A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Discussions on alternate history, including events up to 20 years before today. Hosted by Terry Duncan.
Post Reply
Peter89
Member
Posts: 2369
Joined: 28 Aug 2018, 06:52
Location: Europe

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#361

Post by Peter89 » 10 Aug 2022, 20:58

Richard Anderson wrote:
09 Aug 2022, 23:14

There is the strong possibility that concentrating on the "cutting edge" Panzer III design as a universal tank would have extended the development period even longer, leaving the Heer with a few prototype Panzer III on 1 September 1939 and no Panzer IV.
Exactly.

German R&D was problematic at best and its inherent shortcomings were exacerbated by the fact that the Wehrmacht was also a "political weapon" and it was developed that way.
"Everything remained theory and hypothesis. On paper, in his plans, in his head, he juggled with Geschwaders and Divisions, while in reality there were really only makeshift squadrons at his disposal."

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#362

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 11 Aug 2022, 02:55

Richard Anderson wrote:
10 Aug 2022, 19:31

Okay, but it smells too much of "what if Napoleon had a B-52 at Waterloo" territory. I will grant that you have not descended to the level of declaring it happens because "the Germans think harder", which was the "reasoning" used by a now banned member or by saying it happens because they say it does. :D
Who?


HP
Member
Posts: 29
Joined: 28 Apr 2006, 18:07
Location: Finland

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#363

Post by HP » 11 Aug 2022, 09:18

To add to the discussion that Pz IV (or modified Pz III) would have been sufficient for the whole war, I would like to add a youtube link (:D).

This Russian channel has made test drives with Russian and German tanks. In the Pzkpfw IV video they point out (at 2:00) that the tank, at least the example they have, is front-heavy and the last idler wheel does not support the tank. It seems to be late Model G, built in 1943 - 50+30 mm front armour and Kwk 40/48. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNh3HgvX7Kg

The weight problems of Pzkpfw IV have been pointed out several times in the thread, but perhaps a visualization helps to clarify the issues. The analysis in the video also seems relatively grounded.

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#364

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 11 Aug 2022, 10:01

Yeah the Pz4 latewar was overloaded and it's suspension was insufficient.

Its honestly impressive how the initial humble Pz4 evolved into a tank which could take on the Sherman and have good odds.

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#365

Post by Richard Anderson » 11 Aug 2022, 19:32

HP wrote:
11 Aug 2022, 09:18
To add to the discussion that Pz IV (or modified Pz III) would have been sufficient for the whole war, I would like to add a youtube link (:D).

This Russian channel has made test drives with Russian and German tanks. In the Pzkpfw IV video they point out (at 2:00) that the tank, at least the example they have, is front-heavy and the last idler wheel does not support the tank. It seems to be late Model G, built in 1943 - 50+30 mm front armour and Kwk 40/48. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dNh3HgvX7Kg

The weight problems of Pzkpfw IV have been pointed out several times in the thread, but perhaps a visualization helps to clarify the issues. The analysis in the video also seems relatively grounded.
Yep, pointed out and then promptly glossed over numerous times with a hand wave. :D

Nor was it solely a problem with the later model Panzer IV. Rather, it was a problem from the beginning. Panzer III exceeded its initial 10-ton weight limit by 5.4 tons and never looked back. Panzer IV exceeded its initial 15-ton weight limit by 3.4 tons and ditto. The first series production Panzer III Ausf E exceeded its planned 10-ton weight limit by 9.5 tons. The first Panzer IV Spezial, the Ausf F2 exceeded its planned 15-ton wight limit by 8 tons.

Neither benefited from those weight increases. Suspension performance and life was affected as was mobility and maneuverability.

