A Panzer optimized for Axis Allies

[T. A. Gardner]

Germans definitely had a man in Oswald Lutz that had the expertise and would have been able to offer significant input in the process.

Also, in the Somua facilities the base for at least some of the tank (engines, drivetrain and suspension). An 'axified' Somua with a 2-man turret and sporting a 47 mm gun could have been rolling out of assembly shops as early as Summer 1941.

The problem with the Souma is it isn't very upgradable. The P26/40 is. The only thing that held up production was lack of a good engine for it. That took the Italians nearly 2 years to get into production. The tank needed a 300 Hp engine. The Maybach used in the Pz III and IV was already there. While the turret on this vehicle is two man, it could have easily been redesigned to take a third crewman and a cupola added to it.

Some production variants I could see in this vehicle would be up armoring it to at least 80 mm like the Pz III and IV eventually got. Another would be switching out the gun for captured 76mm Soviet guns if that would help production along. The tank gun was captured in large numbers and ammunition could have been put into production.

Really, the only thing holding back this vehicle would be a reluctance on Germany's part to supply engines. They could have even licensed production. That would have had benefits for them too as there'd be a number of new sources of the engine they are already using available as a result.

The other problem with the Souma would be France would have to produce it for the various users. The Czechs, Hungarians, and Romanians (the three most likely users) can't produce the large castings necessary to make this vehicle. That same use of castings makes it difficult or impossible to up armor the vehicle and the small turret won't take larger guns. It might have been possible to just cast the lower hull and then use a new bolted on upper hull that used welded plate in place of the castings, but that would have required redesign.

[Stovepipe]

Seeing as they all recieved batches of Pz IV anyway, perhaps a semi-riveted/semi-welded Pz IV copy would have been in order. Italy was using most of it's welding capability for ships and even diverting some of that would have given decent tanks to the Army by 1942.

[BDV]

The other problem with the Souma would be France would have to produce it for the various users. The Czechs, Hungarians, and Romanians (the three most likely users) can't produce the large castings necessary to make this vehicle. That same use of castings makes it difficult or impossible to up armor the vehicle and the small turret won't take larger guns. It might have been possible to just cast the lower hull and then use a new bolted on upper hull that used welded plate in place of the castings, but that would have required redesign.

I did not mean the Somua tanks as historical, I meant SOMUA workshops could provide a bunch of proven components for the tank. The hull and the turret would have to be new designs, at least 20% increase in turret ring would be required. Also to show they had "skin" in the game, the Wehrmacht could have ordered some.

[Svrclr]

Instead of tanks, how about tank destroyer/StuG type of vehicle? The goal would really be to provide AFV rather than a tank.

The t-38 hull was modified into a very useful tank destroyer in the Hetzer. Something similar even on the locally produced Turans and Semovente da 75/18 might have been more useful than a tank, given the ability to put the gun in the hull and not worry about the Turret.

[Guaporense]

It would be far more efficient to just sell the weapons to its allies, manufactured in Germany. They could easily import the tens of thousands of workers required to produce panzers for their allies from occupied countries.

[T. A. Gardner]

It would be far more efficient to just sell the weapons to its allies, manufactured in Germany. They could easily import the tens of thousands of workers required to produce panzers for their allies from occupied countries.

Where does the factory capacity come from? Manpower isn't the only issue here.

Much more clever is Germany orchestrating a collaboration between allied nations on this.

Let's use the P26/40, again, as the selected tank.

The design is Italian, meaning that German design staff only have to be peripherally involved. That keeps their work load down.
The Italians, cooperate with France, Czechoslovakia, Hungary, etc., and evolve several engines, and possibly even transmissions, to use with the vehicle. The main gun is one of several available 75mm / 76.2mm ones already in service.

This means that say, Romania who has previously bought an used French tanks decides on a Renault engine and transmission for their version along with an existing gun.
The Czechs go with a Tatra diesel and build their drive train off the Italian designs. They choose an existing Czech Skoda 75mm gun for their vehicle and go with partial or full welding.
The Hungarians collaborate with the Czechs, building some portions locally, getting others from the Czechs. They choose a German engine.
Polish factory capacity builds the same vehicle and imports the French drivetrain and engine or uses a German engine.
The Italians are building the same vehicle with a German or French engine and their drivetrain.

The advantage here is German production capacity isn't being consumed to build the vehicle. It is being built in Axis allied and occupied countries to a common basic plan. Only the details change by nation based on what's available to them as their own best choice.

You have a vehicle that can be assembled by riveting or welding. It has a two or three man turret and an effective main gun. It uses one of several machineguns coaxially and in the hull position (if included). The radio and such fitted are those of the nation that is using the tank so their equipment is compatible for their army.

