The story of a different Panzer V (Panther)

Aircraft engines were high revving fuel burners and not as reliable. Tank engines needed a lot more low end torque. They also needed to stay working for longer periods since aircraft get worked on every time they land.

Better to keep them separate.

Not completely true, many of the things developed for the air ones can be used by the tank ones.

Just underrating the engine gave the Meteor years of live, do not forget that for aircrafts just 10 HP can make a difference, for a tank no.

Yes it can be done, but I suppose it will produce 600 to 650 HP, at first, less highly expensive alloys, just simple steel means a hundred times less expensive engine, while reducing power and making quite a lot more heavy ( irrelevant because the armor weights a lot more anyway ).

At medium term, and thinking in Russian steppes yes, a Diesel version is better.
 
Not completely true, many of the things developed for the air ones can be used by the tank ones.
IIRC the Ford engine used for the Sherman was a cut down version of an aircraft engine (that admittedly never saw service). My recollection was the aircraft engine was V12 and the tank engine a V8.
 
Yeah, but aircraft engines aren't really an optimal solution. They consume more fuel and deliver less horsepower and torque than a purpose built tank engine.
 
YLi said:
aircraft engines aren't really an optimal solution.
They're also over-engineered for lightness (needless for tanks), which tends to make them a trifle fragile as tank engines. Ideally, you'd use something like a prime mover engine. An 895ci Hercules diesel, say?
 
This would be the optimal German tank for WWII:

Starting with a Pz. IV, I would adopt a rear mounted transmission and drive shaft. I would also bolt coilover suspensions to the sides instead of running torsion bars underneath the floor of the tank. This will make the tank roughly 20cm wider and 20cm lower and would make the running gear far easier to fix. It would also allow for a 10cm increase in turret ring diameter and allow for a larger electric motor for faster turret traverse. The increased width of the tank would reduce ground pressure as well, allowing for an increase in mobility in the snow and mud found in Russia. To top it off, I would install a diesel engine and gear the transmission towards production of torque. This will allow the tank strong acceleration over difficult terrain at a slight cost in top speed.

In terms of armor protection and layout, I would extend the casemate on the sides so that it fully overhangs the tracks, allowing for greater internal volume. Additionally, I would slope the front glacis plate and turret front for greater ballistic performance and greater internal volume. Side skirts can be installed for greater protection. The armor thickness of both the front glacis and front turret will be around 80mm and the additional slope will make the armor far more difficult to penetrate.

As for armament, I would install the KwK 42 L/70 gun modified to fire the same 75x714mmR ammunition used by the Pak40 anti-tank gun. I don't quite understand why the KwK 42 and Pak 40 used different ammunition. The longer barrel means lower comparative pressures in any event, allowing for the full potential of the 75x714mm round to be utilized. Thanks to the larger turret ring size, the new Pz. IV can easily accommodate the heavier main armament. Ammunition will be placed in a bustle hanging off the rear of the turret so that a minimum of combustible rounds are in the fighting compartment itself. Gun elevation and depression should be improved slightly, making the tank just a bit better in urban warfare. Also, putting the ammunition in a turret bustle means that a later upgrade for an automatic loader would be much easier to implement.

In terms of secondary armament, I would delete the hull machine gun and give both the commander and loader MG-42s mounted on the roof behind steel gunshields. The radio will be miniaturized and placed in the turret basket itself to be operated by the commander and the 5th crewman deleted. Optionally, an NbW 92mm grenade launcher can be installed for close combat. Lastly, there will be a telephone mounted on the rear of the tank so that infantry can speak directly with the crew inside.

The whole tank should weigh approximately 30 tons (give or take) and possess significantly greater strategic and tactical mobility over the previous Panzer IV while costing approximately the same amount in terms of money and resources. A larger version of this vehicle (let's call it a Tiger because there would be no need for the Panther), would be much the same as the new Panzer IV, but would carry a 88/L71 Kwk 43 and have a combat weight of around 50 tons. Frontal armor on the Tiger would be around 130mm sloped at 50-60 degrees, making engagement for Allied tanks extremely hazardous.

All of these changes are changes that the Germans could have easily made, assuming a PoD in the mid-1930s regarding design decisions. None of this technology was unavailable in the 1930s, nor would it have been overly complicated/implausible for German engineers to come up with such technology on their own.
 
