No Tigers, Just Panthers and Panzer IVs

Jack1971

Banned
The Germans originally planned to replace the Pz-III & Pz-IV with the VK3001(h) but the project was cancelled in late 1941 after encountering the T-34.
VK+3001(H)+Ausf+B+034.JPG


There is an old thread where the alternate possibilities of the Germans going thru with this design, here - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/germany-builds-the-vk3001-h.224294/
More overlapping suspension. Did whomever designed that element ever test the concept in snow and frozen mud? Did they ever trial a field repair?
 
The tiger 1 had a number of well known flaws one of those was the slow turret which had to hand cranked while it did have electric traverse it was tricky and difficult to use, something that allies exploited.

But yes the Ferdinand was a mistake but it was also hard to knock out though.

The Tiger could turn the whole tank to face the target (something it could do very fast) and use the traverse for precision targeting.
 
The Ferdinand was a questionable Tank destroyer they had no MG for self defense in the Eastern front and the remaining vehicles were lost in Italy.

At work.

Thank'e for the turn explanation. Sadly, the nuance is lost on my layman self.

As for the machine gun issue. They PLATED OVER the existing Porsche hull position innitially.

The Porsche tank design HAD a hull gunner. They just bolted an extra armor plate over the nose of the TD Elefant.

I think even later rebuilt Elefants had a hole cut in the plate for the hull gun to poke through.

Very strange.
 
More overlapping suspension. Did whomever designed that element ever test the concept in snow and frozen mud? Did they ever trial a field repair?
Probably not or if they did, they felt the improved ride and handeling outweighed the shortcomings.
 
Porshes' Tiger design wasn't accepted and the Elephant/Ferdinand was a colossal failure (which just didn't die for some reason) so you could get the 1600 Panzer 4s without impacting the development of the actual Tiger in anyway (and without the Elephants unnecessarily tying up recovery vehicles and repair crews the Tiger tanks can perform even better).
By the time they realized that the Porsche Tiger I was not going to be reliable they had a number of ready chassis without turrets. Since there was a need to get as many 88/71 guns to the front ASAP, making a heavy TD out of them made sense.
They were meant as long range tank killers. Used as breakthrough tanks they proved lacking in close defense weapons that were not needed for their intended role.
 
I'm pretty sure the Ferdinand/Elefant was petrol electric, but the point about the unreliability holds
The Germans originally planned to replace the Pz-III & Pz-IV with the VK3001(h) but the project was cancelled in late 1941 after encountering the T-34.
VK+3001(H)+Ausf+B+034.JPG


There is an old thread where the alternate possibilities of the Germans going thru with this design, here - https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/germany-builds-the-vk3001-h.224294/

Cool. One of my old ones.
The basic idea was that either Germany could do a lot better in the 42/43 tank season or anything that would only be significant in the 43/44 tank season would be to late to be a game changer.
The VK30.01H would be the equivalent to a slower Comet at best, but good enough and in large enough numbers to have an impact in 42/43.
 
From the 2011 discussion

By 1944 Germany was producing 8000 tanks/assault guns per year. That was too late. Germany industry should have geared up for maximum production in 1941, but didn't. The decision to stick with the PzIII as the main production tank for 1942 meant that in the late 42 battles in Russia the Germans lacked both quantity and quality (in the sense that the Pz III, despite being well built, lacked firepower and protection) There was no way that the Panther was going to built in large number and perform reliably by 1943. What was needed was a tank that could outperform the T34 and be built in large numbers in time for the late 42/early 43 battles. There are two way too do this. One is to stick with the planned VK3001(H) design and go for a fast service introduction and a quick change of production. This will allow a large number of 30/35t tanks that can be upgraded as needed, since they are big enough for that. The other would be to go for a simpler Panther, namely the VK3002(DB) that had the looks of the T34, but a 3 man turret, German engineering and optics, etc. The Panther was a fine tank for 1944, when the war was lost.
The VK3001 with the L48 gun was a bit like a German Comet, minus the powerful engine. The arguments for the VK3001(H) follows a similar line to the "more Ausf G PzIV earlier" reasoning. In time DB could have produced a diesel engine that would fit it and work reliably, and a simplified turret design (with the L70) could have been worked in. The bottom line is that Germany need to have produced (and delivered to the front) twice the number of tanks (with better fighting qualities than the PzIII/PzIV) they did in the September 1942/July1943 period to have a fighting chance.
 
