This is the thing people ignore, in many ways the fightability of a tank is more important than it's armour layout and a big part of that is giving crew room to move around and do their jobs well also carrying sufficient ammunition. Even allowing for crew differences the theoretically better T-34 generally lost to the Panzer IV because for all the Panzer's flaws at least the crew had the space to work.
Sloped Panzer IV armor?
- Thread starter Shtudmuffin
- Start date
- Status
This is the thing people ignore, in many ways the fightability of a tank is more important than it's armour layout and a big part of that is giving crew room to move around and do their jobs well also carrying sufficient ammunition. Even allowing for crew differences the theoretically better T-34 generally lost to the Panzer IV because for all the Panzer's flaws at least the crew had the space to work.
Pz III 50mm L60 only as (light) tank, other may be stugs,stuhs and sturmpanzers; lighter than pzIII may be sent for luftwaffe.PzIV may be kept for tank products only. In time with mass production of vk3002db , some sloped jagdpanzersIV may entered production,but no before db t34-75 stay massive in number. Also newer adapted pzIV as sturmpz; this task may be left on vk3001h, and also no product sturmtigers,jagdpanthers- kept chasis for tanks only. Nearly all tank-based SPG may mount on vk3001h. + Porshe's hybrid Elefant+comnand tank;And also vk3002db newer be used as stug,spg,etc . Back to theme, jagdpanzerIVL/48 and panzerIVL/70 produced with sloped armour-design and weight was <26t . L/48 was cca 784 units, L/70 was cca 940 units, and L70/v was cca 278 ; This sloped jpzIV was reasonable. But STUG-IV was forced "error", that cannot be better than STUG-III ,but croped tank-producton for 1100 units. Also all sturmpanzersIV was mistakes,this howitzers may easy mount on sturer-emil platform. Hummel and jagdpanther also be mounted on less perspective 3001h platform(in mid 43') ,left cca 900 platforms for tanks pzIV and panther.
Last edited:
Admiral Fischer
Banned
Just a reminder that VK 30.01 (H) design could only house 7,5cm L/24 gun aka short 75mm. There was an attempt to fit the long 75mm gun into the turret but turned out to be not feasible. If they goes with the design, expect a total disaster.
Agreed with You, 3001 was not perspective tank-platform. But sturer-emil was good inaf for 128mm SPG. This goes to real option for other sturmpanzers with smaller calibres 105mm(Krupp), 88mm, or 75mm to be added on this platform, and also humel,nashorn conversion,spg, in mind to left good tank-platforms for tank production only.
Last edited:
Admiral Fischer
Banned
The dilemma for the Wehrmacht here would be "Why build a worse version of Panther?"
Reminds me of the phantom 26t 'Heavy' Leopard light tank design, fit a 75mm gun turret and and now it's a good medium tank, but then again why build it when they just could build Panthers more...
I think Hitler and some others would see it that way but it would really be just improving the Pz.IV.
Yes, but couple of pz/III-IV may be produced and tested with some steel quantity istead of two Maus-hulls and then may witnesed about pro and contra of pz3/4;
Last edited:
At work.
So, I see a couple of different replies.
1) "Why build a 'Poor man's Panther?" I often see more complaints about the 'Over comlexity', 'Over priced', 'Over design', 'Poor mechanical relyability' and such maligning the Panther. It's either value for money, hence earning other similar machines the 'Poor mans' qualifer thereby giving it's own answer OR the assertions are actually true!
In which case then building said 'Alter/sloped Pz III/IV' is correct since, hopefully, said above problems don't arise due to the different design decisions taken.
From my times about this board, reading the many historical links, it would seem the Panther design over all is an exemplary machine. Only let down by the state/technology of its 'Final drive' assembly.
If the powers that he had had more/better access to the methods or components that would have side-stepped such an issue?
The other point of contention often seem to be that of 'Cost' and 'Quantity'. Which are very different and variable tuings to discuss/talk about.
Much cheers!
So, I see a couple of different replies.
1) "Why build a 'Poor man's Panther?" I often see more complaints about the 'Over comlexity', 'Over priced', 'Over design', 'Poor mechanical relyability' and such maligning the Panther. It's either value for money, hence earning other similar machines the 'Poor mans' qualifer thereby giving it's own answer OR the assertions are actually true!
In which case then building said 'Alter/sloped Pz III/IV' is correct since, hopefully, said above problems don't arise due to the different design decisions taken.