YLi said:
The increased width of the tank would reduce ground pressure as well
:confused::confused: Increased track width does that....:rolleyes: And if the hull is wider, you're pushing limits on widths of tunnels & railcar loading width.
YLi said:
a diesel engine
This is bad for Germany's petroleum industry, which can scarcely keep up with fuel production as it is...
YLi said:
armor thickness of both the front glacis and front turret will be around 80mm
The Pz4 chassis was at its front suspension limit at 80mm & needed steel roadwheels even at that. IDK how much growth there was in armor thickness.
YLi said:
The radio will be miniaturized
Just going to handwave that into existence?:rolleyes:
YLi said:
The whole tank should weigh approximately 30 tons
Why don't I believe you can achieve it for that...?:rolleyes:
 
Yes it can be done, but I suppose it will produce 600 to 650 HP, at first, less highly expensive alloys, just simple steel means a hundred times less expensive engine, while reducing power and making quite a lot more heavy ( irrelevant because the armor weights a lot more anyway ).
Actually, I thought one of the reasons the T-34 was better was because its aluminium engine block allowed them to stick a couple of tons more armour on that a steel block would have allowed.
 
Eyerolling smileys? :rolleyes:

1.) It's implied the tracks get wider :rolleyes:. In any event, an added 20cm isn't going to be a game breaker as far as logistic transportability goes. :rolleyes: A far bigger factor will be weight and the tank isn't much heavier.

2.) With a PoD in the 1930s, I'm sure more vehicles could get diesel engines. :rolleyes: It's not like diesel engines get better gas mileage than gasoline ones. :rolleyes:

3.) The OTL Pz4 had 80mm on the front turret and 50mm on the front hull. Alt-PzIV is about the size of the T-34/85 and will have correspondingly thick armor. :rolleyes: As for the front suspension limit, I did specify a new suspension was to be used. :rolleyes:

Actually, I thought one of the reasons the T-34 was better was because its aluminium engine block allowed them to stick a couple of tons more armour on that a steel block would have allowed.

Weight difference wouldn't be a couple of tons and an aluminum engine block is just asking for a really horrible internal fire.
 
YLi said:
It's implied the tracks get wider
You may have thought so; I didn't take it that way.
YLi said:
In any event, an added 20cm isn't going to be a game breaker as far as logistic transportability goes.
I should have looked at the specs...:eek:
YLi said:
With a PoD in the 1930s, I'm sure more vehicles could get diesel engines.
It's not the ability to produce diesel engines that's the issue, it's the ability to produce diesel fuel, which is what I said.:rolleyes: (Yes, that really does deserve:rolleyes:.)
YLi said:
It's not like diesel engines get better gas mileage than gasoline ones.
Which, notice, is the problem. Germany could scarcely produce enough gasoline, let alone diesel too. As I understand it, diesels actually get lower mileage per ton of fuel, so it makes the problem worse for the petrochemical industry.:eek:
YLi said:
The OTL Pz4 had 80mm on the front turret and 50mm on the front hull. Alt-PzIV is about the size of the T-34/85 and will have correspondingly thick armor.
And Pz IVs with 80mm glacis armor were trialled.:rolleyes: (Yes,:rolleyes:.)
YLi said:
As for the front suspension limit, I did specify a new suspension was to be used.
And I wondered if it would overcome or compensate for the additional forward weight.
 
phx1138 said:
It's not the ability to produce diesel engines that's the issue, it's the ability to produce diesel fuel, which is what I said.:rolleyes: (Yes, that really does deserve:rolleyes:.)

Which, notice, is the problem. Germany could scarcely produce enough gasoline, let alone diesel too. As I understand it, diesels actually get lower mileage per ton of fuel, so it makes the problem worse for the petrochemical industry.:eek:

That's not true. Diesel and petrol have similar energy density by weight and diesel has superior energy density by volume. A diesel engine can do more work than a petrol engine of the same size burning a similar amount of fuel. More work for same fuel consumption means better gas mileage. The engine itself will be slightly heavier but more reliable.

What the Germans could do, if they're feeling adventurous is add a supercharger or turbocharger for improved power. However, that may place an undue strain on the transmission and running gear of the 1940s.

phx1138 said:
And Pz IVs with 80mm glacis armor were trialled.:rolleyes: (Yes,:rolleyes:.)

And I wondered if it would overcome or compensate for the additional forward weight.

Torsion bar suspensions aren't the best for tanks since they tend to make the tank taller than it has to be. Horstmann/Christie suspensions are better. That being said, some of the finest handling tanks ever made have torsion bar suspensions (Russian tanks from T-54 onwards, Abrams, Leopard series, etc.

