What if no Panther Tank

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Base on the discussion in this thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=370916
So what if recognizing that the Panther tank would tank time to implement because to get the package together they'd have to redesign parts for a 40 ton tank instead of using the 30 ton design they already had, they opted instead to maximize existing assets and hold off on Panther introduction until mid-1944 or whenever its ready. That means in the meantime all the expansion of production goes into Pz III, IV, and III/IV chassis production. So they focus on Nashorn/Hornisse SP AT guns, StuGs, Pz IVs, and an über-Marder than I postulated mounting a PAK42 (AT version of the Panther gun) on a Pz III chassis in Marder configuration, but enclosed, sort of like the British Archer Tank Destroyer.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archer_(tank_destroyer)
This is planned in early 1942 so that the first of the expanded tank production is available in late 1942 as are the new Marder IVs:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showpost.php?p=11476134&postcount=798

What sort of effect would it then have on German material resources to have expanded Panzer IV and Panzer III chassis production? The Panzer III chassis are going to be used now for StuG and Marder IV production, while the III/IV chassis is used for the Nashorn and Hummel SP guns, and the Pz IV used for Panzers to be the standard Panzer, phasing out all Pz IIs, IIIs, 38ts, etc. When enough Pz IVs are available the older tanks are sent back to conversion to whatever they use the chassis for.

Marder_Pz - III_Kwk.42-L70.png
 
And why not something like this? didn't play with scale too much though. :D
I called it Hetzer III. ;)

attachment.php


Hetzer III.gif
 

Deleted member 1487

And why not something like this? didn't play with scale too much though. :D
I called it Hetzer III. ;)

attachment.php

Like the Jagdpanzer IV it would be too nose heavy; the gun you're show is way too short. IOTL they tried to do a StuG III with L70 gun and it had the same problem of 'Guderian's Duck', but with less internal space. The top mounted gun gives a lot more fighting space and the high perch doesn't matter as much because it can stay out of range unlike the Marder (L48 gun killed at about 1km, L70 at 2km, T-34 opened fire around 1km or less).
 
The Anglo-Americans and Soviet blow up a bunch more German tanks as they end the war. This isn't rearranging deck chairs on the titanic, it's asking the band to play a different song.
 

Deleted member 1487

And possibly more Stug III and Stug IV for Infantry support and become ad-hoc AT tanks in hidden positions since they don't have a turret and have less of a high profile ......

Guderian was against the production of Panther and Tiger, he wanted more MK IV's produced.
Yep. So the question is what does that mean then when they have a lot more in 1942 and on and don't bother with the heavies? Guderian did want the Tiger though, he's the one that laid out the doctrine and specs for it. That is still the same as IOTL, but the Panther is not. This step would mean a lot more AFVs from 1942-45 and the Panzer divisions can keep up with losses and spare parts both from scales of economy and from all AFV production resources that went into Panther IOTL (about twice as heavy and complex as the PzIII and IV despite the relatively similar price in RM). Also there would be a lot more heavy SP AT weapons available and probably more L70 75mms in combat than if they had made Panthers due to being able to put them on Pz III chassis as a highly mobile TD, rather than the complex, heavy, unreliable Panther.
 
Any more thoughts?

Sure.. My understanding is that the Tiger was considerably more reliable in practice than the Panther. It was also expensive. Part of the cost involved the production of (relatively) reliable drive train components. As I understand it the Achilles heel of the Panther was that the drive train (and in particular the steering components) were not reliable enough in practice and mass producing reliable ones in the quantities required for the Panther wasn't possible for Germany given the design constraints of the Panther, capacity constraints in German industry and the numbers required. That being said..

Producing the Tiger and dropping the Panther makes some sense.

That then begs the question of what do you produce in place of the Panther ?

The problem is that the MkIV was apparently maxed out by the time it got the L48 75mm gun and upgraded frontal armor. Without Tungsten cored shot the L48 75 is going to struggle against the better armored allied tanks. Germany was short on Tungsten so.. that leads to a need for a Tank with a more powerful main armament. The extra Armour protection offered by the Panther was also useful in practice.

