Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#1

Post by stg 44 » 18 Feb 2017, 21:59

What if instead of rushing to get a heavy tank like the Tiger into service, the Germans focused on mechanizing their heavy artillery to make it easier to move around, quicker to get into action, and easier to pull out in case of danger? The VK3601/4501 chassis is used to then mount the 15cm K18, 17cm K18, and 21cm Mörser. Effectively from 1941 on they'd focus first on creating the Grille 15, 17, and 21. Also instead of the Ferdinand/Elefant the chassis are used for heavy artillery.
Based on a number of discussions about German artillery on this forum in other sections, German artillery was pretty much equal to the Wallies but for being mobile/mechanized enough and having enough ammo. We can't necessarily fix the ammo situation, but in terms of mobility this would fix that issue without making it any more fuel costly than the historical Tiger nor use any a-historical chassis for the effort.
http://s26.photobucket.com/user/3dbattl ... 1.jpg.html
Image
Image
Image
Image

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#2

Post by Kingfish » 21 Feb 2017, 17:05

stg 44 wrote:What if instead of rushing to get a heavy tank like the Tiger into service, the Germans focused on mechanizing their heavy artillery to make it easier to move around, quicker to get into action, and easier to pull out in case of danger? The VK3601/4501 chassis is used to then mount the 15cm K18, 17cm K18, and 21cm Mörser. Effectively from 1941 on they'd focus first on creating the Grille 15, 17, and 21. Also instead of the Ferdinand/Elefant the chassis are used for heavy artillery.
Based on a number of discussions about German artillery on this forum in other sections, German artillery was pretty much equal to the Wallies but for being mobile/mechanized enough and having enough ammo. We can't necessarily fix the ammo situation, but in terms of mobility this would fix that issue without making it any more fuel costly than the historical Tiger nor use any a-historical chassis for the effort.
Mobility of the gun platforms would be beneficial, but unless they stayed within easy reach of their logistic train - in effect remain within the road network - this could be more of a liability than an asset.

Since the gun platforms themselves carry so few rounds (5 and 3 for the Grille 17 and 21 respectively) they remained heavily dependent on other transports for their ammo supply.

Either the Germans devote a larger than historical slice of their scarce mechanized transport to keep up with the guns as they travel cross country, or the guns stay where the trucks / horses can reach.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb


User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#3

Post by stg 44 » 21 Feb 2017, 17:27

Kingfish wrote: Mobility of the gun platforms would be beneficial, but unless they stayed within easy reach of their logistic train - in effect remain within the road network - this could be more of a liability than an asset.

Since the gun platforms themselves carry so few rounds (5 and 3 for the Grille 17 and 21 respectively) they remained heavily dependent on other transports for their ammo supply.

Either the Germans devote a larger than historical slice of their scarce mechanized transport to keep up with the guns as they travel cross country, or the guns stay where the trucks / horses can reach.
How do you figure any of that? They were already getting moved around by heavy prime movers into multiple loads, so if anything it reduces the number of vehicles servicing them; the one potential liability is the weight of the system loaded on to one chassis, but given that they needed large prime movers to move the big guns in multiple loads, it may end up reducing pressure on loads if using a Tiger chassis with it's relatively low ground pressure and given that the chassis minus armor would probably be lighter than a Tiger 1.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#4

Post by Kingfish » 21 Feb 2017, 17:59

stg 44 wrote:How do you figure any of that? They were already getting moved around by heavy prime movers into multiple loads, so if anything it reduces the number of vehicles servicing them; the one potential liability is the weight of the system loaded on to one chassis, but given that they needed large prime movers to move the big guns in multiple loads, it may end up reducing pressure on loads if using a Tiger chassis with it's relatively low ground pressure and given that the chassis minus armor would probably be lighter than a Tiger 1.
You're talking about the dog, I am talking about the tail.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#5

Post by stg 44 » 21 Feb 2017, 18:06

Kingfish wrote:
stg 44 wrote:How do you figure any of that? They were already getting moved around by heavy prime movers into multiple loads, so if anything it reduces the number of vehicles servicing them; the one potential liability is the weight of the system loaded on to one chassis, but given that they needed large prime movers to move the big guns in multiple loads, it may end up reducing pressure on loads if using a Tiger chassis with it's relatively low ground pressure and given that the chassis minus armor would probably be lighter than a Tiger 1.
You're talking about the dog, I am talking about the tail.
Not at all, I am talking about the tail itself too. Nothing about that changes it is just as big as it ever was, because instead of two or more heavy prime movers there is now just one chassis to service. Ammo hauling wasn't done by the prime movers, it was by additional ammo haulers. So there isn't any additional tail added by SPing it, just increased mobility and some changes in the service elements of the chassis (instead of having to service prime movers, they are instead servicing one Tiger chassis.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#6

Post by Kingfish » 21 Feb 2017, 18:39

Let me clarify since we seem to be arguing two different things. I'm not talking about an increase / decrease in the number of vehicles. I'm referring to the mechanization of the gun platforms and their new-found mobility.