Anyway, at minimum, they could have put the Pz. IV's transmission in the rear, made the turret ring bigger, put in a KwK 42 and used a smaller version of the Panther hull to slope the front glacis and make welding easier. All of that would have helped the Pz. IV stay relevant longer.

The Panther could have taken an 88/71 if whoever designed its transmission and drive system wasn't an idiot.
 
YLi said:
That's not true. Diesel and petrol have similar energy density by weight and diesel has superior energy density by volume. A diesel engine can do more work than a petrol engine of the same size burning a similar amount of fuel. More work for same fuel consumption means better gas mileage.
I've heard different, but IDK enough about it to say for sure. I understood diesel would lead to lower overall mileage by about 20%.
YLi said:
What the Germans could do, if they're feeling adventurous is add a supercharger or turbocharger for improved power. However, that may place an undue strain on the transmission and running gear of the 1940s.
It shouldn't, if they're engineered for the torque output. You do have issues of detonation due to poor fuel quality, but boost presures would be low compared to even factory cars in the '80s or '90s. Increasing displacement is actually easier & simpler.
YLi said:
Torsion bar suspensions aren't the best for tanks since they tend to make the tank taller than it has to be. Horstmann/Christie suspensions are better.
Not arguing for torsion bars. I've thought the HVSS was the best option.
YLi said:
Anyway, at minimum, they could have put the Pz. IV's transmission in the rear, made the turret ring bigger, put in a KwK 42 and used a smaller version of the Panther hull to slope the front glacis and make welding easier. All of that would have helped the Pz. IV stay relevant longer.
I entirely agree. I'd be inclined to upgun to 88mm, but IDK if the chassis could cope. With new suspension, was even the 75mm L/100 be out of bounds? Something else to consider: this probably means production of *Pz V goes up. Bad news for the Allies.:eek:
YLi said:
The Panther could have taken an 88/71 if whoever designed its transmission and drive system wasn't an idiot.
Yep, & been mightily dangerous.:eek:
 
I've heard different, but IDK enough about it to say for sure. I understood diesel would lead to lower overall mileage by about 20%.

Nope, diesel gets better overall mileage. This is because diesel engines get a higher total efficiency (some of the biggest can convert almost half the chemical energy of their fuel to mechanical energy, compared to about a quarter to a third in gasoline engines). It also has that advantage of not burning very easily, compared to gasoline. And of being somewhat mechanically simpler (no spark plug).
 
Diesels get better overall mileage than gas by a factor of up to 3:1

An M48A1 or A2 with a V1790 Gas engine got about 70 miles of range on 210 gallons of Gas. The A3 version with the diesel version of the same engine got about 200 miles with the same 210 gallons of gas. The official hp of the gas version was higher (about 810 hp to 750 hp) but the diesel had higher torque giving better low speed performance. Other than the engines the vehicles were pretty much the same (Many A3s were upgraded from A1 & A2 models)

Also I think most tanks developed after WWII used Torsion bar suspension (The exceptions being the Centurion and the Swiss PZ61/68 series). There must be a reason it found general acceptance. The Christie Suspension had pretty much reached it's limit with the T-34 beyond that size the coil springs became too big as the weight increased and took up too much space
 
Last edited:

Anderman

Donor
Another tank that uses coil spring today is the israeli Merkava, one problem with coil spring is mud hard to clean the springs. A problem the israelis are hard to encounter in the desert.
 
Anyway, at minimum, they could have put the Pz. IV's transmission in the rear, made the turret ring bigger, put in a KwK 42 and used a smaller version of the Panther hull to slope the front glacis and make welding easier. All of that would have helped the Pz. IV stay relevant longer.

With all these changes, would they really need to replace the Pz. IV after meeting the T-34? The Panther was IIRC a panic rection to the fact most (if not all) German tanks in Barbarossa couldn`t destroy the T-34 and KV tanks unless they fired really close; almost at knife range.
 
Last edited:
With all these changes, would they really need to replace the Pz. IV after meeting the T-34? The Panther was IIRC a panic rection to the fact most (if not all) German tanks in Barbarossa couldn`t destroy the T-34 and KV tanks unless they fired really close; almost at knife range.

The Germans could have inflicted quite a few more losses against the Russians had they had that version of the Panzer IV. The Panzer V would probably look exactly like the Konigstiger in this case then.
 
Top