Adding things like 7.5cm "long" guns could complicate things even more. Not only does the turret need to be enlarged, but it also needs to remain balanced, since balance affects the ability of the turret to rotate. It can be argued that those problems delayed the fielding of the Medium Tank M4 with 3"/76mm gun by as much as two years. Yes, the German army was more accepting of bodge-jobs than the American army, but such issues cannot be ignored, especially when it requires modifying field gun mountings to tanks. Again, using the American experience as an example, redesigning the 90mm Antiaircraft Gun M1 to fit in a tank as the 90mm Tank Gun M3 took about 11 months from design requirement to the start of serial production...and that even though the initial redesign actually used the piston rods and recoil mechanism of the 3" Gun Mount M7 by designing a new breech ring for the 90mm with the required attachment points. Fine, right? Uh, no, they also had to move the breech operating handle "directly onto the breech mechanism. The breech operating cam was modified to operate the breech semi-automatically. Finally, a longitudinal key-way and a cylindrical recoil surface were added to the exterior of the gun tube itself, which permitted it to fit the 3-inch Mount, M7 in the GMC M10." It was a similar design difference that prevented American ordnance designers from simply using the 3,000-odd existing 75mm Guns M1897 in inventory as tank guns. The design of the recoil mechanism and bearing surfaces of the original gun simply were not adaptable to a tank mounting without a complete redesign of the existing gun. Luckily, ordnance had accidentally already done that during the late 1920s and 1930s when they were experimenting with building a "universal" divisional gun that could be a field gun, antitank gun, and antiaircraft gun on the same mount. That failed miserably, but the final design turned out to be relatively easy to adapt to a tank mount...all it took was some 14 years of work on an otherwise failed design. :D

Could the Germans adapt their 7.7 cm FK 16 and 96 to mount in a tank as a 7.5cm gun? Probably. Would they then start production of the new 7.5cm FK 16/96 as a tank gun? Why? They were already in the midst of designing and producing the FK 18, but didn't like it much either since they were more interested in 10.5cm field pieces. There was no interest in fitting such a weapon in either the Panzer III (where its additional weight penalty really worked against it) or the Panzer IV, since it is unlikely a putative FK 16/96/18-based tank gun would have been seen to have any more utility in the support tank role than the 7.5cm KwK 37.

To emphasize, it isn't that the Germans could NOT do it, but rather that it requires a pretty convoluted series of not so good reasons and rationales that would make them WANT to do it.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#366

Post by Destroyer500 » 13 Aug 2022, 21:28

Richard Anderson wrote:
10 Aug 2022, 02:03
Destroyer500 wrote:
10 Aug 2022, 00:16
For 1) id say say why not start with a 20 ton tank from the get go ? For 2) id say that while the pz3 made sense up to a point once both tanks reach the 20 ton weight and the diferences become very small try to keep one of the two for better standardization.Now if pleasing bankers and industrialists was all they wanted then it would happen anyway with the upcoming war.
Because it was January 1934 when In 6 stated the desired specifications in its request for bids and a 10-ton and 15-ton tank was the maximum weights they felt were desirable when the engine power they expected to have was at most 250 to 300 HP.

