No Tigers, Just Panthers and Panzer IVs

Me I'd much rather develop the Pz-II into a light tank with 11-12 ton tank and 37mm 2-3 man turret and build them through out the 1930s. Total production could run into thousands , with 10,000 built by 1940. In the meantime the Pz-III & IV can be research into a mass producible common chassis for the 1940s - Ie the Pz-III/IV chassis. By 1940 the emergency decision would have to be made with smaller Pz-III over the Pz-IV as an interim tank to supplement the Pz-II tank force, while that light tank chassis production is widened to become a "StuG II" for the infantry forces . The 75L24 turret would fit on the 19 ton Pz-III from the start as would the PAK/KWK 50L60 gun.

Instead of developing Tigers/Panthers in early 1940s, the Pz-III/IV would be developed with moderate sloped hull armor to face the Matildas & Char-B of the European tanks. This could readily be adapted to fit a Pz-IV turret with 80mm frontal armor plus a 75L43 tank gun by 1942/43 . After this you steadily increase the 75mm gun length through out the war and tweak the armor to match.

If there are no heavy Nazi tanks there is NO NEED for the enemy to mess up there own production lines -to develop much bigger anti tank guns/tank guns until the end of the war. To that end the Nibelungenwerke could be seen as the bridge developing the Pz-III/IV [75L43] instead of the Porsche Tiger and put it into mass production through 1942. In 1943 instead of building Elephant improved models of this tank [75L60 or 75L70 turret] could be developed and put into mass production , later that year .
 
Last edited:
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.
And my post was suggesting that they just don't do that. Porsche just not entering the Tiger contest would simplify things greatly.

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.
Taking a tank that's too heavy for its engine to manage, and turning it into an even heavier vehicle is dumb regardless of the intended role. If they needed a self propelled 88/71 that badly then they should have been cutting down on weight rather than continually adding more and more and more weight to the thing.
 
Me I'd much rather develop the Pz-II into a light tank with 11-12 ton tank and 37mm 2-3 man turret and build them through out the 1930s. Total production could run into thousands , with 10,000 built by 1940. In the meantime the Pz-III & IV can be research into a mass producible common chassis for the 1940s - Ie the Pz-III/IV chassis. By 1940 the emergency decision would have to be made with smaller Pz-III over the Pz-IV as an interim tank to supplement the Pz-II tank force, while that light tank chassis production is widened to become a "StuG II" for the infantry forces . The 75L24 turret would fit on the 19 ton Pz-III from the start as would the PAK/KWK 50L60 gun.

this is interesting, when they take over Czechoslovakia they could adapt the similar Pz-38t? build the StuG II off that chassis? earlier Hetzer? and/or use same turret if possible?
 
this is interesting, when they take over Czechoslovakia they could adapt the similar Pz-38t? build the StuG II off that chassis? earlier Hetzer? and/or use same turret if possible?

Yes but that would be a duplication of effort. The Pz II [37mm] would have to begin production in 1936 instead of the Pz-II [20] production - with the first battalions mostly Pz-I , plus a troop of Pz-II [37] in each company. These panzer companies would be 1/2 Pz I & 1/2 Pz-II through 1937/38 .With the prelude to war approaching the obsolete Pz-I would converted en mass to ' Pz-J I or mechanised gun' [similar to the exploration/experiments of the early 1930s] so they can fill a AT role in the division. This could mean 2 dozen Panzer Battalions being formed along with dozen divisional supply trains equipped mostly for Pz-II.

Against that back drop the introduction of the Czech Pz35/38 t would be problematic , since all this time all the supply networks would be based on panzer I & II production /spare parts etc . These corps would also be gearing up for introduction of the Pz-III into production and the follow on introduction to the Panzer companies in 1940. Initially I was not going to include the Cz-35/38 tanks, but then thought the artillery could try to adapt the small number of these Czech tanks into self-propelled howitzer platform's . Apparently early TOE [1934?] included a SPH gun battery using a 105mm howitzer, and such a role would still be seen as needed !

Maybe such a Czech tank industry could be adapted to the StuG role -along side the Pz-II , but I figured it might complicate logistics too much.
 

