German T-34

[stg 44]

Yes, but its existence serves to illustrate that the Soviets were doing the same thing as the Germans - attempting to future-proof each successive design in development enough to guarantee it some superiority over what they thought the enemy would be fielding in a couple of years time And, of course, not always getting it right...

Yes, but in the German's case they didn't have what they needed when they needed it. This German T-34 would be what they needed when they needed it. In 1945 whether the German T-34 would be upgradable wouldn't matter if 1943-44 is a disaster because the Panther wasn't available in numbers or was reliable. A German T-34 with German improvements would be plenty to take on the Western Allies AND everything the Soviets had except for the IS-2/3, but they could maneuver better than those and get within range. In 1943-44 the German T-34 would be exactly the right tank at the right time in the right numbers compared to the OTL Panther.

[phylo_roadking]

Yes, but in the German's case they didn't have what they needed when they needed it. This German T-34 would be what they needed when they needed it.

Not necessarily...from Wiki, citing Tom Jentz -

However, at the final submission, MAN improved their design, having learned from the DB proposal, and a review by a special commission appointed by Hitler in May 1942 ended up selecting the MAN design. Hitler approved this decision after reviewing it overnight. One of the principal reasons given for this decision was that the MAN design used an existing turret designed by Rheinmetall-Borsig, while the DB design would have required a brand new turret to be designed and produced, substantially delaying the commencement of production.

...and you can't assume from by just focusing on one design from the beginning, rather than having the MAN vs. DB "competition" layer at the start of the process, that actual development would have been any faster than the OTL Panther. By this stage of the war Adolf was getting his grubby mitts into everything, dictating changes, adding weight and specs etc...and for example ALSO cocking up the Me262 programme!

[KDF33]

The Panther's serviceability problem can be illustrated via deployment data. In early 1944, the German theater forces (France+Italy+Russia) fielded 447 Pz IIIs, 1,328 Pz IVs, 506 Panthers and 278 Tigers. A further 450 Pz IIIs, 405 Pz IVs, 128 Panthers and 78 Tigers were held in Germany to repair extensive battle damage. The Germans held a total of 920 Pz IIIs, 1,668 Pz IVs, 1,084 Panthers and 395 Tigers on January 1, 1944. This means that tank "utilization" (deployed+in repair) rates were respectively 98% (Pz III), 104% (Pz IV - slight logical discrepancy due to some February data), 58% (Panther) and 90% (Tiger). The Panther clearly shows a much lower deployment rate than the other 3 main types.

[stg 44]

Yes, but in the German's case they didn't have what they needed when they needed it. This German T-34 would be what they needed when they needed it.

Not necessarily...from Wiki, citing Tom Jentz -

However, at the final submission, MAN improved their design, having learned from the DB proposal, and a review by a special commission appointed by Hitler in May 1942 ended up selecting the MAN design. Hitler approved this decision after reviewing it overnight. One of the principal reasons given for this decision was that the MAN design used an existing turret designed by Rheinmetall-Borsig, while the DB design would have required a brand new turret to be designed and produced, substantially delaying the commencement of production.

...and you can't assume from by just focusing on one design from the beginning, rather than having the MAN vs. DB "competition" layer at the start of the process, that actual development would have been any faster than the OTL Panther. By this stage of the war Adolf was getting his grubby mitts into everything, dictating changes, adding weight and specs etc...and for example ALSO cocking up the Me262 programme!

The issue with the DB design taking longer to get into service was more than leveled by the MAN design entering production in January 1943 only to be recalled because of serious mechanical issues; it was forced into combat in July 1943 for Kursk even though it still wasn't ready for combat due to mechanical issues that weren't worked out until March 1944 with the G series.
The delay of designing a new turret and producing it would still put it in service no later than July 1943 because it would not take more than a year to do so considering the approval of designs was given in May 1942.
So while it was clear that getting the MAN design in service by January 1943 was certainly quicker than getting the DB version in service, the resulting mechanical issues with the MAN version would have put them in actual service about the same time, but with the DB version sticking closer to design weight, so avoiding the mechanical issues plaguing the vastly overweight MAN design (it was a 30 ton chassis design upped to 45 tons, 5 tons heavier than the original Tiger design of the VK3601!).