Because while the weight continued to grow, the engine power remained the same, so performance continually degraded. It was what they tried not to have happen, so it was unlikely they would have chosen to say "screw the weight, let's just accept degraded performance from the outset of design". It's just not the way people think, unless they are creating a what if based on hindsight.
Yea sure but the designs changed a lot from their initial versions and the light and mid weight barrier between them was non existent in the end.
Why yes, but the "end" was nine to eleven years after the "beginning". And, not be supernaturally prescient, none could see what that outcome at the "end" would be at the "beginning". This is basic cause and effect, not rocket science.
To this i somewhat agree.Initialy you have to mess around and see what works and what doesnt but i also believe that one should either do one thing well rather than play around with a hundred others and be mediocre.Up until 1940 they played with designs,after that they should focus on only one for standardization purposes.
Um, but they weren't messing around. They were striving to arm and equip a rapidly expanding military to support the aggressive foreign policy of their political masters. They did not "play with designs", it wasn't until 1939, after extensive development work on the Panzer III and IV that they began messing around with universal designs...none of which came to fruition.
I expected this answer.Developemnt started from small calibers and went to bigher ones naturaly but all im saying is that they should have had introduced bigger calibers a bit earlier just to have an advantage.
I expected this answer. Why? And "advantage" over what? The 37mm-class of weapons was overkill for most known tanks into the late 1930s. Most then progressed to up-gun from the 37mm to the c. 45-57mm class 1938-1939. Yes, the Soviets stuck a 76.2mm gun into the A-32/T-32/T-34, but it was a fairly low-velocity gun and was there because development of the much better Zis-2 57mm was lagging...just like the KwK 38 was late and the KwK 39 even later.
Personaly if i started a war i would want my equipment to be ahead of the enemys in every single way.
That's really easy if you can plan on the date of your desired war starting around five or six years ahead of time. For example, if the U.S. had about a three-year lead time they could have put Continental AV-1790 engines and Cross-Drive transmissions into the Medium Tank M4, which would have been able to then mount a bigger gun and more armor...it also would have made the T22/T23/T25/T26 absolute world beaters in 1943/1944, except that did not happen.
The long or the short 50 ? I remember the long 50 coming a bit late in sufficient numbers
KwK 38 = 5cm L42. KwK 39 = 5cm L60. They both began development in 1938, the KwK 39 as the PaK 39. The 38 was designed for the Panzer III because it simplified fitting it into the turret, gave more room in the turret improving ergonomics, and allowed greater ammunition stowage, all important things for tanks. It was experience at the pointy end that overruled those pluses.
Everything in a what if requires some points of departure else there would be no what ifs.
Of course they do and I get rather tired of some posters assuming I'm too dumb to know that. However, the POD should not be due to the intervention of Alien Space Bats, Prescience, or Hand Wavium. There should be at least an attempt to provide a reasonable reason for the POD. Not because someone "Personaly" thinks it should be, nor because someone actively indulges in confirmation bias by Googling random bits of ironmongery to fit into their nifty tank "designs".
I guess that last paragraph goes for me.In the conceptual phase they thought that 2 tanks were needed for the infantry support and anti tank role.The main difference,between the two vehicles,apart from the mobility part(and somewhat the armor one),was the gun,i dont know how different they thought these two vehicles would be but they would definitely not turn out like they had in mind.If they did turn out differently initially,which they did,they still had the chance to change their minds.The sherman 105 and the sherman 75 were the same tanks but had 2 different guns and 2 different roles,they didnt built a sherman 2.0 just to have the 105.No one in this world can convince me that such a doctrine required two vehicles of different chassis to do the job.If they had chosen in that early conceptual phase to built one tank,because i dont know some engineer persuaded them that it wasnt worth the effort or because they saw how wrong such a decision was,then one tank would go into production and development and they would be forced to upgrade it as much as they could until they found something better to make.The only good counterargument ive heard when it comes to this is that they had to give contracts to the industrialists to help them get money and thank them for the help they provided to the party while it rose to power.They would still get their contracts but this time the army,the ones that care about the war (or at least that should care) and not the money,dont waste precious materials when it comes to the big wars they waged by having to build,upgrade and maintain 2 different tanks that are so similar.
There is the strong possibility that concentrating on the "cutting edge" Panzer III design as a universal tank would have extended the development period even longer, leaving the Heer with a few prototype Panzer III on 1 September 1939 and no Panzer IV.
Why would this be the case ? They would start just like they normally did but this time with one chassis and possibly one,or two,turret to fit both guns.Later one they would have to fit a 75 in there or something similar,possibly sloped armor for the reasons i mentioned,upgrade suspension and maybe later on the panther takes its place or they decide to redesign the whole tank to be like a shorter panther or i dont know because after that i could say anything really.

After months in this thread i can understand that it would require a completely different mindset for a cutting edge panzer 3 to be thought of and that is only with hindsight because no one back then thought in terms of mbts,because the super panzer 3 is a ww2 mbt if you think about it.The modifications i mentioned and the drawings i made were the best upgrades that tank could receive but i now doubt they would suddenly do or think it because again it requires hindsight.They could definitely choose to have one chassis for 2 roles,they could definitely give it sloped armor,bigger guns,more durable suspension(maybe go for a bigger machine gun for the commander like a .50 german edition because they think what the Americans do is worth it ?) and maybe even some equipment to help it float and cross rivers and lakes.

historygeek2021
Member
Posts: 641
Joined: 17 Dec 2020, 07:23
Location: Australia

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#367

Post by historygeek2021 » 13 Aug 2022, 23:05

Every major power was developing multiple types of tanks in the 1930s. None of them thought it would be a good idea to invest everything in just one tank and hope for the best. Which was wise, since they hadn't actually fought the war yet they had no idea what type of tank would perform best on the battlefield.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#368