TruthfulPanda

Gone Fishin'
Yup - the Pz.II and Pz.38 are a duplication of effort.
As in 1940 and 1941 the Czech plants could not do welding, I'd use the chassis for SPs.
In OTL the PZ.II had the engine moved to the front to produce the Wespe, but the Pz.38 never was subject to that far going modification, only ending up with a central engine as to free up the rear for a fighting compartment.
The Germans captured some four thousand 75mm Mle97 (of French and Polish make). Several hundred Marder IIIM with that gun in 1941 would be appreciated.
 

Deleted member 1487

Yup - the Pz.II and Pz.38 are a duplication of effort.
As in 1940 and 1941 the Czech plants could not do welding, I'd use the chassis for SPs.
In OTL the PZ.II had the engine moved to the front to produce the Wespe, but the Pz.38 never was subject to that far going modification, only ending up with a central engine as to free up the rear for a fighting compartment.
The Germans captured some four thousand 75mm Mle97 (of French and Polish make). Several hundred Marder IIIM with that gun in 1941 would be appreciated.
The Pz II and Pz 38t are the reality of not wanting to disrupt production by converting the production lines.
The Pz38t Chassis should have done earlier what the E-10 chassis did: move the front drive to the rear and use the chassis for a Hetzer like design, but lower and better balanced:
post-502707818-0-55969400-1484205249.jpg


jagdpanzer_38t_hetzer_3.jpg
 
Yes but that would be a duplication of effort. The Pz II [37mm] would have to begin production in 1936 instead of the Pz-II [20] production - with the first battalions mostly Pz-I , plus a troop of Pz-II [37] in each company. These panzer companies would be 1/2 Pz I & 1/2 Pz-II through 1937/38 .With the prelude to war approaching the obsolete Pz-I would converted en mass to ' Pz-J I or mechanised gun' [similar to the exploration/experiments of the early 1930s] so they can fill a AT role in the division. This could mean 2 dozen Panzer Battalions being formed along with dozen divisional supply trains equipped mostly for Pz-II.

Against that back drop the introduction of the Czech Pz35/38 t would be problematic , since all this time all the supply networks would be based on panzer I & II production /spare parts etc . These corps would also be gearing up for introduction of the Pz-III into production and the follow on introduction to the Panzer companies in 1940. Initially I was not going to include the Cz-35/38 tanks, but then thought the artillery could try to adapt the small number of these Czech tanks into self-propelled howitzer platform's . Apparently early TOE [1934?] included a SPH gun battery using a 105mm howitzer, and such a role would still be seen as needed !

Maybe such a Czech tank industry could be adapted to the StuG role -along side the Pz-II , but I figured it might complicate logistics too much.

Yup - the Pz.II and Pz.38 are a duplication of effort.
As in 1940 and 1941 the Czech plants could not do welding, I'd use the chassis for SPs.
In OTL the PZ.II had the engine moved to the front to produce the Wespe, but the Pz.38 never was subject to that far going modification, only ending up with a central engine as to free up the rear for a fighting compartment.
The Germans captured some four thousand 75mm Mle97 (of French and Polish make). Several hundred Marder IIIM with that gun in 1941 would be appreciated.

The Pz II and Pz 38t are the reality of not wanting to disrupt production by converting the production lines.
The Pz38t Chassis should have done earlier what the E-10 chassis did: move the front drive to the rear and use the chassis for a Hetzer like design, but lower and better balanced

if you follow along with @PSL scenario the logical use for Czech facility would be the SPGs? and the Pz-II the basis for Hetzer type?

pre-war my question would be can you "wave away" the divergent Pz-III & Pz-IV?
 
I figured they had already established focus on producing just one tank at a time -with Pz-I then PZ-II [ in sequence not simultaneously]. Pz-III and IV would be seen as research AFV to establish need. The out break of war would force a choice leading to an interim Pz- III until a Pz-III/IV chassis is ready in 1941/42.
 
Okay. Let’s bring this hard back on topic. If we’re sticking with Panzer IV, we must assume the design will be upgraded to take into account lessons of the T-34. So, we need a sloped front hull, for starters.

https://www.alternatehistory.com/forum/threads/sloped-panzer-iv-armor.245632/
IOTL the Germans had two sloped Pz.IV designs in 1942 and 43 respectively.
s1oNnbx.jpg

Its possible by 1944 the schmalturm turret armed with the KwK.42/L70 could've been added, that is if the schmalturm isn't butterflied away with the Panther.

