VK3601H or VK3001H with 88mm gun instead of Panther

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Playing off of this thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=384317

What if after encountering the T-34 and KV-1 in Barbarossa the push is to get something into service quickly to replace both the Pz IV and III in service (the latter chassis would still be used for things like the StuG III, but production not expanded) as the sole medium tank with a long 75mm gun? IOTL before adopting the L70 75mm gun that the Panther got they were working on an L60 that didn't have as much recoil and didn't weigh as much, but had less range and penetration than the Panther's gun. Given that the VK3001H didn't have a turret capable of taking the L43 gun of 1942 that the Pz IV ended up using since it would need time to get a new turret ring and turret production wouldn't start until mid-1942 and would phase out the Pz IV chassis entirely, take up all the historical capacity used for the Panther, and even eat into some of the 1942 expansion of Pz III chassis production.

Rather than bothering with a racial new design with sloped armor or wider tracks, it just has 80mm frontal armor, a better gun than any German medium, and production standardized on it, while 'secondary' chassis like the remaining Pz III production, Pz 38t, and Pz II would do their historical types other than turreted tank versions (StuG III/StuH 42, Marder III/Grille/Hetzer, and Wespe/Marder II respectively). Some VK3001H production would go to making Hummel SP artillery and Nashorn TDs instead of making the Pz III/IV chassis.

Thoughts on how that would impact things in terms of Panzer divisions and their combat effectiveness?
 
As someone who doesn't think highly of the Panther due to its complexity and maintenance problems, I think this would be a big net gain for the Germans. It should be kept in mind that the VK3001H weighed less than the Panther, so in addition to being more reliable, considerably more of them could be produced. The course of events in 1943 could be substantially altered, Kursk probably happens sooner and the subsequent Soviet counteroffensives, while they still gain ground, are more costly and move slower. In my opinion, it is possible that the ramifications could last into 1944 if the STAVKA decides to keep its main effort in Ukraine if it feels that its gains there in the previous year were inadequate.
 

Deleted member 1487

As someone who doesn't think highly of the Panther due to its complexity and maintenance problems, I think this would be a big net gain for the Germans. It should be kept in mind that the VK3001H weighed less than the Panther, so in addition to being more reliable, considerably more of them could be produced. The course of events in 1943 could be substantially altered, Kursk probably happens sooner and the subsequent Soviet counteroffensives, while they still gain ground, are more costly and move slower. In my opinion, it is possible that the ramifications could last into 1944 if the STAVKA decides to keep its main effort in Ukraine if it feels that its gains there in the previous year were inadequate.
I'm assuming the resulting tank would be 35-36 tons with the L60 tank gun and 80mm armor. Its armor wouldn't be better than the Pz IV and its mobility about the same, i.e. inferior to the T-34, but the gun would be significantly better until the T-34/85 in 1944.
 
Good thing would be avoiding two separate designs for new 7,5mm gun, one for Pak, Marders and StuG-III, another for Pz-IVG (plus another barrel for the Pz-IVH), that fired different rounds. I'd stick to the Pak round/catridge, for the startes, while kicking the work on the L60 version, hopefully with same round. The next-gen gun should be a refined 8,8cm for that ~35 ton tank, for extra HE and AP power.
I do't think that mobility would've been any worse than T-34, Germans can put wide tracks and powerful engine on a tank every bit as the Soviets.
 

Deleted member 1487

Good thing would be avoiding two separate designs for new 7,5mm gun, one for Pak, Marders and StuG-III, another for Pz-IVG (plus another barrel for the Pz-IVH), that fired different rounds. I'd stick to the Pak round/catridge, for the startes, while kicking the work on the L60 version, hopefully with same round. The next-gen gun should be a refined 8,8cm for that ~35 ton tank, for extra HE and AP power.
I do't think that mobility would've been any worse than T-34, Germans can put wide tracks and powerful engine on a tank every bit as the Soviets.
I think an 88mm VK3001H would be close to 40 tons, as that would require a new turret to handle that and potentially a bigger turret ring than the long 75mm.
http://www.achtungpanzer.com/heu.htm
The width was enough for the VK3001H to be able to handle the 88mm gun, so perhaps they might just go for that right off the bat.

I guess the 32 ton weight was with a 105mm L28 howitzer with 50mm frontal armor, perhaps putting the VK3601H turret on it. Alternatively you could just take the VK3601H with lower frontal armor, say drop off 20mm frontally, and since it was already designed around the 88mm gun that would be a short cut, but that was designed as a heavy breakthrough tank, so I don't know if its designed for mass production internally. That would probably be an easier route to a tank like I'm describing, but with the 88mm main gun.

