A Better Panther?

[SpicyJuan]

If Germany managed to get a better strategic position in the East say in either 1941 or 1942 how would the development of the Panther played out? Seeing the design flaws of the MAN Panther (weak side armor, excessive weight of a "medium" compared to that of its contemporaries), would a new "compromise" design have been made incorporating different elements from both the MAN and DB designs? How might this Panther have looked?

Also, how could the MAN Panther have been improved? If it was allowed to properly develop(IIRC it was rushed), would its huge reliability issues have been improved? If those issues had been improved could it have been a good strategic tank-a true replacement to the Panzer IV? Would the weak side armor have been improved at the expense of the front?

[stg 44]

The issue with the Panther was rushing it to get a leap over the T-34 by using the work done on the VK3001. Unless it had 60mm of frontal armor and a L48 75mm gun just like the Pz IV, it was going to be over 40 tons. It just couldn't keep the weight down given the technology of the day. The Panther F did deal with a fair bit of the issues, but the war ended in 1945 before it could be introduced. Really it was just going to take time to make the Panther work, but by 1946 it would be a mature design and work out quite a few of its issues.

[Don71]

Salve,

the german development was limited through two major issues!

1. All german tanks had front-wheel drive, with the transmission in the front of the tank, that's a major difference to all other important allied tanks and a major issue to slope the front amour. A combined engine with transmission at the rear would be a solution, but not for WWII german engineers, they were too static.
2. The next issue is the Schachtellaufwerk, what was a german meander.

I think a Panther without this two issues would be near 40t and much more flat. So you can have improved side armour.

[stg 44]

Salve,

the german development was limited through two major issues!

1. All german tanks had front-wheel drive, with the transmission in the front of the tank, that's a major difference to all other important allied tanks and a major issue to slope the front amour. A combined engine with transmission at the rear would be a solution, but not for WWII german engineers, they were too static.
2. The next issue is the Schachtellaufwerk, what was a german meander.

I think a Panther without this two issues would be near 40t and much more flat. So you can have improved side armour.

I brought the rear drive idea up on another forum, the answer was that there wasn't room at the back for the drive. It was too cramped. The final drive also needed to be adapted for the weight too.

[T. A. Gardner]

The following are things the Germans should have done with the design:

Eliminate entirely the overlapped suspension system for one like the Pz III has. Front or rear drive is fine for the time. That simplifies both manufacture and maintenance. It also increases the reliability of the track system in operation.
Keep the weight at 35 to a max of 40 tons.
Make more of a compromise on the main armament. The 75L70 is a good AT gun for its size but not so good for HE. A better designed 88 gun, or a redesigned lighter 88L56 would have been a better choice.
Eliminate complex shapes in parts like the gun mantle to simplify production.
Accept more of an overlapped turret shortening and narrowing the hull. This would reduce the weight of armor. I think with better design the Germans could have knocked 30 cm off the length width and height of the vehicle.
Thicken the side armor. Possibly eliminate some of the slope on the hull side to again reduce the size of the vehicle. The rear slope could have potentially been totally eliminated.
Eliminate the hull machine gun and gunner's position entirely. That will reduce vehicle size and give more options for design and protection.

[SpicyJuan]

Eliminate the hull machine gun and gunner's position entirely. That will reduce vehicle size and give more options for design and protection.

I think that would have caused more problems than it would solve. One of the greatest advantages German armor had over its contemporaries early in the war was that the Tank Commander could solely focus on his primary job-commanding the tank (not to mention the radio operator who operated the hull machine gun was also quite important). Other nations such as the US and USSR recognized this and adapted their armor designs to meet this requirement (such as the Sherman and T-34/85 respectively).

So, is there any way that the MAN Design could have turned into a proper strategic tank with more development time? IIRC, the French stated numerous times in their evaluation that the MAN Panther was a great tactical tank but not a strategic one due to its reliability issues (such as the final drive). On another note, I have seen good arguments that by the end of the war the Panther's reliability issues had largely been resolved (this is proven by the fact that the operational percentages exceeded that of the Panzer IV) and the Panther's critics make its reliability issues out worse than it really was (NOTE: Please let us not change the thread big to a big Panther debate over this and only stick to the hypothetical questions asked).

[T. A. Gardner]

Both the US and Britain gave the tank commander the responsibility of operating the radio. Both nations put their radios in the turret bustle (rear of the turret). The Russians followed suit. The US sets were sufficiently rugged and reliable that dealing with them technically was not a tactical issue. The Germans could have done the same thing, but didn't.
That issue certainly didn't hinder Panzerjäger and sturmgeschultz crews where the commander did have to operate the radio.

The only reason I could see for a dedicated radio operator is that you intend to use a Morse key for transmission. Most early and mid-war German sets in tanks could be used that way but I can't see it being a realistic choice tactically. So, there is no need for a dedicated radio operator.