The vehicle is available for production in late 1940. This means by the time Germany invaded Russia the Czechs, Hungarians, Italians, and Romanians would all have some in service. If you had just one armored division per nation of those in the East it would have been a big boost in Axis capacity since they all have an effective battle tank to deal with a T34. Who knows? Maybe Germany has some of these in service too even opting to improve the design with different suspension, etc.

[Stovepipe]

I'd go along with that; a good core design that could be modified to suit local equipment and manufacturing. They all had good automotive facilities and made some very good vehicles in their own right.

[BDV]

I don't think that 75 mm weapon would be feasible by mid-1941; but a 47 mm weapon on a 20-23 ton vehicle would (where the customer would likely have a choice of Bohler, French or Czech gun); I think 75 mm armed tanks would only become feasible from mid-42 onward in a P26 equivalent.

[T. A. Gardner]

Even a good 47mm like the French one in 1940 would be a decent weapon. So long as there's room to fit a larger cannon later it wouldn't be a major problem. But, the P26/40's gun the Ansaldo 75 mm L/34, was available in 1940 so that shouldn't be a problem fitting a 75mm. This is a medium velocity weapon like the 76.2mm fitted to early T34 or the US M2 gun fitted to the early M3 Medium tank. It'd need upgrading at some point to a higher velocity weapon.

[kfbr392]

this "Axis Panzer" really needs to be an armored platform adaptable to multiple roles.

to me the MBT variant is the least important and least desirable; that is because in the MBT field there is the greatest arms race and evolutionary pressure; thus firepower, armor and mobility will have to be constantly increased; minor Axis partners cannot keep pace with the major powers here; the "Axis partner MBT" will soon be critically inferior.


instead, the requirements are:
- stable and validated design available by July 1940
- chassis adaptable to multiple roles
- comparably cheap and reliable
- parts and whole vehicle lends itself to production capabilities in ALL Axis partner countries (armor plate thickness, methods of joining armor plates, materials used, spare parts production, etc.)
- ability to mount a weapon such as the 75mm Pak 40 in at least a "Marder" type configuration (if a turreted installation is impossible)
- weight <15t (facilitates production, reliability, training, fuel economy, etc)


Based on the above, the French Lorraine 37L and the Czech Pz 38(t) are suitable platform vehicles.


Among the roles to be filled by variants of this vehicle are:
- hull mounted or limited traverse flat trajectory weapon for anti tank use, ca. 75mm ("Marder" style, or preferably "Hetzer" style)
- fast-firing flat trajectory automatic weapon for anti aircraft use (probably 20mm Flak)
- high-arc heavy HE weapon (probably 150mm sIG or similar)
- medium velocity general purpose howitzer (probably 105mm FH or similar)
- APC
- APC with mortar (81mm, later probably 120mm)
- command/ observation/ radio
- recovery
- if possible: turreted flat trajectory weapon for anti tank use
- etc.

[BDV]

instead, the requirements are:
- stable and validated design available by July 1940
- chassis adaptable to multiple roles
- comparably cheap and reliable
- parts and whole vehicle lends itself to production capabilities in ALL Axis partner countries (armor plate thickness, methods of joining armor plates, materials used, spare parts production, etc.)
- ability to mount a weapon such as the 75mm Pak 40 in at least a "Marder" type configuration (if a turreted installation is impossible)
- weight <15t (facilitates production, reliability, training, fuel economy, etc)

Based on the above, the French Lorraine 37L and the Czech Pz 38(t) are suitable platform vehicles.

There are already plenty of 37mm gun armed tanks around. The minimum need is for a 47 mm gun-armed tank, and this cannot be done under 20 tons, else one ends with the paper-thin armor of Italian M13/14/15 (say hello to the nice Degtyaryovniks!).

I presume the 37L, which was very similar mechanics-wise to the Czech LT vz. 35, would be the common armor platform for non tank applications; and the S40 would be the tank stopgap until the advent of the P26 equivalent.

[kfbr392]

I presume the 37L, which was very similar mechanics-wise to the Czech LT vz. 35, would be the common armor platform for non tank applications; and the S40 would be the tank stopgap until the advent of the P26 equivalent.

Agree on the Lorraine 37L for non-MBT/ non-StuG applications.

strengths of the Lorraine 37L:
- engine is in the middle of the vehicle with the rear being available for the specific mission/ gun/ equipment
- having been in production for 18 months by July 1940: technically mature!
- every Axis partner nation will have a comparable engine (70 hp) already in production which can be installed with only small adaptations necessary to the vehicle and its drive train
- overall simplicity

There will likely be some growth in size and weight over time, with a corresponding upgrade of engine power, which is ok since the vehicle was quite small and light to start with.