IMHO what the Germans needed was more reliable vehicle similar to the Panther that could be produced in quantity given the various constraints the Germans had. I suppose though if they can't come up with a reliable vehicle similar to the Panther that can actually be produced in quantity then continuing to make the MkIV does make some sense.

Shoehorning more powerful weapons into tank destroyers also makes some sense but I also believe the Germans needed actual tanks in reasonable numbers as well.
 

Deleted member 1487

Producing the Tiger and dropping the Panther makes some sense.

That then begs the question of what do you produce in place of the Panther ?

The problem is that the MkIV was apparently maxed out by the time it got the L48 75mm gun and upgraded frontal armor. Without Tungsten cored shot the L48 75 is going to struggle against the better armored allied tanks. Germany was short on Tungsten so.. that leads to a need for a Tank with a more powerful main armament. The extra Armour protection offered by the Panther was also useful in practice.

IMHO what the Germans needed was more reliable vehicle similar to the Panther that could be produced in quantity given the various constraints the Germans had. I suppose though if they can't come up with a reliable vehicle similar to the Panther that can actually be produced in quantity then continuing to make the MkIV does make some sense.

Shoehorning more powerful weapons into tank destroyers also makes some sense but I also believe the Germans needed actual tanks in reasonable numbers as well.
The 75mm L48 was plenty good at killing the T-34 and M4 through 1945. The advantage of the bigger guns was killing at long range. The M26 was barely a factor in Europe, the L48 could tackle any fielded British AFV, leaving only the Soviet heavies of 1944-45 to worry about, which the Nashorn and potentially and upgunned Tiger could handle. The T-34/85 is going to be tougher to handle for the Pz IV on the attack for sure, which the Panther could much better handle, but then it comes down to the SP AT snipers to overwatch and kill Soviet heavies and defensive T-34s if there is no Panther, just as the Soviets used their SP heavy guns like the SU-100 and ISU-122.

So having the Pz IV continue on is the only way to get reasonable production numbers and standardizes Panzers in one model, while the weapons carrier remains the Pz III/IV chassis and Pz III chassis. Getting as many guns as possible in the firing line really comes down to mass producing the mid-1930s designs already in production, but maxed out in firepower in anyway possible. In the meantime make a Panther that is reliable to show up in mid-1944 or '45 in limited numbers.
 

Deleted member 1487

I suppose the question now is will potentially thousands more AFVs over OTL (including Panther numbers as Pz IVs instead), how many more AFVs would the Soviets lose in 1942-45?
 

Deleted member 1487

But.....

Like you said yourself how will you get Herr Hitler to get along with it?

Otherwise good idea.
We could go with the old reliable Hitler dies of Dr. Morrell's injections and leaves Goering in charge, so that more reasonable military decisions could be made by professionals, rather than Hitler and his sychophants.
 
As to Soviet losses ITTL, lets start by looking at Kursk. According to Wikipedia, Germany lost in that battle 760 tanks and assault guns, and the Soviets lost 6,064, a ratio of about 9-1 in the formers' favor. This is in a best-case scenario for the Soviets since the Germans were attacking into the teeth of lavishly prepared defenses. In normal circumstances the ratio will easily be something like 10 or 11-1. It gets better for the Germans, though, because here they're going to be spamming the super-Marder with the L/70. This means that compared to OTL they will have effectively an order of magnitude more of these guns operational, against T-34-76s. I'd say that they could easily be getting ratios of something like 15-1. For Kursk specifically this means that the Soviets would be losing something like 10,000 tanks and assault guns. One could then extrapolate this over the rest of the front to get a conservative estimate for how many more AFVs can be knocked out. To get a precise number, how many more Panzer IVs and Marders do you think the Germans would be able to produce in TTL?
 