Now there is the question of whether Hitler would have ordered an up armoring the DB design, but given the parameters, I don't think that was possible. So in the end the DB design, favored by Fritz Todt and Albert Speer, would have ended up around 35-6 tons with the same gun and similar turret/design of the T-34/85 (really 75mm long). Having a 10 ton lighter chassis that stuck with spec would be seriously more reliable than the MAN design.

[stg 44]

Found this:
http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic. ... ght=vk3002

The reason that it was not put into production was that the gun for this tank was changed at the last minute, and switched from the 75 mm L48 gun, to the 75mm L70 gun. The DB had been basing their turret on the upgrade, if it came on the 75 mm L60, and the design was too tight and could not accomidate the bigger gun. DB had to go back and resdesign the turret, and use a bigger turret ring. MAN was using a left over turrett from the foreruners of the Tiger, so it could easily handle the bigger gun. However, as soon as the DB design was dumped, Hitler started putting lots of extra armour, and the weight went up in a hurray. The engine could not be adequately cooled, and there where a host of other problems in the drive train.

The end result is that since the DB was the much simplier version, and that simplicity would have translated into a higher relaiblity, and probably higher production rates, in order to get the same gun on the battlefield. The MAN design was closer to being ready to put into production, but the drive train problmes meant that even when it did enter service, the first Panthers had a lot of problems, and where not that effective because the cres where always either fixing them, and trying to make sure they didn't break down. The 60 mm sloped armour was mor then proof agains the majority of allied AT guns through most of the war at everything but short ranges. Even the full Panthers and Tigers where vulnerable under those conditions.

Also:

Not that you might not lose a few more DB tanks (although there was ampel capability to upgrade that design too), but many Tigers and Panthers where lost as the German armies where constantly forced to retreat. The big vehilces where just too unreliable, and it was too difficult to recover the vehicles that broke down or suffered light damage. the DB design is almost a full 10 tons lighter, making the recovery with the Bergepanzers of PZII, IV modesl, as well as the 18 ton half tracks, much more suitible for the job. The extra power o the DB would also allow the tanks themselves a easier job of towing damaged vehicles, which was the primary way that eh large tanks were recovered, and casued a significant amount of damage to tanks engines and transmissions. That would continue to keep the Pz Div more up to strength , and more offensive in the later stages of the war rather then being on the defensive actions as much.

Additionally, the bugs that plagued the real Panthers could have been worked out in the DB design, and an adequate supply sent to the armoured units, the German military could have replaced the DB into production at the factories that the PzIV was being produced in. The Panthers wne t into production in the winter of 1942, with the first vehicles seeing action in Kursk. The MAN designers would continually working on the engines and did not start work on the Jagdpanther until the fall of 1943. I suspect the DB would have been slightly behind in terms of when it went into production, but would have been much more combat ready come the battle of Kursk. If they where coming out in greater numbers, which the lighter weight, and simoplier design suggests, then the PZ IV and StuG II could start being switched over to DB based vehicles in 1944. That would have given more big guns in action for the critical actions in summer of 1944 at Normany and the Soviet summer offensives.

Building the Hetzer in 1942 would have been a nice touch too. THe 60 mm of armour lsoped at 60 deg, was proof to a t-34/85 unbtil about 400 m, and the small size would have allowed for a lot more of them to be produced, and issued to either more units, or a weak AT/StuG BN added to infantry divisions.

I think the easiest way to correct the problem of vehicle indentification is to simply make the DB vehiles more angular, so that it looks more German. The Russians have nice curved lines where the plates come together. Simply having a nive, angular connection points, and an oversized turret to make it look different would have done the trick.

Te DB design owes a great deal of influence to the t-34, but a lot of the important details are differnt, and the DB design is a completely new tank, and only the external apperaince owes much to the t-34. THe most important characterisitc, is that the front armour is 1/3 thicker, and both are sloped at 60 deg. That is a very important, because the armour penetration of the russian 76 field gun will only penetrate the armour at relatively short ranges. Even the later T-34/85 would not penetrate the Hetzer hull (who is the same thickness, strength, and sloping) at more then 400 m. The 75, 76 and 3" guns will only penetrate at close ranges as well. Only the British 17 pdr, or the US 90 mm, the Soviets 100mm, 122, and 130 mm guns, who where avalible mainly in the artillery role, can effectively engage and destroy the DB at combat ranges. the DB design also was redesigned to carry the 75 mm L70 gun, which is the same gun as the historical Panther. This had a much improved muzzle velocity over the Pz IV, main allied guns (russian and western). This would have keep the "long arm" to the german side, so that they could destroy allied tanks without the allies being able to destroy them. By mounting it in a ligher hull, it would have allowed more tanks to be produced, as the DB design was simplier and designed with an eye towards higher production. More tanks means that more of them are in action. Since this is a big part of he problem that the panthers and tigers faced, it is ssignificant improvment in terms of the fighting power of a panzer division.