From my times about this board, reading the many historical links, it would seem the Panther design over all is an exemplary machine. Only let down by the state/technology of its 'Final drive' assembly.
If the powers that he had had more/better access to the methods or components that would have side-stepped such an issue?
The other point of contention often seem to be that of 'Cost' and 'Quantity'. Which are very different and variable tuings to discuss/talk about.
Much cheers!
Light leopard apeared, in much less complicated 8x8 wheeled versions 50mm(pzIII gun) and 75mm/L46 gun; this way also anticipated modern trend.
Deleted member 1487
Herringbone gears were used on the Sherman's final drive and was technology available to Germany. The Panther had it's design flaws, not least of which was the front drive system, which made it overly heavy and tall (a flaw the Sherman had too, which was rectified in the M26). The Germans also had access to transverse engine placement (used in a 1931 German car design) like used in the T-44 Soviet tank, which if applied to the Panther in conjunction with a rear drive would have cut the weight of the design probably by 10 tons, making it overall smaller and cheaper, plus much more maneuverable and effective. The reason it was not was design choices, which compromised the design.
They must urgent activate panzerIII/IV and vk3002db for mass-production in 1942. And kept pzIV original L43 and L48 production. Panthers may be in service from early 44' as sloped-heavy design, and king-T2 may be not need, or only for defence.(also Pz3 must decreased with production in 42' , as Soviet T-50 demised in early 42')
Perhaps instead of building better brownie point tanks the Germans went for simply 'better' tanks. The MkIV was a viable medium tank but showing it's age. If it were replaced by another good medium tank designed for ease of construction and use instead of Top Trumps points. Economical to build in quantity and easy to maintain and use in service in all conditions and minimising scarce resources. I know people will point to assorted other OTL designs but they all tried to be better technical performers whereas what was needed was a tank that used a minimum of resources, could do a decent job in real life battle and just kept going. Really a German Sherman (no not a copy). The MkIII woud be too small a concept. The existing MKIV was open to improvement but was a conceptual framework in size and could carry a decent gun.
The tank is not a mobile gun. It has to reach the battle so should be able to cross available bridges. It should not run out of fuel so economical running will extend range as well as a larger fuel capacity will without the weight. It should be reliable so that all your tanks arrive to do battle. It should be easy to maintain and repair so that you can be given as many tanks as possible to run. It is the vehicle for the crew to inhabit and fight so they need good ergonomics and ease of daily servicing etc. will give you a better rested and performing crew who are neither too cold to sleep/fight nor too hot. Did I mention a BV? Good internal living conditions will discourage them from dismounting so reducing crew losses from indirect fire whilst dismounted. Sloped armour carried a weight penalty when it increases the volume of the tank as there is more tank to protect. A sloping glacis plate is a good thing. Sloped side armour less so. The post war MBT solution was sloped front armour and vertical side armour contained within the tracks. The turret can use sloped armour as the extra volume beyond the turret ring benefits working space for the 3 men wriggled in around the assorted big/sharp and moving bits inside the oversized tin can which is being shaken about in all axes with soft squashy people inside. Oh yes. Make the b*ggers actually wear a helmet that works and can be worn comfortably.
What I am saying is that a sloped MkIV is a step towards a better service medium tank and a better alternative to the cool complicated 'wunder' tanks they got.
Only by 1945 does this pattern start needing a more powerful gun that a really good 75mm and the MBTs became large medium tanks and not light heavy tanks and used the above criteria only larger.
The tank is not a mobile gun. It has to reach the battle so should be able to cross available bridges. It should not run out of fuel so economical running will extend range as well as a larger fuel capacity will without the weight. It should be reliable so that all your tanks arrive to do battle. It should be easy to maintain and repair so that you can be given as many tanks as possible to run. It is the vehicle for the crew to inhabit and fight so they need good ergonomics and ease of daily servicing etc. will give you a better rested and performing crew who are neither too cold to sleep/fight nor too hot. Did I mention a BV? Good internal living conditions will discourage them from dismounting so reducing crew losses from indirect fire whilst dismounted. Sloped armour carried a weight penalty when it increases the volume of the tank as there is more tank to protect. A sloping glacis plate is a good thing. Sloped side armour less so. The post war MBT solution was sloped front armour and vertical side armour contained within the tracks. The turret can use sloped armour as the extra volume beyond the turret ring benefits working space for the 3 men wriggled in around the assorted big/sharp and moving bits inside the oversized tin can which is being shaken about in all axes with soft squashy people inside. Oh yes. Make the b*ggers actually wear a helmet that works and can be worn comfortably.