6Rw3wuH.jpg
 
Either design is fine by me so long as turret has Pz-III 70-80mm curved front turret , that should defeat 76mm BR-350 ammo at muzzle except the wolfram round @ over 500m range. By contrast 75L46 Pz-39 ammo should defeat T-34/41 turret armor @ 1300m and T-34/42 turret armor @ 900m range. T-34 /43 & T34/85 turret was more difficult reducing Pz-39 penetration range to 200-300m.

Of course the AP-40 shots could manage T-34 turret penetration @ 1000-1300m; except against T-34/85 turret, which would be more like 500m with AP-40 shot.

Likewise any 50mm plate sloped @ 45o or more- should defeat most RU 3" APCBC/APCB ammo at ~100m range
 
Last edited:
Either design is fine by me so long as turret has Pz-III 70-80mm curved front turret , that should defeat 76mm BR-350 ammo at muzzle except the wolfram round @ over 500m range. since any 50mm plate sloped @ 45o or more should defeat most RU 3" APCBC/APCB ammo at 100m range. and
I think the schmalturm turret is the best turret design as far as the Pz.IV design goes and that's why I added one to the bottom pic in my previous post but the best possible PZ.IV design with the advantage of hindsight would be the Pz.III/IV suspension on a slightly longer sloped hull (for the addition of larger more powerful engines at a later date) and the schmalturm turret to take the KwK.42.

HJMc9r7.jpg
 

Jack1971

Banned
IOTL the Germans had two sloped Pz.IV designs in 1942 and 43 respectively.
s1oNnbx.jpg

Its possible by 1944 the schmalturm turret armed with the KwK.42/L70 could've been added, that is if the schmalturm isn't butterflied away with the Panther.

6Rw3wuH.jpg
Why not put a bustle at the rear of the turret, like the Tiger II? This would give space and better balance the gun.

ac9de58a8053073fe03f7cdd147472c8.jpg
 
Last edited:
IOTL the Germans had two sloped Pz.IV designs in 1942 and 43 respectively.
s1oNnbx.jpg
That first one, bet that crew really misses hatches for exiting a tank quickly, and for ventilation.

Always did wonder why they didn't use the short Panzer IV Chassis more , originally designed by Krupp in 1940 for the Sd Kfz 165/1 105mm SPG, 10 built in 1941
20127304078_250d5163ec.jpg
640px-PzH_GW_IVb.svg.png

Note larger diameter roadwheels on that than standard Mk IV
Smaller chassis would require less steel per unit for the same protection, and used a smaller engine for its 18T weight

OTL they dithered( larger version with a dismountable turret, WTF?), and eventually decided to make the 11T Sd Kfz 124 Wespe instead, reworking Mk IIF chassis in 1943
 
That first one, bet that crew really misses hatches for exiting a tank quickly, and for ventilation.

Always did wonder why they didn't use the short Panzer IV Chassis more , originally designed by Krupp in 1940 for the Sd Kfz 165/1 105mm SPG, 10 built in 1941
20127304078_250d5163ec.jpg
640px-PzH_GW_IVb.svg.png

Note larger diameter roadwheels on that than standard Mk IV
Smaller chassis would require less steel per unit for the same protection, and used a smaller engine for its 18T weight

OTL they dithered( larger version with a dismountable turret, WTF?), and eventually decided to make the 11T Sd Kfz 124 Wespe instead, reworking Mk IIF chassis in 1943

Armored SPH battalions are operationally just as vital as panzer battalions , as are armored infantry to complete an armored battle groups effectiveness. To sustain any such forces in the field you need a steady commitment to substantial production effort along with spares etc. So a battle group with mainly Pz-IV type AFV seems like a bonus on the logistical side. But me I would mount shoehorn in 150mm howitzers , rather than 105mm how.