As I mentioned before, all German hulls also made their way into the assualt gun or tnk destroyer roles. The DB hull was well suited to this. It is heavy enough to carry the long 88 mm L71 gun, and the fighting compartment is very open, due to the design. Where most German tanks had to have the basic design altered to accomidate the new tranmission and drive train, the DB had all of those things in the rear, so they would not have to be altered.

The overall simplicity would have allowed germany to have the DB design into production and in combat readiness much sooner the MAN design. The plan was always that as soon as a sufficient flow of Panthers was poduced, that the Pz IV would be taken out of production, and replaced by the Panthers. The DB design would allow that to happen sooner, not later. Also, the assualt gun version could be used to replace the StuG/StuH III and IV assault guns and Jagdpanzer IV in production. Giving more powerful guns, better armour protection and more mobility then the Pz III /IV tanks and varients could offer. It also is a lighter, more realiable, better powered, and less overburden designed the then MAN design. The MAN was overweight by the time the prototypes where built, and the Maybach engine always gave them problems. the conintual addition of extra armour, did little to improve the protection (it was already proof against most allied AT weapons), and only made the tanks less relaible. The DB design is a simplier design, which translates to more reliable, and has less weight, which also tanslate to less stress on the componenets, and that leads to more relaiable tanks. A large number of late war german tanks where lost in action to artillery when they where broken down,or left behind during retreats. Also, despite the orders to the contrary, many Tigers and Panthers did a lot of damage to other vehicles trying to receover damaged and broken vehicles. The DB had more excess power avalible, and could have been receoverd more eaily withe the other assets that the tank receovery units had on hand.

The last thing that is worth mentioning is the impact the Panther had on post war german tank designs. When the Whermacht was re-established, and they needed to design a new tank, they did not opt for a modern equivilent of the Panther. They asked for a realtively light tank, with the heaviest gun they could get, and used the weight saved to get a more powerful engine. The design of the Leopard 1 was much more along the lines of the DB (adequte armor, big gun, powerful engine, givng a lighter weight total) then a Panther (heavuer tank with great gun and heavy armour, but sacrificing mobility, and relaiblity).

[paspartoo]

Found this:
The last thing that is worth mentioning is the impact the Panther had on post war german tank designs. When the Whermacht was re-established, and they needed to design a new tank, they did not opt for a modern equivilent of the Panther. They asked for a realtively light tank, with the heaviest gun they could get, and used the weight saved to get a more powerful engine. The design of the Leopard 1 was much more along the lines of the DB (adequte armor, big gun, powerful engine, givng a lighter weight total) then a Panther (heavuer tank with great gun and heavy armour, but sacrificing mobility, and relaiblity).

[/quote]

Yep and that design was such a success they changed it with the Leopard-2, a heavily armed and armored tank with a powerful engine.
Both the Leo-1 and the French AMX-30 were built on flawed principles.

[stg 44]

Found this:
The last thing that is worth mentioning is the impact the Panther had on post war german tank designs. When the Whermacht was re-established, and they needed to design a new tank, they did not opt for a modern equivilent of the Panther. They asked for a realtively light tank, with the heaviest gun they could get, and used the weight saved to get a more powerful engine. The design of the Leopard 1 was much more along the lines of the DB (adequte armor, big gun, powerful engine, givng a lighter weight total) then a Panther (heavuer tank with great gun and heavy armour, but sacrificing mobility, and relaiblity).