Post by Destroyer500 » 14 Aug 2022, 00:59

historygeek2021 wrote:
13 Aug 2022, 23:05
Every major power was developing multiple types of tanks in the 1930s. None of them thought it would be a good idea to invest everything in just one tank and hope for the best. Which was wise, since they hadn't actually fought the war yet they had no idea what type of tank would perform best on the battlefield.
In the end the whole what if section shouldnt exist.Everything that happened 80 something years ago or even further back was the product of its age and of the people that lived back then.Millitary decisions,political decisions,engineering decisions choose what you want no matter what we say in the end the whole history of the world leading to that point in time were discussing would have to change or at least significant shifts in thinking and understanding would have to happen prior to that point for our what ifs to work.

They built the panzer 3 and 4 for their reasons and even though i call them stupid i know that due to the way they perceived the whole tank thing back then it couldnt be different in many ways.They could definitely make some better decisions while these things were tested first and foremost on the proving grounds and later on in the battlefield but in the end for better or worse no argument i bring up can stand on its own 100%.Unfortunately we cannot and never will be able to change the past and the reason i created this thread was mostly to learn some new stuff,to theorize about how the panzer 3 that i really like and love could be the only tank they truly needed and to see how should the components inside and outside of it be arranged for it to be working as it should,efficiently and with as little maintenance as possible.

Mr Anderson you seem to have a lot of knowledge about tanks (and not only),we can argue all day and night about this and that but lets work together for once.Its 2022 and we are transported in 1933-1939,choose whichever date suits you best.We are given the power and authority to create a cutting edge tank that will be the third in the family tree of German tanks.How would the design of that panzer 3 look ? You may have the knowledge but you cant just ask them to make the jump from the "standart" panzer 3 we all know to a panther (or anything really advanced) because you couldnt propably have the parts for its gun,engine and what not.Or am i wrong ? Lets have a quick talk over this if youd like

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#369

Post by Richard Anderson » 14 Aug 2022, 19:33

Destroyer500 wrote:
13 Aug 2022, 21:28
I guess that last paragraph goes for me.
No, it goes in general for many what-if addicts, not you specifically.
In the conceptual phase they thought that 2 tanks were needed for the infantry support and anti tank role.
See, like this creates problems for me. Your inference of how they thought is based upon an incorrect assumption. Panzer IV was not "needed" as a "infantry support tank" and Panzer III was not "needed" as an "anti tank role." That distorts the original reality, which may make it easier for you to craft your what if, but it simply isn't correct. Panzer III was a light tank intended for armored maneuver, with its companion medium tank the Panzer IV meant to provide fire support for that maneuver, which in turn was supported by mechanized infantry, artillery, and engineers, in a combined arms force. It was armor supporting armor in an integrated combined arms force. As conceived, both Panzer III and Panzer IV could take on soft or hard targets at close and long range.
The main difference,between the two vehicles,apart from the mobility part(and somewhat the armor one),was the gun,i dont know how different they thought these two vehicles would be but they would definitely not turn out like they had in mind.
They thought they would be very different, but complimentary, in the same way many other nations envisaged.
If they did turn out differently initially,which they did,they still had the chance to change their minds.
They did turn out differently...in late 1941. A little late for them to change their minds.
The sherman 105 and the sherman 75 were the same tanks but had 2 different guns and 2 different roles,they didnt built a sherman 2.0 just to have the 105.
Um, no, sorry, but that again is an incorrect assumption. The initial concept of the Medium Tank M4 as stated in general in August 1940 and then in more detailed requirements in February 1941, envisaged five possible armament suits using the same basic vehicle. However, the only ones eventually built were the 75mm, 3"/76mm, and 105mm...and the latter two required essentially three years of design and development to achieve in the "same tank". Except they weren't really the same tank they were put in, but "sherman 2.0", they just didn't use that nomenclature. To American ordnance designers it was "Medium Tank M4 Ultimate Design", which incorporated so many design changes from the original it could be considered a different tank.
No one in this world can convince me that such a doctrine required two vehicles of different chassis to do the job.
Yeah that does appear to be the problem. Despite the simple fact that every nation designing tanks in the 1930s followed more or less the same design and doctrinal philosophy with regards to tanks there is apparently nothing that convince you of that. The difference the Germans hit upon was the integration of that same tank design and doctrinal philosophy into an overarching mechanized warfare doctrine that was more effective than the sum of its parts.
If they had chosen in that early conceptual phase to built one tank,because i dont know some engineer persuaded them that it wasnt worth the effort or because they saw how wrong such a decision was,then one tank would go into production and development and they would be forced to upgrade it as much as they could until they found something better to make.
Um, it was engineers persuading them that the lack of horsepower meant that large tanks with big guns and heavier armor would be slower and less maneuverable, because, well, that's the way it works. And engineers work to turn concepts into reality. They built according to the requirements specifications laid out by the end users rather than the tail wagging the dog.
The only good counterargument ive heard when it comes to this is that they had to give contracts to the industrialists to help them get money and thank them for the help they provided to the party while it rose to power.They would still get their contracts but this time the army,the ones that care about the war (or at least that should care) and not the money,dont waste precious materials when it comes to the big wars they waged by having to build,upgrade and maintain 2 different tanks that are so similar.
You seemed to have missed the whole "tank design is a series of compromises based upon power, weight, armor, gun, and maneuverability" argument that goes along with the reality of how the Nazis groomed their power base.

