WI: Instead of focusing on Panthers, Germany creates its own "T-34"

IDK, Syphon the 88 was a pretty huge beast of a gun but then again I suppose they could find a way to engineer it maybe. Also, IIRC upgunning to the T-34-85 didn't improve performance all that much again however my AFV knowledge isn't the greatest so I could be completley wrong :p after all IIRC the plan with the Panther II was to have the 88. In any case the long barrel 75 was a decent gun in it's own right *shrug*
Yeah ...

The Israelis Even Stuck them in SHERMANS, Of All Things ...

Tore Right through T-34-85s, Including Some of their 50s and 60s-Era Descendants!

:eek:
 
IDK, Syphon the 88 was a pretty huge beast of a gun but then again I suppose they could find a way to engineer it maybe. Also, IIRC upgunning to the T-34-85 didn't improve performance all that much again however my AFV knowledge isn't the greatest so I could be completley wrong :p after all IIRC the plan with the Panther II was to have the 88. In any case the long barrel 75 was a decent gun in it's own right *shrug*

Well, the Germans were working on a new turret design for the Panther that was intended to be able to take an 88 gun, as well as being a bit cheaper to produce and eliminating a shot trap in the old turret, but the project got cancelled and re-started a couple times due lack of resources, inter-army politics and the whims of the Fuhrer so it never produced much beyond a prototype. A more rational production and development scheme would have made an upgunned Panther quite plausible, and IMO an improved Panther is a better direction for tanks than going with the Tigers, which were really too heavy to be practical.
 
A more rational production and development scheme would have made an upgunned Panther quite plausible, and IMO an improved Panther is a better direction for tanks than going with the Tigers, which were really too heavy to be practical.

The Panther II had the same shortfalls as the Tiger, namely great weight and high fuel consumption. 47 tons opposed to 57 tons.

The Panther G was, IMO, more economical, since it had the same turret as the original Panther and could destroy any Allied tank with its 75mm, it also had the same performance. But, of course the design of the Panther II had more armor.
 
well panther 2 had more parts in commen with the tiger. iotl if they hadent made a panther1 and had the panther 2 be version 1 in stead they would have been slightly better.

at least people wouldent be critizing there jugemet about that.
 

perfectgeneral

Donor
Monthly Donor
German 'more like T34' Panther

  • 7.5 cm KwK 40 L48 / 88mm KwK 43 L/71 gun (90 rounds)
  • Junkers Jumo 205a Six-cylinder 12-piston liquid-cooled opposed piston inline two-stroke diesel engine
  • engine weight, power (595kg, 867hp/647 kW)
  • Brass rimmed road wheels (save on rubber)
  • 32/48.75 tonne
  • 5 men
  • 81/53km/h (road), 54/35km/h (country)
  • 550 / 825 litres diesel fuel (four/six hours at full power) (275 litre external rear drum)
  • 2x / 3x MG34 (4200 rounds 7.92mm)
  • Fuel consumption 212g/(kW•h)
  • Ten / Twelve bogies (5/6x dual) per side, front drive sprockets, rear idlers
  • Torsion bar mounted Christie suspension: Individually suspended bogie wheels, each mounted on a coil sprung bell crank (copied from T34)
  • 850 parts (aim to reduce to 650)
The armour should be sloped back at 55 degrees. Even so it will still be vulnerable at the side and especially the rear. The extra bogies make the track contact length greater (~5m) and with dual bogies the track can be wider (~0.75m). This puts ground pressure down to ~0.65kg/cm^2 from 0.88 in the original design. This would give the 32 tonne Panzer V a ground pressure of about 0.55kg/cm^2 (cf 0.78-0.81kg/cm^2 of T34)

This is both Panther and Tiger (Panzer V and Panzer VI). All production into Panzer V and VI with Panzer IV converted to rear area support. It might be worth putting wider tracks and larger road wheels on the Panzer IV conversions. Common parts (wheels and track) would increase production and spares availability.


(Panzer IV recovery vehicle conversion also shown)


PanzerVandIV.JPG
 
Last edited:
The ideal solution would've been Pz4 running gear with a new hull inspired by T-34 & the 88mm L/71 (of the Tiger II), which was proposed for the Pz5 but never adopted. A "clone" was never an option. The rejected choice was the simpler model, nearer in concept the T-34; IIRC, internal politics, not quality, decided the winner....

Effects? Replacing the Pz4, I presume 20,000-30,000 "Pz4.5s" (as I've called them since I first thought of this:D) could have been built before war's end. Given the power of the 88 & much superior German doctrine & training (even at war's end), each one could destroy between 2 & 3 T-34s or M4 Mediums (Shermans), which was roughly the OTL production margin over the original Pz5,:eek: while suffering substantially lower losses compared to the Pz4 it replaces, & noticeably lower maintenance demands & "out of service" rates compared to the OTL Pz5, meaning more in the line more of the time, meaning Allied losses TTL are even higher....:eek:

I have 1 quibble with perfectgeneral's proposed spec: crew 5. Delete the bow machinegunner as a waste of space & turn it over to more ammo.
 