Deleted member 1487

As to Soviet losses ITTL, lets start by looking at Kursk. According to Wikipedia, Germany lost in that battle 760 tanks and assault guns, and the Soviets lost 6,064, a ratio of about 9-1 in the formers' favor. This is in a best-case scenario for the Soviets since the Germans were attacking into the teeth of lavishly prepared defenses. In normal circumstances the ratio will easily be something like 10 or 11-1. It gets better for the Germans, though, because here they're going to be spamming the super-Marder with the L/70. This means that compared to OTL they will have effectively an order of magnitude more of these guns operational, against T-34-76s. I'd say that they could easily be getting ratios of something like 15-1. For Kursk specifically this means that the Soviets would be losing something like 10,000 tanks and assault guns. One could then extrapolate this over the rest of the front to get a conservative estimate for how many more AFVs can be knocked out. To get a precise number, how many more Panzer IVs and Marders do you think the Germans would be able to produce in TTL?

Assuming all the OTL Panthers are Pz IVs or III/IVs instead and the Panther was twice as heavy assuming economies of scale some >10k total more Pz IV chassis would be made (5k OTL Panthers, 5k more from extra weight of AFV saved+economies of scale) starting with a bit more in 1942 and heavily ramping up in 1943-44. Say 500-1000 more in 1942, 3000 more in 1943, 6000 more in 1944, and maybe some 1500 more or so in 1945 as the economy collapses.
 
This is huge, then. The Eastern Front is going to be changed greatly from what we know. The combination of Goering being in charge and the hundreds of extra tanks in 1942 means that the losses at Stalingrad are going to much less severe, although the Germans are still going to lose there, and the front line is going to be substantially to the east of OTL. I'm having a bit of a hard time coming up with an exact estimate for Soviet losses because this opens up so many possibilities. Goering is going to let the generals do all those maneuvers that Hitler refused to allow because they involved temporary withdrawals. For example, didn't Manstein have a plan to feign retreat and then trap one of the attacking fronts against the Black Sea? Honestly, with a bit of luck I think that between the extra resources and the better tactics the Germans actually have a chance of deadlocking the front in the area of eastern Ukraine.
 

Deleted member 1487

This is huge, then. The Eastern Front is going to be changed greatly from what we know. The combination of Goering being in charge and the hundreds of extra tanks in 1942 means that the losses at Stalingrad are going to much less severe, although the Germans are still going to lose there, and the front line is going to be substantially to the east of OTL. I'm having a bit of a hard time coming up with an exact estimate for Soviet losses because this opens up so many possibilities. Goering is going to let the generals do all those maneuvers that Hitler refused to allow because they involved temporary withdrawals. For example, didn't Manstein have a plan to feign retreat and then trap one of the attacking fronts against the Black Sea? Honestly, with a bit of luck I think that between the extra resources and the better tactics the Germans actually have a chance of deadlocking the front in the area of eastern Ukraine.

Of course if we focus on the other changes from Goering, he may get toppled by the military even sooner because they are far less worried about killing him than Hitler. That may change everything as Hitler was really the only popular Nazi by 1942.
 
The 75mm L48 was plenty good at killing the T-34 and M4 through 1945. The advantage of the bigger guns was killing at long range. The M26 was barely a factor in Europe, the L48 could tackle any fielded British AFV, leaving only the Soviet heavies of 1944-45 to worry about, which the Nashorn and potentially and upgunned Tiger could handle. The T-34/85 is going to be tougher to handle for the Pz IV on the attack for sure, which the Panther could much better handle, but then it comes down to the SP AT snipers to overwatch and kill Soviet heavies and defensive T-34s if there is no Panther, just as the Soviets used their SP heavy guns like the SU-100 and ISU-122.

So having the Pz IV continue on is the only way to get reasonable production numbers and standardizes Panzers in one model, while the weapons carrier remains the Pz III/IV chassis and Pz III chassis. Getting as many guns as possible in the firing line really comes down to mass producing the mid-1930s designs already in production, but maxed out in firepower in anyway possible. In the meantime make a Panther that is reliable to show up in mid-1944 or '45 in limited numbers.

