like in every other tank.

But with only the magnified sight and nothing else, it was much harder, as the TC had to line it up almost exactly, harder than it seems at 300M+ This came from the French use after the war, transitioning from M4s to the Panther.
The gunners liked the sight and all, but not enough field of view. Easy to lose awareness

The Sherman Gunner had the M10 Periscope, that had two settings, low magnification with a field of view of 42 degrees, the second 6x with an 11 degree field of view. This could be rotated around a 120? degree arc.
He also had the M70x Telescope, a fixed power 3 or 5x scope with around 13 degree field of view.
 

Jack1971

Banned
What the Germans really needed was to not be at war with Britain, the USSR and the USA all at once.

As @Garrison makes clear, the T34 alone was produced in such numbers that unless Germany wins by the summer of 1943 at the latest, the war is lost, regardless of what tanks Germany builds.
I don’t think anyone here has suggested more Panthers or other tanks would win Germany the war.
 
The Tiger I had an impact well above what their numbers would indicate. It was expensive, but worth the cost and played an important part in giving the Germans a sense of technological ascendancy over the soviets.
Whether the Tiger II was worth the effort is a different point. When it was introduced in late 1943/early 44 the Panther was a viable battle tank, and the heavy TD role could have been taken on by the Jagdpanther.
So, IMO, Tiger I as OTL, production phased out in late 43 to concentrate on Panthers and Jagdpanthers.
 
The Tiger II was clearly 'bigger is better' thinking it came at the wrong time when resources were waning. It would have been better if they'd stuck with the panther and the Jagdpanther. Both were fine vehicles.
 
The Tiger II was clearly 'bigger is better' thinking it came at the wrong time when resources were waning. It would have been better if they'd stuck with the panther and the Jagdpanther. Both were fine vehicles.
... after the initial flaws were worked out.
 
Which was never given the time frame that and the 'wunderpanzers' must be used "At once! Now! Immediately!" before the problems were fixed.
 
I would not bother with the Panzer 3!

Really why did the Germans go for two medium tanks. It complicates logistics and production issues. I understand they produced them for different roles Panzer 3 for tank v tank and Panzer 4 for infantry support. However the big difference is really the armament used pre WW2. The British managed to produce two gun variants of the same tank so why couldn't the Germans.

If the Germans produced anywhere near the OTL 5774 Panzer 3's produced as Panzer 4's (completely doable with the improved economy's of scale) then the early war period might have been even more successful for them.

They would need a new tank ala the Panther, but with a lot more Panzer 4's in the field the replacement Panzer 5/Panther wouldn't need to be rushed into production. Indeed a more successful early war period might mean the Panther didn't get more and more armour added to it so it would be closer to the 30 ton tank originally intended.

The Tiger 1 still goes ahead because most military's where working on super heavy tanks (for the time) and there really isn't a reason for changing this (and the Tiger is just plain cool).
 
Top