I changed the title to reflect this

3601-4-450x268.jpg


maxresdefault.jpg


http://smg.photobucket.com/user/foxdie_gti/media/AK-VK36-1.jpg.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
This is why I'm suggesting ' a refined 8,8cm' for that tank. The Soviets managed (sorry if pople might find this boring) to cram a 100 mm gun on the T-44, the 88 was a smaller thing to fiddle with. Lets recall that Soviet 85 mm gun was also without muzzle brake, they still fitted it on the 32 ton tank. The 17 pdr should've fitted in the Comet had the mantlet been 'pushed' further from the turret centre.
We can wonder how much the 7,5cm L70 was of smaller size due to the accepted 1/3rd life (in rounds fired) vs. the Tiger's gun.
 

Deleted member 1487

This is why I'm suggesting ' a refined 8,8cm' for that tank. The Soviets managed (sorry if pople might find this boring) to cram a 100 mm gun on the T-44, the 88 was a smaller thing to fiddle with. Lets recall that Soviet 85 mm gun was also without muzzle brake, they still fitted it on the 32 ton tank. The 17 pdr should've fitted in the Comet had the mantlet been 'pushed' further from the turret centre.
We can wonder how much the 7,5cm L70 was of smaller size due to the accepted 1/3rd life (in rounds fired) vs. the Tiger's gun.
What's even more interesting is the M48 Patton tank that the US made post-WW2 weighed almost the same as the Panther tank, but with a 90mm gun and thicker armor.
 
IMO - everything that adds the under-armor volume in a tank is bound to either makes the armor thin, with the tank's size remaining modest, or adds both weight and bulk to the tank. Eg. the M26 was a tank with compact transmission and suspension, the internal volume was as small as possible, hence the armor and gun were excellent for the size & weight.
 

Deleted member 1487

IMO - everything that adds the under-armor volume in a tank is bound to either makes the armor thin, with the tank's size remaining modest, or adds both weight and bulk to the tank. Eg. the M26 was a tank with compact transmission and suspension, the internal volume was as small as possible, hence the armor and gun were excellent for the size & weight.
Yeah the insistence on front drive and the heavy iron engine (they didn't have enough aluminum to go around for the lighter version) certainly didn't help and increased height a bit (though the Panther was less long and narrower than the Patton).
 
The Germans have had the option to ramp up the production of the MB 507 diesel engine, for use in the tanks. A Panther with that engine was tested, power of 720 HP was provided.
The V-2 engine, used in most of the Soviet tanks, was at 750 kg, vs. 1200 kg for the HL 230.
On the other hand, the Chrysler Multibank, used on Shermans, weighted more than 2 tons once the radiators, fan and clutch are accounted for, so I don't think that HL 230 was that prohibitely heavy after all.
 
Good thing would be avoiding two separate designs for new 7,5mm gun, one for Pak, Marders and StuG-III, another for Pz-IVG (plus another barrel for the Pz-IVH), that fired different rounds. I'd stick to the Pak round/catridge, for the startes, while kicking the work on the L60 version, hopefully with same round.

Problem is the Pak40 cartridge was 714mm long, vs 640mm for the kwk42
The 17pdr was 583mm
88mm Kwk36 was 571mm

Long rounds need more area in the turret for the loader to swing around
 

Deleted member 1487

The Germans have had the option to ramp up the production of the MB 507 diesel engine, for use in the tanks. A Panther with that engine was tested, power of 720 HP was provided.
The V-2 engine, used in most of the Soviet tanks, was at 750 kg, vs. 1200 kg for the HL 230.
On the other hand, the Chrysler Multibank, used on Shermans, weighted more than 2 tons once the radiators, fan and clutch are accounted for, so I don't think that HL 230 was that prohibitely heavy after all.
I don't think the HL230 weight includes all the extras you mention for the Sherman. Also the Soviet engine was made of aluminum, so it weighed less as a result; the HL210, also made of aluminum was quite a bit lighter, not sure just how much, but because of shortages they had to do iron/steel.

Problem is the Pak40 cartridge was 714mm long, vs 640mm for the kwk42
The 17pdr was 583mm
88mm Kwk36 was 571mm

Long rounds need more area in the turret for the loader to swing around
Then the benefit is with the 88 in that regard...but you also need to consider the recoil mechanism for the turret space.
 
Yeah the insistence on front drive and the heavy iron engine (they didn't have enough aluminum to go around for the lighter version) certainly didn't help and increased height a bit (though the Panther was less long and narrower than the Patton).

HL210 was aluminum, HL230 was iron, for more rigidity, to improve reliability

EDIT, around 800 pounds heavier for the iron block
 
I thought the 230 had to be used because of shortages of aluminum for than any other issue.