What I am saying is that a sloped MkIV is a step towards a better service medium tank and a better alternative to the cool complicated 'wunder' tanks they got.
Only by 1945 does this pattern start needing a more powerful gun that a really good 75mm and the MBTs became large medium tanks and not light heavy tanks and used the above criteria only larger.
marathag
Banned
Large model of the Panzer IV, you can see it was very roomy for a late '30s design
Note fuel tanks on either side of the engine drive shaft, and ammo stowage behind the driver.
more at
http://filscalemodels.ph/testshots/trumpeter16panzer4/trumpeter16pazer4.html
Overly roomy even in the drivers compartment. There, the first models had a stepped plate so the driver could have a direct vision/pistol port on the right side
Now they could have moved the driver position further back into the hull, losing ammo capacity, but having a sloped glacis like the early M4 Sherman with direct vision blocks
Now back to the VK 3001
Hull Length: 5.81m
Hull Width: 3.16m
The Panzer IV F2
Length: 5.6m
Hull Width: 2.9m
So you had a larger hull and seemingly larger turret, but couldn't a larger gun?
Seems it was the turret design. The TC was in the way of the Guns recoil, and they didn't want to make a new turret to increase the distance that already existed on the Mk IV, or to offset the hatch over to the side
as with the VK3601
That would eventually morphed into the Tiger.
They wanted to build the heavier tank, so that's the excuse on why more couldn't be done with the existing VK3001
At work.
Indeed the differences in gear designs chosen is something I've seen much talk about.
The decisions made though would seem to be a 'Deeper' problem with choices made by German planners about the tools/amount of tools created to actually create the machines to be produced. I.E. simply not enough machine tools/Tradespeople to make the gears as were needed.
Now the transvers engine etc is new to me! Please, tell me more!
Indeed the differences in gear designs chosen is something I've seen much talk about.
The decisions made though would seem to be a 'Deeper' problem with choices made by German planners about the tools/amount of tools created to actually create the machines to be produced. I.E. simply not enough machine tools/Tradespeople to make the gears as were needed.
Now the transvers engine etc is new to me! Please, tell me more!
Yes, but 3001h may easy play role for brummbar,hummel,nashhorn,grasshopper,heuschrecke / without colision with tank-production, and Stug-production lines;Large model of the Panzer IV, you can see it was very roomy for a late '30s design
Note fuel tanks on either side of the engine drive shaft, and ammo stowage behind the driver.
more at
http://filscalemodels.ph/testshots/trumpeter16panzer4/trumpeter16pazer4.html
Overly roomy even in the drivers compartment. There, the first models had a stepped plate so the driver could have a direct vision/pistol port on the right side
deleted in later versions.
Now they could have moved the driver position further back into the hull, losing ammo capacity, but having a sloped glacis like the early M4 Sherman with direct vision blocksbefore switching to periscopes
Now back to the VK 3001
Hull Length: 5.81m
Hull Width: 3.16m
The Panzer IV F2
Length: 5.6m
Hull Width: 2.9m
So you had a larger hull and seemingly larger turret, but couldn't a larger gun?
Seems it was the turret design. The TC was in the way of the Guns recoil, and they didn't want to make a new turret to increase the distance that already existed on the Mk IV, or to offset the hatch over to the side
as with the VK3601
That would eventually morphed into the Tiger.
They wanted to build the heavier tank, so that's the excuse on why more couldn't be done with the existing VK3001
Of course, all of it is theory; mass of vk3002db + pzIII/IV can not win over SSSR + USA. Mass of panthers was not inaf also; what every strateg can do against cca 50000 T34 produced + 40000 M4Sh produced ? Even if You imagine 90 000 PzIII 50mm/L60, how this mass can stopp with 6000 T34/85 + 2000 IS/mk2 ? not easy, maybe good commander much managed draw-position, no more ... according to Franz von Halder, Hitler lost war when declared war to USA 11.XII 1941.; And when Italy declared war USA,fate was decided completely: axis defeat was only matter of time. Against SSSR , Germany had some chance to draw, or Brest-Litovsk/2 armistice as best option, in variant for no react to Pearl Harbour. They must left Japanese Empire to fight alone with USA , and concentrate troops with reserves on eastern, left italians and bulgarian to okupy Balkan ,Greece, etc ;
- Status