[Michael Kenny]

I have seen good arguments that by the end of the war the Panther's reliability issues had largely been resolved (this is proven by the fact that the operational percentages exceeded that of the Panzer IV) and the Panther's critics make its reliability issues out worse than it really was (NOTE: Please let us not change the thread big Panther debate over this and only stick to the hypothetical questions asked).

Not true. This 'reliability' argument was raised by Jentz and he used (I believe) Just 3 sets of tank numbers to arrive at this conclusion. It just was not so and even in 1945 transmission problems were common in all German tanks.
Anyone want to put up numbers to support the claims made for the improved Panther reliabilty ?

[SpicyJuan]

I have seen good arguments that by the end of the war the Panther's reliability issues had largely been resolved (this is proven by the fact that the operational percentages exceeded that of the Panzer IV) and the Panther's critics make its reliability issues out worse than it really was (NOTE: Please let us not change the thread big Panther debate over this and only stick to the hypothetical questions asked).

Not true. This 'reliability' argument was raised by Jentz and he used (I believe) Just 3 sets of tank numbers to arrive at this conclusion. It just was not so and even in 1945 transmission problems were common in all German tanks.
Anyone want to put up numbers to support the claims made for the improved Panther reliabilty ?

Please refer to:

NOTE: Please let us not change the thread to a big Panther debate over this and only stick to the hypothetical questions asked.

[Michael Kenny]

You said this is proven by the fact that....... when it was not proven and not a fact.

[SpicyJuan]

You said this is proven by the fact that....... when it was not proven and not a fact.

I wasn't stating an opinion. What I meant by that was that that was the reasoning behind the assertion. But we digress from the main topic of this thread.

[Don71]

After Spielberger,

most Problems were sorted out with the Ausf. G and the Panther and it's transmission and/or the intermediate transmissionwas were reliabile.

Not true. This 'reliability' argument was raised by Jentz and he used (I believe) Just 3 sets of tank numbers to arrive at this conclusion. It just was not so and even in 1945 transmission problems were common in all German tanks.

When and where had the Panzer IV (Ausf. F2, G, H, J) ever problems with the transmission or the intermediate transmission?
Besides the Panzer IV was the MBT of the Wehrmacht even 1944/45.

[Don71]

Salve,

the german development was limited through two major issues!

1. All german tanks had front-wheel drive, with the transmission in the front of the tank, that's a major difference to all other important allied tanks and a major issue to slope the front amour. A combined engine with transmission at the rear would be a solution, but not for WWII german engineers, they were too static.
2. The next issue is the Schachtellaufwerk, what was a german meander.

I think a Panther without this two issues would be near 40t and much more flat. So you can have improved side armour.

I brought the rear drive idea up on another forum, the answer was that there wasn't room at the back for the drive. It was too cramped. The final drive also needed to be adapted for the weight too.

DB had no problems with designing a rear wheel drive for the VK 3002. Also it is technical bogus to claim, the front-wheel drive was adapted for the weight! There are advantages for a front transmission, because the weight is very good spread, but with a transmission at the front, you have major problems to slope the front armour and you must built a high hull tank, that's clearly a technical and weight disadvantage, because you create more surfaces, which were in need to be armoured.

[stg 44]

So, is there any way that the MAN Design could have turned into a proper strategic tank with more development time? IIRC, the French stated numerous times in their evaluation that the MAN Panther was a great tactical tank but not a strategic one due to its reliability issues (such as the final drive). On another note, I have seen good arguments that by the end of the war the Panther's reliability issues had largely been resolved (this is proven by the fact that the operational percentages exceeded that of the Panzer IV) and the Panther's critics make its reliability issues out worse than it really was (NOTE: Please let us not change the thread big to a big Panther debate over this and only stick to the hypothetical questions asked).

Isn't this a contradiction? If the reliability issues were resolved, then the French wouldn't have had post war problems because they lacked the supply and maintenance issues the Germans had in 1944-45. Also the French did note that there were issues with the turret layout:
http://worldoftanks.com/en/news/21/chie ... -panthers/

[Michael Kenny]

After Spielberger,

most Problems were sorted out with the Ausf. G and the Panther and it's transmission and/or the intermediate transmissionwas were reliabile.

Not true. This 'reliability' argument was raised by Jentz and he used (I believe) Just 3 sets of tank numbers to arrive at this conclusion. It just was not so and even in 1945 transmission problems were common in all German tanks.

When and where had the Panzer IV (Ausf. F2, G, H, J) ever problems with the transmission or the intermediate transmission?
Besides the Panzer IV was the MBT of the Wehrmacht even 1944/45.

The Pz IV was seriously overweight in 1944-45.

Spielberger. Panther & Its Variants page 257

Date 23 January 1945.


Meeting of the Panzer Commision


there continues to be serious complaints regarding final drive breakdowns in all vehicle types...................General Thomale explained that in such circumstances an orderly utilisation of tanks is simply impossible...........
200 breakdowns with the 38(t).........
Prior to the 1945 eastern offensive there have been 500 defective drives on the Pz IV, from the Panther 370 and from the Tiger roughly 100............the troops lose their confidence and in some situations abandon the whole vehicle just because of this problem