The captured French tractor Lorainne Schlepper was utilized to mount the old sFH-13 howitzer in 1942/43. This improvised SPA was smaller than the Pz-IVb LeFH18/1 [Sd Kfz 165/1] chassis, so improvising a mount for the sFH-13 should be doable. The ammo was 60 x 105mm shells plus the 2 ton 105L28 howitzer @ 2.5-3m long. By comparison the sFH-13 HOWITZER is slightly larger at 2.25 tons & 2.5m long. It looks like the ammo supply would be 1/2 or 30 shells...quite a bit better than Hummel and at least a year earlier.
 

Deleted member 1487

Armored SPH battalions are operationally just as vital as panzer battalions , as are armored infantry to complete an armored battle groups effectiveness. To sustain any such forces in the field you need a steady commitment to substantial production effort along with spares etc. So a battle group with mainly Pz-IV type AFV seems like a bonus on the logistical side. But me I would mount shoehorn in 150mm howitzers , rather than 105mm how.

The captured French tractor Lorainne Schlepper was utilized to mount the old sFH-13 howitzer in 1942/43. This improvised SPA was smaller than the Pz-IVb LeFH18/1 [Sd Kfz 165/1] chassis, so improvising a mount for the sFH-13 should be doable. The ammo was 60 x 105mm shells plus the 2 ton 105L28 howitzer @ 2.5-3m long. By comparison the sFH-13 HOWITZER is slightly larger at 2.25 tons & 2.5m long. It looks like the ammo supply would be 1/2 or 30 shells...quite a bit better than Hummel and at least a year earlier.
I know one commander, Hermann Balck, hated the SP artillery weapons, because the chassis would break down frequently, which would remove an entire artillery piece from combat while the chassis was being repaired. Meanwhile a truck towed gun just needed a different truck or prime mover to still be combat usable. A truck/prime mover was also cheaper than fully tracked tank chassis. For this reason at least in theory the SP artillery battery was supposed to have six guns on hand because just for maintenance at least two would always be laid up. So for their advantages the mechanical realities meant that there were some serious issues that cropped up given the automative technology of the day.
 
I know one commander, Hermann Balck, hated the SP artillery weapons, because the chassis would break down frequently, which would remove an entire artillery piece from combat while the chassis was being repaired. Meanwhile a truck towed gun just needed a different truck or prime mover to still be combat usable. A truck/prime mover was also cheaper than fully tracked tank chassis. For this reason at least in theory the SP artillery battery was supposed to have six guns on hand because just for maintenance at least two would always be laid up. So for their advantages the mechanical realities meant that there were some serious issues that cropped up given the automative technology of the day.


Sounds about right but most reports put the actual inventory numbers well below TOE, so getting by with less was the norm. Besides a kampfgruppe can only move at the speed of the slowest component. Towed artillery that takes 1/4 hour to get into or out of a firing position and stuck to road/track mobility ; seems like a liability.
 
Sounds about right but most reports put the actual inventory numbers well below TOE, so getting by with less was the norm. Besides a kampfgruppe can only move at the speed of the slowest component. Towed artillery that takes 1/4 hour to get into or out of a firing position and stuck to road/track mobility ; seems like a liability.

One reason there is so much modern SPGs on wheeled chassis. good enough mobility with high reliability and less maintenance than tracks. Towed guns are rare, except those the followed 2nd World Soviet Doctrine
 

Deleted member 1487

Sounds about right but most reports put the actual inventory numbers well below TOE, so getting by with less was the norm. Besides a kampfgruppe can only move at the speed of the slowest component. Towed artillery that takes 1/4 hour to get into or out of a firing position and stuck to road/track mobility ; seems like a liability.
Depends on what the prime mover is pulling them. There are trade offs, but having artillery was better than having it laid up in a repair shack. Especially if you need to retreat and one is mobile while the other is not. Certain guns like the large caliber 170mm and above pieces would have benefited by being mounted on a tank chassis, but the lighter ones may not have.
 

Deleted member 1487

One reason there is so much modern SPGs on wheeled chassis. good enough mobility with high reliability and less maintenance than tracks. Towed guns are rare, except those the followed 2nd World Soviet Doctrine
Pardon? There are tons of towed guys used by the US, like the 155mm field pieces (also). Wheeled chassis work where there are roads, but WW2 Russia conditions wouldn't work well for those.
 
Top