Last edited:
The ideal solution would've been Pz4 running gear with a new hull inspired by T-34 & the 88mm L/71 (of the Tiger II), which was proposed for the Pz5 but never adopted. A "clone" was never an option. The rejected choice was the simpler model, nearer in concept the T-34; IIRC, internal politics, not quality, decided the winner....

Effects? Replacing the Pz4, I presume 20,000-30,000 "Pz4.5s" (as I've called them since I first thought of this:D) could have been built before war's end.

A 'clone' of the T-34 wasn't an option because they would have identification problems. Internal politics (pride and all that?) did play a part but IMO not as big as that.

IMO the Panther's 75mm L/70 gun with high velocity had enough penetrating power. Also, the hull of the Pz. IV.5 would be sorely overloaded and it would have been hard on the transmission, load and fuel consumption. Penalties for speed also. The 75mm would also be better for mass production.

30,000 is a bit high, don't you think? The Germans IOTL produced 8,000 something Pz. IVs, and considering the changes would come into effect after Barbarossa, even on full production IMO the Germans can't get to that number. Even the US's M4 only had 30,000 tanks under its belt, and this was under US economy. :)

BTW perfectgeneral, your design is great!
 
llllll

I don’t see how having adopted the T-34 would have made any difference at all.
Germans were so successful with their tank because of overall strategy and training not because they were overwhelming superior technically.
 
I don’t see how having adopted the T-34 would have made any difference at all.
Germans were so successful with their tank because of overall strategy and training not because they were overwhelming superior technically.

Imagine, then, what they might have achieved with a combination of superior tactics, training and doctrine on one hand and great numbers of a superior tank on the other.
Less own losses and more enemy losses in tanks would have meant quite different outcomes in a lot of engagements, if I am not mistaken.
 
I can't see how a 'T-34' is going to make much of a difference (instead of the Panther). Germany was in trouble on the 3rd September 1939 and all the victories of 1940 did was to reduce that trouble. Hitler went and finished Germany off in 1941 with DoWs on SU and USA.

I can't see how better tanks could lead to any significant change in the war. The best that Germany can hope for is to hold out until end of July 1945.... they don't want to hold out longer for obvious reasons.
 
The Daimler Benz Panther design was as close as Germany ever came to building a tank that was close to the T-34. What readers may not be aware of is that this tank design was approved by Hitler (it had a lot of German improvements) but someone in the armys production office sabotaged its production in favor of the other Panther design because he hoped to get a well paying job from the other company.
 
IMO the Panther's 75mm L/70 gun with high velocity had enough penetrating power. Also, the hull of the Pz. IV.5 would be sorely overloaded and it would have been hard on the transmission, load and fuel consumption. Penalties for speed also. The 75mm would also be better for mass production.

30,000 is a bit high, don't you think? The Germans IOTL produced 8,000 something Pz. IVs, and considering the changes would come into effect after Barbarossa, even on full production IMO the Germans can't get to that number. Even the US's M4 only had 30,000 tanks under its belt, and this was under US economy. :)

I don't disagree the 75mm L/70 was good enough, just thinking about getting the best possible, & without Q, the 88 L/71 is.

30000? Consider Speer increased production 3:1, there were about 2000 Pz4s built before '44 & about 5000 Pz5s total. Give over Germany's entire production (counting in France, Czechs, whoever, too), at Speer-max level, from '41, 30K's in easy reach, IMO.
 
The T-34 was, in my opinion, the best tank of World War Two, unless you count the JS-II, which barely saw service. One German general did suggest that his people copy them, which was a pretty good idea. And everyone knows the Germans loved the T-34. They were quick to paint black crosses on captured ones and throw them into service at every opportunity. I strongly believe (although of course I have no proof) that if Hitler had defeated and occupied the USSR the Germans would have repaired the captured Soviet factories and kept the T-34 in production for use by their own and other Axis armies. But we'll never know, will we, because he couldn't possibly have won against the USSR. Hitler doomed himself the day he attacked his much larger and more populous rival. And producing the T-34 instead of the Panther wouldn't have changed things, in the end.
 
hmm, one thing you people are all missing is the problem of manpower which was one of Germany's main problems going toward the end of the war. Even if the Germans had a cheaper and effective tank, if they can't man them with properly trained crew the tanks become little more than future museum exhibits. As canadiangoose put the germans adopted a crew safety first doctrine which was Germany's best option since they could beat the allies in training, tactics, and better equipment, but not numbers. Even with a cheaper tank they are still gonna be outnumbered by the Germans they just have a less favorable casualty ratio vs the Russians and Allies. Also chances are that building more tanks means that the Wermacht consumes more fuel during the war which is definetly not something the Germans could afford.
 