From the 2011 discussion
<snip>
The VK3001 with the L48 gun was a bit like a German Comet, minus the powerful engine. The arguments for the VK3001(H) follows a similar line to the "more Ausf G PzIV earlier" reasoning. In time DB could have produced a diesel engine that would fit it and work reliably, and a simplified turret design (with the L70) could have been worked in. The bottom line is that Germany need to have produced (and delivered to the front) twice the number of tanks (with better fighting qualities than the PzIII/PzIV) they did in the September 1942/July1943 period to have a fighting chance.
Perhaps the schmalturm turret could have been added at a later date?

DVtfinQ.jpg
 
At work.

The overlapping wheels seem to be a solution to two problems.

Others more knowledgeable will hopefully round out the specifics SO;

Large road wheel (T-34, Cruiser/Commet) allow higher speeds. (I think this is right)

Lots of smaller road wheels spread the 'Point' weight pressure through/ over the tracks/ground better (Churchill)

So packing more, large wheels into the tracks kind of gives the best of both.

The down side on the Tiger I and Panther being heavier maintenance loads.

The later, only twin wheels, over-lap seems to be a concession to lowering maintenance while trying to keep the ride/speed.

Note, I'm kind of guessing. There was an awesome Swedish youtube 'Training' video done in the 50's(?) putting a Panther, Churchill and Sherman through the same paces. Any one know or have a 'Mirror' of said video perchance?

The 'Achilles' heel of the Panther truly seemed to be its final drive. Not its power to weight

Heck, the French continued to use 50 odd of them after the war as a 'Stop-gap' while their own industry picked up again after the war.
 

Deleted member 1487

More overlapping suspension. Did whomever designed that element ever test the concept in snow and frozen mud? Did they ever trial a field repair?
Not really an issue in terms of frozen stuff, it actually reduces ground pressure, smooths the ride, and reduces chances of a torsion bar break due to the greater number distributing pressure better; the issue comes from the wet mud that congeals in the gears. I think the idea was tested with western/central European conditions in mind, not Russia/Eastern European ones. The Rasputitsa is next level mud that would get stuck in the road wheels and could freeze/congeal over night if it wasn't drive out before stopping for an extended period. Sometimes it was simply not possible to get away from the mud though and it because a serious problem.
Ultimately too much is made of the special problems of the interweaved wheels in practice; yes they could run into particular issues, but so could other designs within Russian conditions. Yes maintenance was tougher, but considered worth it relative to the advantages the interweaved wheels/extra torsion bars provided in service. Post-war suspension designs though made it redundant.
http://community.battlefront.com/topic/108637-german-interleaved-roadwheels-an-introspective/
It's a bit of a mystery who decided to do it, based upon what. There are many different sources claiming different things.

- The Wirtschaftsministerium liked that the Schachtellaufwerk-equipped machines used less rubber for the roadwheels per kilometer. Also fuel consumption seems to have been better.

- PzII-neu drivers waxed poetic about the new overlapping wheel set shedding track much less often.

- There are unsubstantiated rumours from front units about improved mine resistance, but this is not borne out by the Waffenamt tests.

- Wide wheel sets made the use of wide tracks possible. according to design conference reports. I find this hard to accept as a reason though: they could just have used modern-style wide wheels.

- The track stayed straighter under the roadwheels in muddy ground, which would have made crawling out of a bog situation much easier. Especially with front sprockets.

- Track tension and concomitant wear needs to be lower with the flatter roadwheel surface. This is especially important with the amount of road marching the Germans did.

Plus let's not pretend like Allied tanks didn't have their own suspension issues:
http://forum.worldoftanks.com/index.php?/topic/566710-why-is-the-christie-suspension-no-longer-used/
The_Chieftain
Posted Jan 02 2018 - 20:54

Not only was it a matter of the internal space, but maintenance on the system was god-awful. Bogies can be easily replaced. Torsion bars can be annoying, but usually aren't too awful in comparison.