The engine could not be reliably operated at its maximum power output of 3000 rpms and indeed the operating manual given to the Tiger crews, the Tigerfibel, recommended no more than 2600 rpms. It soon became obvious that the Tiger I was seriously underpowered. Because of the tight engine compartment and other technical limitations it was impossible to install a physically larger, more powerful motor. As a result the original engines displacement was increased by replacing the aluminum cylinder block with a cast iron block and boring it out to 23.88 liters (1457 cubic inches). This increased the weight of the motor but also increased the rigidity. The result was a gain in power to 700bhp at 3000rpm. The new engine was designated the Maybach HL 230 TRM P45.

http://www.alanhamby.com/maybach.shtml
 

Deleted member 1487

The engine could not be reliably operated at its maximum power output of 3000 rpms and indeed the operating manual given to the Tiger crews, the Tigerfibel, recommended no more than 2600 rpms. It soon became obvious that the Tiger I was seriously underpowered. Because of the tight engine compartment and other technical limitations it was impossible to install a physically larger, more powerful motor. As a result the original engines displacement was increased by replacing the aluminum cylinder block with a cast iron block and boring it out to 23.88 liters (1457 cubic inches). This increased the weight of the motor but also increased the rigidity. The result was a gain in power to 700bhp at 3000rpm. The new engine was designated the Maybach HL 230 TRM P45.

http://www.alanhamby.com/maybach.shtml

Interesting. Thanks for the info.

But for the VK3601 it ran on the Maybach HL 174.
 

Rubicon

Banned
I thought the 230 had to be used because of shortages of aluminum for than any other issue.

Germany having aluminium shortages that early sound bizarre. Bauxite was one of the resources the european axis had an abundance of.
To few aluminium smelting plants?
 

Deleted member 1487

Germany having aluminium shortages that early sound bizarre. Bauxite was one of the resources the european axis had an abundance of.
To few aluminium smelting plants?
No, just a lot of demand all around. They had a lot of it in 1941-44, but it was always short of demand. A big early problem was waste and bureaucratic inefficiency; for example in 1942 after Erhard Milch took over aircraft production from Udet and was trying to sort out the mess he inherited he found that machining practices led to the waste of hundreds of kilos of aluminum in aircraft engine manufacturing and the Udet have been way over allocating aluminum to air frame manufacturing and companies trading in it on the black market, making consumer goods with it or for anticipated military purchasing and stockpiling that production off the books (apparently several were making aluminum ladders and pots for the consumer market and aluminum barracks in anticipation of Africa colonial gains, which would require prefab barracks that were light and easy to transport). Crack downs on that led to a great increase in aircraft output without any extra raw materials beyond current allocations from 1942 on. Still there was never enough to go around for all the needs not just for the military, but also the economic needs with things like synthetic raw material manufacturing among other things.
 

Deleted member 1487

https://translate.google.com/transl...//ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/VK3601(H)&prev=search
Using the info here, it would seem that even if they opted to go with a down armored VK3601H as the replacement for the Pz III & IV and instead of a VK3002 design, the prototype wasn't ready until early 1942 anyway and the turret wasn't fixed yet. So it probably wouldn't get introduced into production until late 1942-early 1943 anyway and in lieu of the Tiger I also. So 1943 is when it enters service, perhaps with less mechanical hiccups than the Panther, but worse armor and mobility.

Thoughts on how a mass produced version would have impacted the battlefield in 1943 and on? It would replacing the Tiger I, Panther, Pz IV, and eventually the Pz III as the sole turreted Panzer.
 

Redbeard

Banned
https://translate.google.com/transl...//ru.wikipedia.org/wiki/VK3601(H)&prev=search
Using the info here, it would seem that even if they opted to go with a down armored VK3601H as the replacement for the Pz III & IV and instead of a VK3002 design, the prototype wasn't ready until early 1942 anyway and the turret wasn't fixed yet. So it probably wouldn't get introduced into production until late 1942-early 1943 anyway and in lieu of the Tiger I also. So 1943 is when it enters service, perhaps with less mechanical hiccups than the Panther, but worse armor and mobility.

Thoughts on how a mass produced version would have impacted the battlefield in 1943 and on? It would replacing the Tiger I, Panther, Pz IV, and eventually the Pz III as the sole turreted Panzer.

If the new tank is wasted in another Kursk assaulting heavily fortified positions but if the "new kid" is ready, reliable and available in numbers a few months before the Panther it might make a difference. IIRC Zitadelle was postponed from an original launch in May to July, because Hitler wanted to wait for the new Panthers (of which many broke down before reaching the front :rolleyes:), but the later start bought enough time for the Soviets to massively reinforce the front around Kursk. It might be possible to have a German victory.

With less Soviet troops present a defeat will of course not be as hard felt as if in OTL Kursk/Zitadelle, but would still be a huge shock that probably would overshadow the succes at Stalingrad.

Anything could still happen but the biggest danger to an allied victory probably would be the Wallies doing something stupid like invading NW Europe before actually being ready.

For the Germans the biggest danger is the GroFaZ effect (Hitler thinking he is the best commander ever) - what is won in one battle is lost in the next.

For the Soviets it will be a huge disappointment. In OTL they were surprised to see the Wehrmacht strike back at Kharkov after Stalingrad, but Kursk regained their self confidence. In OTL it was not at least Zhukov who advocated the strategic defensive at Kursk and in OTL it worked (and brought him fame). In this ATL it doesn't and I suppose Zhukov is finished - that alone might be significant.
 
Top