A Better Trajectory for Panzer Development?

[GoldenState]

Senger und Etterlin's German Tanks of WWII shows a drawing of a 1935 "Krupp design project" for a VK 20.01 (k) with a 75mm L70. Although very few details are given, it appears someone was thinking ahead (to be fair, an image below of a taller VK 2002 (MAN) also had a pretty long looking gun).

What if these designs were the basis for panzer development? Might there not have been a pressing need for a premature Panther in 1943? Might there have been a longer planned and mature hard hitting successor in 1943 anyway?

[stg 44]

Still think the VK30.02 (MAN) original 32 ton version was the very best option that would be ready for production in late 1942 and not had the mechanical issues of the historical 44 ton version.

[maltesefalcon]

This is one of many, many what ifs about different time lines or vehicles.
In order to have any traction, you really need to show how it would change history.

To do that you need to prove that Germany lost the war solely due to deficiencies in tank development or in production numbers.

That will be tough because it's not really true. Despite deficiencies in both tank design and numbers Germany ripped through their enemies until 1942.

However an assortment of better tanks would not have achieved victory at Moscow, Stalingrad or El Alamein.

Better tanks would at the minimum have to be complimented by a victory in the Battle of the Atlantic and preventing the Allies from gaining air superiority.

Perhaps then you would have a different outcome.

[stg 44]

Why does a whit if have to change the course of the war to be discussed? It could certainly influence the course of the war and the resulting post-war period if even the Allies end up winning. For instance if the VK3002 MAN design is stuck with and the Panther doesn't have the mechanical teething issues that delayed its introduction in 1943, which means that many more are available and won't break down at Kursk, which can in fact happen a month earlier at least, as the Panther was delayed in service by 2-3 months due to being mechanically overloaded by the extra armor Hitler demanded for it. Earlier Kursk means Germany doesn't have to call off the battle early due to the Sicily invasion, nor do they have to pull vital panzers out of the East for Italy until a month later. Not only that, but having more of the Panthers available and staying in operation during and after Kursk, while Kursk itself have 1 month less time to fortify, means that they can participate in the follow on Soviet attacks and not have to sit it out in repair depots due to mechanical issues.

The course of the Eastern Front could play out very differently if the situation around the wider Kursk battles plays out more in the Germans favor, with the Soviets held on the Dniepr in 1943. Bagration then doesn't get to play out as it did historically either.

Then in terms of production output in 1943 there are a lot more Panthers turned out due to being easier to make and entering production sooner and not needing to be withdrawn due to early issues. They can replace the Pz IV in service over the course of 1943-44, which really does play an important role in the way battles play out all over Europe from 1943-45. As a chassis the 30 ton design can handle various weapon systems better than the Pz IV one, which means not Guderian Ente, but rather something like the Jagdpanther in greater numbers. Slowing down the Allied, especially Soviet, advance in Europe has all sorts of interesting effects on history there after, especially in Asia.

[Kingfish]

Might there have been a longer planned and mature hard hitting successor in 1943 anyway?

No, simply for the fact that Germany didn't foresee the war lasting into '43.

[stg 44]

Might there have been a longer planned and mature hard hitting successor in 1943 anyway?

No, simply for the fact that Germany didn't foresee the war lasting into '43.

Arguably the VK3001 project would be mature and upgunned to the 75mm Long by 1943, though basically being little more than a large Pz IV in terms of armor.
http://1940lafrancecontinue.org/
Under images and German vehicles there is an example of a VK3001 with 75mm L71 that would be ready by 1943 and mechanically reliable, but without sloped armor. Arguably getting into service and replacing the Pz IV totally would have been worth the trade off of losing the historical Panther, due to it having the same gun and better mobility due to better mechanical systems (though it would lack the same wide tracks and the Panther and have worse armor). Basically it would have to use its better mobility to make up for its lack of armor and use it gun as a long range sniper weapon, which would serve it really well in the East. It would probably result in higher overall numbers due to replacing both the Panther and PZ IV, plus be a superior weapons carrier chassis than the PZ IV, but same as the Panther. Plus it would be available earlier, so the Germans could get a lot more of them in service, probably entering combat by Autumn 1942, so would be in major production by 1943 and the standard Germany tank by Spring, using the long 75mm and fighting alongside the Tiger, which the smaller Pz III chassis working as a weapons carrier platform.

[maltesefalcon]

I will respond to several comments on my post above and add a few of my own:

First to my implied suggestion that the change needed to be war winning. The original post offered very little insight on to what would happen or how. It is only my opinion but the best what ifs are plausible, have the potential to make noticeable changes and are detailed as to how they develop. Simply adding/reducing casualties incrementally does not really offer much hope of major time line changes.

Second. There were any number of weapon designs on both sides that never made it into production. Even if the design was adopted, would it be built? Bear in mind the PIII was a decent design up to about 1940 but the Germans couldn't even get that going. Eventually it was upgunned to a 50mm/L60 but not until it was already obsolete.

The PIV was fully capable of being upgunned to a long barrel 75mm from the get go. All the ingredients were there from the start. Yet it didn't happen for 3 years into the war. And despite the availability of 3 newer designs in the latter part of the war it was never actually "replaced".

So this is more a mindset as opposed to lack of a better design. (IMHO of course)

Finally as to the comments about battles won/lost in 1943. Germany needed to finalize the situation with the USSR by the end of 1942. After that they were doomed. They could inflict relatively more casualties but they would still be overwhelmed by force of numbers in the end.

Tank deficiencies on their own did not lose them the war so incremental improvements in either design or quantity on their own could not win it either.

[Lieutenant S. Chuikov]

If the Germans had better tanks they would need to be in mass production. If they were mass producible early in the war, they would probably have a strong advantage with tanks against other tanks. The Allies would probably counter with tactics. In the realm of what ifs, the Allies could develop attack helicopters that would devastate German tanks. The Germans would probably respond with attack helicopters, but they would probably be wiped out by the Allied air superiority. If they had enough tanks to defend Normandy, it could affect the war considerably.

[stg 44]

Combat helicopters were beyond the technical development of the era; Germany tried to get transport and spotting units into service, while Allied models didn't even get into service until after the war. Helicopters are out. As it was the Allies did use tactics and numbers to counter the heavy Germany tanks that were used, but with more German tanks they would have been harder to overcome via tactics and mass; instead, like the Soviets, they would just have to suck up losses and win with higher casualties later.