Yep and that design was such a success they changed it with the Leopard-2, a heavily armed and armored tank with a powerful engine.
Both the Leo-1 and the French AMX-30 were built on flawed principles.[/quote]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1

The Leopard (or Leopard 1) is a main battle tank designed and produced in West Germany that first entered service in 1965. Developed in an era when HEAT warheads were thought to make conventional heavy armour of limited value, the Leopard focused on firepower in the form of the German-built version of the British L7 105-mm gun, and improved cross-country performance that was unmatched by other designs of the era.

Mobility was the priority while firepower came second; armour was seen as less essential, as it was believed no real protection against hollow charge weapons was possible anyway.

They used the lessons of WW2 to develop it, but technology changed and made the concept obsolete.

So in WW2 the lesson still holds and the mobility aspect was more important than massive armor and limited mobility.

[stg 44]

I cribbed the quotes from the previous link from Lckeft, who made an excellent point about the chassis: it would be perfect for TD conversion. It already had the right engine placement, while being big enough to handle the 88mm long as a Jagdpanther without issue. It would also be easier and cheaper to make than the historical Jagdpanther, with perfect sloping to shrug off the 85mm T-34 shots. Is that a viable option?

[Alk]

You can argue that a 30 ton Panther without the L70 gun would not be a big improvement from the Mark IV with a L48 75mm gun. Their armour thickness would be close to the same, and the Pz IV was already a highly reliable and proven weapon....it just needed to be upgunned..which it was starting in 1942.

The big advantages of the Panther were that it would take out T34's at up to 2000 meters but even a T34/85 needed to get within 500M to penetrate a Panther's frontal armour.

Hitler was rarely right about anything, but in this case I think he was. A new medium tank only made sense if it was going to be far superior to the T34, since Germany could not hope to match Russia's production rate. Otherwise, they should have stuck with PZIV's and Sturms...

Another interesting fact is that a Panther (117,000RM) did not cost much more to make than a Panzer III (96,000RM), due to streamlined production techniques.

[RJ55]

You can argue that a 30 ton Panther without the L70 gun would not be a big improvement from the Mark IV with a L48 75mm gun. Their armour thickness would be close to the same, and the Pz IV was already a highly reliable and proven weapon....it just needed to be upgunned..which it was starting in 1942.

The big advantages of the Panther were that it would take out T34's at up to 2000 meters but even a T34/85 needed to get within 500M to penetrate a Panther's frontal armour.

Hitler was rarely right about anything, but in this case I think he was. A new medium tank only made sense if it was going to be far superior to the T34, since Germany could not hope to match Russia's production rate. Otherwise, they should have stuck with PZIV's and Sturms...

Another interesting fact is that a Panther (117,000RM) did not cost much more to make than a Panzer III (96,000RM), due to streamlined production techniques.

I would argue that the Germans had to go the T-34/Panther route because adding armour to the Pz IV was not efficient. Sloping amrour gets more protection for your buck [and weight] than vertical surfaces, so unless the Pz IV was easily convertable to have more sloping armour it was obsolete because the weight costs would demand compromises in other things [like the main gun] or reqire more engine power. .
So they were basically screwed no matter what they did unless they developed the Panther much earlier and had got on board with mass production in tanks far sooner. But historically the Germans kept 'hand-building" their tanks until it was too late for mass production to have an effect on the war.

[ChrisDR68]

I prefer the original DB design with leaf spring suspension (although I think 5 road wheels each side would have given better floatation than the 4 shown here). It would have made maintenance much less problematic compared to the overlapped suspension of the MAN Panther enabling more of these panzers to be in service at any one time.

Having the drive wheels at the rear is also superior in terms of maintenance and keeping the profile of the vehicle lower compared to a front wheel drive tank. Given Germany's reliance on oil made from coal giving this tank a diesel engine is a better concept than the petrol engine eventually put in the MAN Panther.

The only thing I prefer on the MAN Panther is the escape hatches for the driver and radio operator/hull machine gunner. The hatches shown here look pretty small and difficult to get in and out of especially considering the need to bale out in a hurry if the tank is hit in combat.

Over time a ball mounted hull machine gun could have replaced the letterbox mounted one shown here, the welded cupola of later Panther marks and the pig's head mantlet that the Panther II was going to have could have been fitted. Overall this is a good design that would probably have been easier to manufacture and in greater numbers than the MAN Panther. It would also have been more maneuverable and fuel efficient due to it's lighter weight.