Historically the deployment of these massive weapons were restricted to where their prime movers and logistics train can access. Placing the guns atop a Tiger chassis increases the cross-country mobility of the gun, but unless the log train keeps up with it the benefit is negated.

Note that all that is based on how the Germans use this new mobility. If its simply to facilitate the movement and reduce the load, but stay within the areas it normally would have gone over historically then it does impact a benefit. However, if the gun platforms decide to go 'where no big gun has gone before' it may be a problem keeping them in action.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#7

Post by Yoozername » 21 Feb 2017, 18:59

So, if I understand this, the panzer Divisions would keep tractor drawn artillery, and the heavy Artillery branch would get SP mounts? How long would the Tigers be 'delayed'?

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#8

Post by stg 44 » 21 Feb 2017, 19:02

Kingfish wrote:Let me clarify since we seem to be arguing two different things. I'm not talking about an increase / decrease in the number of vehicles. I'm referring to the mechanization of the gun platforms and their new-found mobility.

Historically the deployment of these massive weapons were restricted to where their prime movers and logistics train can access. Placing the guns atop a Tiger chassis increases the cross-country mobility of the gun, but unless the log train keeps up with it the benefit is negated.

Note that all that is based on how the Germans use this new mobility. If its simply to facilitate the movement and reduce the load, but stay within the areas it normally would have gone over historically then it does impact a benefit. However, if the gun platforms decide to go 'where no big gun has gone before' it may be a problem keeping them in action.
You're coming out of left field with that. Why would they go to new places when they are heavily restricted where they can go by their logistics?
Yoozername wrote:So, if I understand this, the panzer Divisions would keep tractor drawn artillery, and the heavy Artillery branch would get SP mounts? How long would the Tigers be 'delayed'?
Panzer divisions would get the historical Wespes and Hummels. The heavy guns would get their own means of self propulsion. Tigers would be delayed into 1943 to make sure the heavy guns could move around much more easily.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#9

Post by Yoozername » 21 Feb 2017, 19:17

The 15cm K18 was mounted in the Hummel. why would it need a Tiger chassis?

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#10

Post by stg 44 » 21 Feb 2017, 19:43

Yoozername wrote:The 15cm K18 was mounted in the Hummel. why would it need a Tiger chassis?
The K18 was not mounted on the Hummel, that was the 15cm sFH18. Much smaller gun.

User avatar
Kingfish
Member
Posts: 3348
Joined: 05 Jun 2003, 17:22
Location: USA

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#11

Post by Kingfish » 21 Feb 2017, 19:52

stg 44 wrote: Why would they go to new places when they are heavily restricted where they can go by their logistics?
My point is why go to the trouble if you are not getting the full benefit of the mechanization? These weapons did not require rapid deployment or relocation - they were Corp level assets held far behind the FLOT - so just placing them on tracked chassis but keeping them on or near the road net seems nonsensical.
The gods do not deduct from a man's allotted span the hours spent in fishing.
~Babylonian Proverb

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#12

Post by stg 44 » 21 Feb 2017, 19:55

Kingfish wrote:
stg 44 wrote: Why would they go to new places when they are heavily restricted where they can go by their logistics?
My point is why go to the trouble if you are not getting the full benefit of the mechanization? These weapons did not require rapid deployment or relocation - they were Corp level assets held far behind the FLOT - so just placing them on tracked chassis but keeping them on or near the road net seems nonsensical.
Because they were much faster to deploy and redeploy as necessary. They did in fact require a lot of movement if used properly and in retreat if not SPed it was more often than not lost because it took hours to assemble/disassemble for movement. The caravan of equipment to haul it and assemble/disassemble it was substantial and it would eliminate the need for a bunch of equipment and manpower to service it.