BTW, what war was it that anyone was caring about in Germany in 1934?
Why would this be the case ? They would start just like they normally did but this time with one chassis and possibly one,or two,turret to fit both guns.Later one they would have to fit a 75 in there or something similar,possibly sloped armor for the reasons i mentioned,upgrade suspension and maybe later on the panther takes its place or they decide to redesign the whole tank to be like a shorter panther or i dont know because after that i could say anything really.
Why would it be the case? Hm, perhaps because the Panzer III design and production project as it existed was so far behind schedule during its lifetime that adding design and production complications could only make it worse. To reiterate, in real life, Panzer III design began in January 1934. By October 1936, 65 chassis had been authorized: 10 1./ZW Ausf A, 10 2./ZW Ausf B, 15 3a./ZW Ausf C, and 30 3b./ZW Ausf D. One pilot chassis was actually complete. It was expected the first 25 would be delivered between February and August 1937, another 20 between August 1937 and February 1938, and the final 20 by April 1938, followed by the first 4./ZW Ausf E by fall of 1938.

However, the reality was there were zero delivered by 1 May 1937, 12 were delivered by 1 October 1937, 8 more were delivered by December 1937, 4 more were delivered by February 1938, and a total of 59 were delivered by September 1938. By 1 March 1939 60 were delivered...out of a total of 2,914 on order as of July 1938. By April 1940, only 758 had been delivered. The original production contracts weren't completed until December 1941/January 1942

BTW, the designers weren't stupid. They knew sloped armor offered more protection, but it also was more complex in assembly and added volume, which added weight, which required more engine power, wider tracks, and heavier suspension, which also then added weight, which meant more engine power was needed...rinse and repeat.
After months in this thread i can understand that it would require a completely different mindset for a cutting edge panzer 3 to be thought of and that is only with hindsight because no one back then thought in terms of mbts,because the super panzer 3 is a ww2 mbt if you think about it.The modifications i mentioned and the drawings i made were the best upgrades that tank could receive but i now doubt they would suddenly do or think it because again it requires hindsight.They could definitely choose to have one chassis for 2 roles,they could definitely give it sloped armor,bigger guns,more durable suspension(maybe go for a bigger machine gun for the commander like a .50 german edition because they think what the Americans do is worth it ?) and maybe even some equipment to help it float and cross rivers and lakes.
You do understand that to "upgrade" something you first need an original that needs upgrading?

The equipment needed to help tanks float are called landing craft and bridges.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#370