The T-34 was, in my opinion, the best tank of World War Two. One German general did suggest that his people copy them, which was a pretty good idea. And everyone knows the Germans loved the T-34. They were quick to paint black crosses on captured ones and throw them into service at every opportunity. I strongly believe that if Hitler had defeated and occupied the USSR the Germans would have repaired the captured Soviet factories and kept the T-34 in production for use by their own and other Axis armies. But we'll never know, will we.
Abgd.

I wonder at what point Hitler would have known if:
Leningrad had been taken by a coup de main, before defences were in place, in OTL tanks from the factory in the city drove straight off the production lines into battle. I'm sure Hoepner would be glad of a supply of T-34s to reinforce his Pzw IIIs & IVs, for the coming battle for Moscow!!
 
Abgd.

I wonder at what point Hitler would have known if:
Leningrad had been taken by a coup de main, before defences were in place, in OTL tanks from the factory in the city drove straight off the production lines into battle. I'm sure Hoepner would be glad of a supply of T-34s to reinforce his Pzw IIIs & IVs, for the coming battle for Moscow!!

IMO the main problem here is identification, and production. Capturing Leningrad would be IMO of lesser value since the Russians would've destroyed their plants, OR the Germans would've destroyed them, since if they have taken Leningrad, it would certainly strengthen their belief that Russian tanks were inferior and that this would be a fast war, since Moscow was now surrounded by a ring of steel.

Another problem is identification. IIRC Germany initially captured some (1941 figures, i.e. by the end of 1941) 45 T-34s, but the Germans chose not to use these in frontline units because of problems of identification, both by air and by land. Most tankers and aviators identify their targets by sillhuoettes, and from 1000 m's it's hard to differentiate which T-34 has the Teutonic cross and which doesn't.
 
One word: production.

The Panther was superior to both the main flavors of T-34, yes. However, it came at several times the price tag, that being caused by a) German over-engineering, b) hurried design and c) *1.5 weight.

So, everything else being equal, a lower production output was unavoidable.

Indeed, if you only take into account the more dangerous T-34, the one coming with the 85mm D-5, the Soviets produced some 19,000 of those, versus some 6,000 Panthers. This means the Panthers can only lose, because, even though the Panther's superbly sloped front armor could beat the 85-ZP's round at average tank-engagement distances, its thin side armor could not – and if the enemy has three of those 85mms mounted in those T-34s, for each one of your 75mms mounted in a Panther, the fact that the 75mms are 70 calibers long will probably not prevent one of the three from achieving a flank shot. Note that even some of the 76.2mms of the previous T-34 models had fair chances of piercing the Panther's sides.

So going for the Überpanzer was all a bad idea. Yes, the Germans would have been better off with something heavier and thicker than the Pz IV, if possible with the KwK42, but not necessarily if that pushes weight and price too high. Staying under 35 tons should be the objective. Such a tank would be more vulnerable than the Panther, but less than any Pz IV, and no more than a T-34/85. Plus, the Germans might easily have two or 2.5 per each Panther they built.

Manpower may be a problem, but only if the Germans don't gear their armor training schools properly. In fact while manpower was an unsolvable problem of quantity for the Germans when it came to the big numbers, i.e. infantry, that would not be the difficulty with these specialized, highly skilled servicemen. If one has *2.5 tanks, he's better off fielding just a tad less marching rifle fodder and training enough tankers to man the additional machines.

Effects? Well.....
 
the problem with the manpower shortage is not as simple as numbers, but of skill and experience, if you lose a well trained tank crew, replacing them is not as simple taking the time to build a new tank and training a crew, there comes the resources of shipping the crew and the tank to the front lines, as well as the fact that this new crew is very likely to be inferior to the one that they were sent to replace. Also shipping tank parts takes less effort than shipping entire tanks, even if the tanks are of the cheaper variety, in other words it would be better to replace a busted tank tread than an entire tank. Also German logistics are notoriously poorly run, so there is also the problem, even with more tank numbers and less of a problem replacing crews, can the Germans actually exploit this? or do they get trapped in logistical bottlenecks just trying to get the damn things to the Eastern front?

Although making a tank that is like the T-34 but slightly better might have helped the Germans, however it would definetly not have changed how the war ended by much, and I believe it may very well have been worse for the Germans.
 
You could easily propaganda it by saying that the Soviet one is of course the result of stolen plans and was rushed in production by the evil Judaeo-Bolsheviks, but now the original and true one is here, it is naturally purer and superior...

I like this guy, do that but my only complaint is the sheer ugliness of the tank...
 
Top