User avatar
Sheldrake
Member
Posts: 3726
Joined: 28 Apr 2013, 18:14
Location: London
Contact:

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#13

Post by Sheldrake » 21 Feb 2017, 20:19

stg 44 wrote:
Kingfish wrote:
stg 44 wrote: Why would they go to new places when they are heavily restricted where they can go by their logistics?
My point is why go to the trouble if you are not getting the full benefit of the mechanization? These weapons did not require rapid deployment or relocation - they were Corp level assets held far behind the FLOT - so just placing them on tracked chassis but keeping them on or near the road net seems nonsensical.
Because they were much faster to deploy and redeploy as necessary. They did in fact require a lot of movement if used properly and in retreat if not SPed it was more often than not lost because it took hours to assemble/disassemble for movement. The caravan of equipment to haul it and assemble/disassemble it was substantial and it would eliminate the need for a bunch of equipment and manpower to service it.
There is an argument for tracked SP heavy artillery. Displacing under fire is far easier, making the equipment more survivable. However, an SP equipment also needs to be reliable and mobile. The M3 and M4 tank chassis was a good starting point for SP guns. The Tiger tank chassis fails on both counts. Who the hell wants an unreliable overweight chassis that needs the tracks stripped for rail movement? The Tiger Hornisse is a nonsense folly.

In a withdrawal the roadside would be littered with these monsters that could not be recovered from mechanical breakdown.

Yoozername
Member
Posts: 2615
Joined: 25 Apr 2006, 16:58
Location: Colorado

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#14

Post by Yoozername » 21 Feb 2017, 20:22

Panzer divisions would get the historical Wespes and Hummels. The heavy guns would get their own means of self propulsion. Tigers would be delayed into 1943 to make sure the heavy guns could move around much more easily.
So, having these guns being mobile means delaying the Tiger I into 1943 and what month? The Tiger really never got into combat much till very late 1942 to begin with? And you think that the Porsche version will be used likewise? Porsche and Henschel will develop these? They will be told to stop the heavy tank production program and switch it to a SP for artillery...and then start up and go back to the heavy tank production program???

I suppose somehow these guns will turn the tide of Soviet armor? Or what exactly is your point? they are primarily counter battery weapons.

I believe the heavy 15 cm was built in 100 pcs.? And discontinued? The 21 cm was stopped in favor of the 17 cm?

User avatar
stg 44
Member
Posts: 3376
Joined: 03 Dec 2002, 02:42
Location: illinois

Re: Tiger delay in favor of SP Heavy Artillery

#15

Post by stg 44 » 21 Feb 2017, 20:25

Sheldrake wrote:[
There is an argument for tracked SP heavy artillery. Displacing under fire is far easier, making the equipment more survivable. However, an SP equipment also needs to be reliable and mobile. The M3 and M4 tank chassis was a good starting point for SP guns. The Tiger tank chassis fails on both counts. Who the hell wants an unreliable overweight chassis that needs the tracks stripped for rail movement? The Tiger Hornisse is a nonsense folly.

In a withdrawal the roadside would be littered with these monsters that could not be recovered from mechanical breakdown.
The Tiger chassis wasn't really that unreliable, especially by late 1943. It was overloaded initially and the SP gun version would be lighter than the Tiger I, so should be less overburdened and over the course of 1943 improved in reliability as the chassis matures. By 1944 the Tiger I was one of the most reliable chassis in service.
Yoozername wrote: So, having these guns being mobile means delaying the Tiger I into 1943 and what month? The Tiger really never got into combat much till very late 1942 to begin with? And you think that the Porsche version will be used likewise? Porsche and Henschel will develop these? They will be told to stop the heavy tank production program and switch it to a SP for artillery...and then start up and go back to the heavy tank production program???

I suppose somehow these guns will turn the tide of Soviet armor? Or what exactly is your point? they are primarily counter battery weapons.

I believe the heavy 15 cm was built in 100 pcs.? And discontinued? The 21 cm was stopped in favor of the 17 cm?
The Porsche version was 68 tons with the Elefant, so with just a gun and none of that extra armor it would be a lot more reliable. In terms of the chassis the first priority from 1941 in this alternate TL would be creating the SP gun before making the Tiger work. It won't be to stop Soviet armor, rather to make better use of the long range artillery for counterbattery work to make Soviet artillery's job much harder, as the 17cm piece outranged the vast majority of Soviet heavy gun.
Last edited by stg 44 on 21 Feb 2017, 20:39, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”