Post by Richard Anderson » 14 Aug 2022, 19:59

Destroyer500 wrote:
14 Aug 2022, 00:59
In the end the whole what if section shouldnt exist.Everything that happened 80 something years ago or even further back was the product of its age and of the people that lived back then.Millitary decisions,political decisions,engineering decisions choose what you want no matter what we say in the end the whole history of the world leading to that point in time were discussing would have to change or at least significant shifts in thinking and understanding would have to happen prior to that point for our what ifs to work.
No, well-crafted what ifs help us to understand what was and was not possible and why. The problem in this and other what if sections at other sites is that they usually are just echo chambers for confirmation bias...the "I got a great idea tell me how brilliant it is" crowd, who rarely acknowledge that their ideas are driven solely by hindsight.
They built the panzer 3 and 4 for their reasons and even though i call them stupid i know that due to the way they perceived the whole tank thing back then it couldnt be different in many ways.They could definitely make some better decisions while these things were tested first and foremost on the proving grounds and later on in the battlefield but in the end for better or worse no argument i bring up can stand on its own 100%.Unfortunately we cannot and never will be able to change the past and the reason i created this thread was mostly to learn some new stuff,to theorize about how the panzer 3 that i really like and love could be the only tank they truly needed and to see how should the components inside and outside of it be arranged for it to be working as it should,efficiently and with as little maintenance as possible.
You seem to be acknowledging reality. Thus, you are not of the "I got a great idea tell me how brilliant it is" ilk. Congratulations. :D
Mr Anderson you seem to have a lot of knowledge about tanks (and not only),we can argue all day and night about this and that but lets work together for once.Its 2022 and we are transported in 1933-1939,choose whichever date suits you best.We are given the power and authority to create a cutting edge tank that will be the third in the family tree of German tanks.How would the design of that panzer 3 look ? You may have the knowledge but you cant just ask them to make the jump from the "standart" panzer 3 we all know to a panther (or anything really advanced) because you couldnt propably have the parts for its gun,engine and what not.Or am i wrong ? Lets have a quick talk over this if youd like
Well, we can see just what their thinking is and when based upon the Versuch-Serie Panzerkampfwagen neuer Bauart, especially the VK 20 series and VK 30 series of late 1937 and early 1938. By that time they had gained some practical experience with the Panzer III and IV and could see the shortcomings. Of course by that time they were heavily committed to the Panzer III and IV in terms of contracts, money, production tooling, which limited how practical a course change to new designs could be, especially without the urgency of an ongoing war. Then when war broke out it appeared the III/IV combination was good enough, so why mess with a winning combination and anyway, production is ramping up and any changeover to a new design would delay the already delayed production by at least six months...
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#371

Post by Destroyer500 » 15 Aug 2022, 01:12

Richard Anderson wrote:
14 Aug 2022, 19:33
Destroyer500 wrote:
13 Aug 2022, 21:28
I guess that last paragraph goes for me.
No, it goes in general for many what-if addicts, not you specifically.
In the conceptual phase they thought that 2 tanks were needed for the infantry support and anti tank role.
See, like this creates problems for me. Your inference of how they thought is based upon an incorrect assumption. Panzer IV was not "needed" as a "infantry support tank" and Panzer III was not "needed" as an "anti tank role." That distorts the original reality, which may make it easier for you to craft your what if, but it simply isn't correct. Panzer III was a light tank intended for armored maneuver, with its companion medium tank the Panzer IV meant to provide fire support for that maneuver, which in turn was supported by mechanized infantry, artillery, and engineers, in a combined arms force. It was armor supporting armor in an integrated combined arms force. As conceived, both Panzer III and Panzer IV could take on soft or hard targets at close and long range.
The main difference,between the two vehicles,apart from the mobility part(and somewhat the armor one),was the gun,i dont know how different they thought these two vehicles would be but they would definitely not turn out like they had in mind.
They thought they would be very different, but complimentary, in the same way many other nations envisaged.
If they did turn out differently initially,which they did,they still had the chance to change their minds.
They did turn out differently...in late 1941. A little late for them to change their minds.
The sherman 105 and the sherman 75 were the same tanks but had 2 different guns and 2 different roles,they didnt built a sherman 2.0 just to have the 105.
Um, no, sorry, but that again is an incorrect assumption. The initial concept of the Medium Tank M4 as stated in general in August 1940 and then in more detailed requirements in February 1941, envisaged five possible armament suits using the same basic vehicle. However, the only ones eventually built were the 75mm, 3"/76mm, and 105mm...and the latter two required essentially three years of design and development to achieve in the "same tank". Except they weren't really the same tank they were put in, but "sherman 2.0", they just didn't use that nomenclature. To American ordnance designers it was "Medium Tank M4 Ultimate Design", which incorporated so many design changes from the original it could be considered a different tank.
No one in this world can convince me that such a doctrine required two vehicles of different chassis to do the job.
Yeah that does appear to be the problem. Despite the simple fact that every nation designing tanks in the 1930s followed more or less the same design and doctrinal philosophy with regards to tanks there is apparently nothing that convince you of that. The difference the Germans hit upon was the integration of that same tank design and doctrinal philosophy into an overarching mechanized warfare doctrine that was more effective than the sum of its parts.
If they had chosen in that early conceptual phase to built one tank,because i dont know some engineer persuaded them that it wasnt worth the effort or because they saw how wrong such a decision was,then one tank would go into production and development and they would be forced to upgrade it as much as they could until they found something better to make.
Um, it was engineers persuading them that the lack of horsepower meant that large tanks with big guns and heavier armor would be slower and less maneuverable, because, well, that's the way it works. And engineers work to turn concepts into reality. They built according to the requirements specifications laid out by the end users rather than the tail wagging the dog.
The only good counterargument ive heard when it comes to this is that they had to give contracts to the industrialists to help them get money and thank them for the help they provided to the party while it rose to power.They would still get their contracts but this time the army,the ones that care about the war (or at least that should care) and not the money,dont waste precious materials when it comes to the big wars they waged by having to build,upgrade and maintain 2 different tanks that are so similar.
You seemed to have missed the whole "tank design is a series of compromises based upon power, weight, armor, gun, and maneuverability" argument that goes along with the reality of how the Nazis groomed their power base.