Example, to get at the springs on something like Comet, Cromwell or Crusader, you have to pull off the tracks, and then pull off the armor. And, I believe, often the wheels. Doing it on T-34 seems to be even tougher, given the side armor nature.
fz57mtR.png

Also the size scales with the weight, so to dampen a 40 ton tank effectively(if it could) it would be all suspension. The T34 had a terrible suspension from a dampening stand point and the Russians knew it before they were even in the war. Their design to change to torsion bars was canceled due to production needs when they entered the war.

The Christie suspension isn't the most stable gun platform for a tank to put it very very mildly that's why. That is why almost all modern tanks use torshen bar suspensions. Also include what the others said above. .

What Christie had developed was a new and revolutionary design...but it had its failings also: 1. durability at high speeds was less than exemplary, 2. maintenance/repair was both costly and time-consuming, 3. excessive sag in the track increased the tendency to shed a track (this was even worse in high-speed maneuvers), 4. the suspension took up a great deal of space, but the BIGGEST PROBLEM 5. the materials of the day were not up to the task (especially the rubberized road wheels) thereby limiting lifetime significantly. <45 years later, the Israelis took the Christie design as a basis to design the Merkava, developing a revised Christie design using modern materials to overcome flaws 1,2,3,&5, but it still takes up a LOT of space>

In the 1930s, many nations (especially Britain/France/Germany/Poland/Russia ) saw that tanks could become essential to their defense. Britain/Germany/France/Poland all had Christie designs, but Christie's suspension saw the largest amount of development/experimentation/manufacture by the Russians. With adoption of the Christie suspension, the BT2 (and later the T-34 and its derivatives) showed all the advantages and disadvantages inherent in the use of Christie's design. Of note: while the T-34 was put into production with the Christie suspension, the Russians recognized the benefits in ease of manufacture and durability that a torsion-bar suspension would provide. With war on the horizon, however, they knew that stopping/slowing production to retool and make such a significant change to the T-34 was not an option. They even kept the design on the T-34-85 to speed production. It wasn't until the T-44 that they instituted the change. Overall, the Russians found that torsion bars gave more benefits when compared to the Christie system at that time. The Russians didn't try the Christie system again until the T-64 was put into development, but once again found it to be less reliable and more costly than standard leaf/torsion systems (which they put into production on the T-72 and T-80).
 
Last edited by a moderator:

Deleted member 1487

From the 2011 discussion

By 1944 Germany was producing 8000 tanks/assault guns per year. That was too late. Germany industry should have geared up for maximum production in 1941, but didn't. The decision to stick with the PzIII as the main production tank for 1942 meant that in the late 42 battles in Russia the Germans lacked both quantity and quality (in the sense that the Pz III, despite being well built, lacked firepower and protection) There was no way that the Panther was going to built in large number and perform reliably by 1943. What was needed was a tank that could outperform the T34 and be built in large numbers in time for the late 42/early 43 battles. There are two way too do this. One is to stick with the planned VK3001(H) design and go for a fast service introduction and a quick change of production. This will allow a large number of 30/35t tanks that can be upgraded as needed, since they are big enough for that. The other would be to go for a simpler Panther, namely the VK3002(DB) that had the looks of the T34, but a 3 man turret, German engineering and optics, etc. The Panther was a fine tank for 1944, when the war was lost.
The VK3001 with the L48 gun was a bit like a German Comet, minus the powerful engine. The arguments for the VK3001(H) follows a similar line to the "more Ausf G PzIV earlier" reasoning. In time DB could have produced a diesel engine that would fit it and work reliably, and a simplified turret design (with the L70) could have been worked in. The bottom line is that Germany need to have produced (and delivered to the front) twice the number of tanks (with better fighting qualities than the PzIII/PzIV) they did in the September 1942/July1943 period to have a fighting chance.
Part of the issue was they were still building up tank factories through 1943 and it was really only in 1944 that they had full production volume possible despite the bombing.
 
At work.

The overlapping wheels seem to be a solution to two problems.

Others more knowledgeable will hopefully round out the specifics SO;

Large road wheel (T-34, Cruiser/Commet) allow higher speeds. (I think this is right)

Lots of smaller road wheels spread the 'Point' weight pressure through/ over the tracks/ground better (Churchill)

So packing more, large wheels into the tracks kind of gives the best of both.

the gory details over Nominal Ground Pressure

http://www.angelfire.com/trek/mytravels/militarygp.html

And the video

seems gone from Youtube :cryingface:
EDIt: and I see other found it :happyblush
 
Top