I don't disagree that the 75mm L48 was dangerous to allied tanks, but for example I've read accounts that credit the Sherman Jumbo frontal armor with being able to resist the 75mm L48 without tungsten shot. As you noted at longer ranges the 75mm L48 is going to lose performance, add in impacts at less than optimal angles and the performance will fall off even more.

I believe the decision by the Germans to move to the 75mm L70 for the Panther was a reasonable one, especially when tungsten shortages prevented the widespread use of tungsten cored shot. If the Panther isn't produced then the requirement for a tank with this type of firepower is still going to exist. Yes to some extent tank destroyers can substitute for tanks and presumably the Tiger Tanks will be available in small numbers but loosing thousands of Panthers with the more powerful gun is going to have impact.

If the vast majority of the German tanks were only armed with the 75mm L48 it's also possible the allies might find it worthwhile to upgrade at least the frontal armor of some of their existing tank designs to resist it vs fielding new designs. This didn't make as much sense when the 75mm L70 was widely deployed.

I don't disagree that continuing to produce the Mk IV was a way of keeping tank numbers up for the Germans but the loss of firepower would be felt by the Germans and appreciated by the Allies if the Panthers were not produced. Add in the lack of fuel and man power that the Germans had vs the Allies and I can see why the Germans found the concept of a tank such as the Panther as being attractive to them.
 
As to Soviet losses ITTL, lets start by looking at Kursk. According to Wikipedia, Germany lost in that battle 760 tanks and assault guns, and the Soviets lost 6,064, a ratio of about 9-1 in the formers' favor. This is in a best-case scenario for the Soviets since the Germans were attacking into the teeth of lavishly prepared defenses. In normal circumstances the ratio will easily be something like 10 or 11-1. It gets better for the Germans, though, because here they're going to be spamming the super-Marder with the L/70. This means that compared to OTL they will have effectively an order of magnitude more of these guns operational, against T-34-76s. I'd say that they could easily be getting ratios of something like 15-1. For Kursk specifically this means that the Soviets would be losing something like 10,000 tanks and assault guns. One could then extrapolate this over the rest of the front to get a conservative estimate for how many more AFVs can be knocked out. To get a precise number, how many more Panzer IVs and Marders do you think the Germans would be able to produce in TTL?

The thing is tanks don't generally get killed by other tanks - Tanks are used in the attack (after which they fall back and let the 'other arms' hold the ground they have captured) and for the defenders in the counter attack (here tank on tank actions may occur if the Counter attack is made fairly quickly before the attacking tanks withdraw) - so generally tanks are lost to AT Guns, Infantry assaults, mines and obstacles and artillery - as well as breaking down or running out of fuel in the middle of a battlefield and being abandoned (probably amounts for a fair % of losses).

Also the Russians had more tanks and used them more aggressively than the Germans

If the Germans have more tanks then I suspect that they would be more willing to commit them and therefore suffer correspondingly higher losses.

As for numbers while the Russians might have suffered more tank losses they at this stage in the war are generally left in control of a given battlefield and therefore are able to recover their knocked out tanks and repair them.

They also appear to record their losses differently to the Germans (of which much data has been lost etc).

During Aug 1943 for example German Panther losses rocketed from those reported just a month before almost in every case likely because a non - runner that might have been recovered and repaired had to be abandoned (and in many cases destroyed by its crew) as the German forces retreated.

It was not uncommon for a given hull to be 'knocked out' several times during the war and repaired - this is true for the Russians, Germans and Wallies.

So while the Russians did have more tanks 'Knocked out' this partially a result of having far more tanks in the first place and using them more aggressively along with having at this stage in the war a lower average 'skill at arms' across the Red Army compared to the Heer - with the ability to absorb those losses through a combination of having sufficient reserves and production capacity.

Of course this does mean that with more German tanks on the battlefield and a greater willingness to use them, while tank losses will go up (for all causes) for the Heer there would be improved battlefield success with very likely fewer losses among the infantry.

This I think would be the upshot - slower Red Army Success - correspondingly lower Axis infantry losses due to greater potential for armour support.

If this would have translated into a major Strategic difference between 1943 and 1945 on the Russian front I could not say.
 
Top