A Better Panther?

[Nautilus]

And, as I stated, nobody has copied this system post WW 2. It is too complex and increases the difficulty of maintenance. Hence why everyone is using something that looks very much like the Pz III's suspension.

Nobody has used post WW 2 a tank the size of a Tiger until the M1 and not even the M1 has been designed to run on very soft, marshy ground.

Or, if they had more engineering ability, they could have side- stepped this production bottle neck and come out with something similiar to Chrysler's A57, which I understand was 5 (straight six???) bus engines synched together. Of course German engineers of the Nazi era, despite their best efforts, couldn't link two cylinder blocks together, to compete with first world engines of the late war period. The idea they could do five, which from my not extensive knowledge of combustion engines seems (pretty much) like a real world live unicorn, seems very unlikely.

They had no reason to do it. Chrysler A57 weighed 2384kg, had 30 sparkplugs, plumbing like a steam locomotive and it stood in a very tall, barely concealable hull, just as tall as a Tiger I and 2 ft taller than a T-34. Maybach HL230 weighed 1200kg and could fit in a cube a bit over 1.1 meters per side.

If they attempted fitting together 2 engines, this resulted in a big, awkward monster as the engine space of the Elefant. Plus the weight of the armor to cover it. As in the Elefant.

The T-34 could be much smaller and lighter due to the V-2 engine, at 750 kg dry weight. It still needed a big, nearly 100 liters, oil tank, plus similar water circuit, but didn't go over 1000 kg. Which fit in a smaller hull, with armor a bit thinner, but still enough, to end up around 30-32 tonnes.

Generaloberst Guderian judged a PzKpfw IV with long 75 mm gun (G, H or J) was adequate to face an enemy the size of a T-34, while still being below 30 tonnes and needing far less resources and logistical problems. Which is a bit shortsighted: adequate to face an enemy the size of a T-34 now, as the upgradability was stretched to the maximum possible. What if next year the Soviets come out with something bigger, the size of an IS-2, but in large numbers?

[antwony]

The idea of hybrid power plants, using combinations of commercial truck/bus engines makes sense in principle. That would have made efficient use of essentially surplus production, had it existed.

However these types of engines were also in high demand to build more (much-needed) trucks themselves. The Reich was perennially short of wheeled vehicles and even captured enemy vehicles or factories never really solved the issue.

Very good point, they'd be cutting off their nose to save their face.

And, as I stated, nobody has copied this system post WW 2. It is too complex and increases the difficulty of maintenance. Hence why everyone is using something that looks very much like the Pz III's suspension.

Nobody has used post WW 2 a tank the size of a Tiger until the M1

That's not really true. T10, Centurion and some of the Pattons were a very similiar size to the Tiger I and the M103 and Conquerer were almost Tiger II's weight. By "Tiger" do you mean Panzer VIA or B?

Or, if they had more engineering ability, they could have side- stepped this production bottle neck and come out with something similiar to Chrysler's A57, which I understand was 5 (straight six???) bus engines synched together. Of course German engineers of the Nazi era, despite their best efforts, couldn't link two cylinder blocks together, to compete with first world engines of the late war period. The idea they could do five, which from my not extensive knowledge of combustion engines seems (pretty much) like a real world live unicorn, seems very unlikely.

They had no reason to do it. Chrysler A57 weighed 2384kg, had 30 sparkplugs, plumbing like a steam locomotive and it stood in a very tall, barely concealable hull, just as tall as a Tiger I and 2 ft taller than a T-34. Maybach HL230 weighed 1200kg and could fit in a cube a bit over 1.1 meters per side.

Unlike the Maybach, the Chrysler worked properly, I think that's a pretty good reason.

If they attempted fitting together 2 engines, this resulted in a big, awkward monster as the engine space of the Elefant. Plus the weight of the armor to cover it. As in the Elefant.

That was my point, German engineers were incompetent, they couldn't do it.

[T. A. Gardner]

And, as I stated, nobody has copied this system post WW 2. It is too complex and increases the difficulty of maintenance. Hence why everyone is using something that looks very much like the Pz III's suspension.

Nobody has used post WW 2 a tank the size of a Tiger until the M1 and not even the M1 has been designed to run on very soft, marshy ground.

Yea, right...

The T29 heavy tank (69 tons). While only a handful of prototypes (along with the similar T30 to 34 heavy tanks) were made, all used the same basic suspension.



That developed into the M103 which the US built several hundred of (68 tons)



The T10 heavy tank (52 tons)




Just a few examples of tanks post war that were in the same weight category as the Tiger and Tiger II but didn't use interleaved or overlapped suspension systems.

The British Conqueror heavy tank used a more primative suspension (64 tons) but, not copied from the Germans.

The French AMX 50 prototype is about the closest you can come, and even it uses return rollers

[critical mass]

A preferable Solution would be the combined PzIII/IV chassis, which also became the platform of choice for Nashorn, Jpz IV, Hummel, et al. This unified chassis was discussed first in late 1941.
Its roomy enough to hold a 75mm l48 and has potential for a mild increase, my personal preference would be a lightweighted 88mm L45 instead, such as the Naval SK C/35 (776kg, 700m/s i.v.), ca. 10% heavier than the KWK40 and considerably lighter than the KWK42. An alternative lightweighted 88mm gun KM41 was developed for the Navy in 1941/2, which had KwK36 levels of performance but being less bulky and much lighter. There is also the ominous Rheinmetall 75mm L/60, which may be fitted instead of the L/70.
The sloped armor was not part of the original proposal but added after general adoption following specifications changed in response to the Panzerkomimissions report on the T34. It will be not quite as resistent as the Panther (60/40/40mm), but the Design could stay at 29-32t, have a high servicability rate, posses adaequate tactical and good strategic mobility, be less of a strain on ressources(fuels), share a lot of components with other platforms, and thus would allow a timely and complete transition from Pz4 with only minor offsets in rescheduling lines of fabrication ( instrumental components such as transmission, steering, engine could stay in full production). The dividends are unification of production and stocking, as well as ease of maintenance. In the tactical scale,this AFV would have increased range to exploit breakthroughs and is more adabtable to different roles.

Platforms
Pz3/4, with KwK40, or 88mm L45
Jpz4 to replace StugIII armed with KwK40 or -42
StuPz 3/4 (to replace StuH42), with 15cm StuH in armored casematte
Hummel, with 15cm sFh in open top
Nashorn, with Pak43 to replace Marder
Bergepanzer 3/4
Flakpanzer 3/4