BTW, what war was it that anyone was caring about in Germany in 1934?
Why would this be the case ? They would start just like they normally did but this time with one chassis and possibly one,or two,turret to fit both guns.Later one they would have to fit a 75 in there or something similar,possibly sloped armor for the reasons i mentioned,upgrade suspension and maybe later on the panther takes its place or they decide to redesign the whole tank to be like a shorter panther or i dont know because after that i could say anything really.
Why would it be the case? Hm, perhaps because the Panzer III design and production project as it existed was so far behind schedule during its lifetime that adding design and production complications could only make it worse. To reiterate, in real life, Panzer III design began in January 1934. By October 1936, 65 chassis had been authorized: 10 1./ZW Ausf A, 10 2./ZW Ausf B, 15 3a./ZW Ausf C, and 30 3b./ZW Ausf D. One pilot chassis was actually complete. It was expected the first 25 would be delivered between February and August 1937, another 20 between August 1937 and February 1938, and the final 20 by April 1938, followed by the first 4./ZW Ausf E by fall of 1938.

However, the reality was there were zero delivered by 1 May 1937, 12 were delivered by 1 October 1937, 8 more were delivered by December 1937, 4 more were delivered by February 1938, and a total of 59 were delivered by September 1938. By 1 March 1939 60 were delivered...out of a total of 2,914 on order as of July 1938. By April 1940, only 758 had been delivered. The original production contracts weren't completed until December 1941/January 1942

BTW, the designers weren't stupid. They knew sloped armor offered more protection, but it also was more complex in assembly and added volume, which added weight, which required more engine power, wider tracks, and heavier suspension, which also then added weight, which meant more engine power was needed...rinse and repeat.
After months in this thread i can understand that it would require a completely different mindset for a cutting edge panzer 3 to be thought of and that is only with hindsight because no one back then thought in terms of mbts,because the super panzer 3 is a ww2 mbt if you think about it.The modifications i mentioned and the drawings i made were the best upgrades that tank could receive but i now doubt they would suddenly do or think it because again it requires hindsight.They could definitely choose to have one chassis for 2 roles,they could definitely give it sloped armor,bigger guns,more durable suspension(maybe go for a bigger machine gun for the commander like a .50 german edition because they think what the Americans do is worth it ?) and maybe even some equipment to help it float and cross rivers and lakes.
You do understand that to "upgrade" something you first need an original that needs upgrading?

The equipment needed to help tanks float are called landing craft and bridges.
The good thing is that youre taking the time to answer me and that really helps in clearing many misunderstandings while helping me learn things that would take time.I sometimes inside of me know there are variables i may not know exist and im simply bypassing them but as i said some pages back im here to learn and i prefer to make my wrongish claims and be corrected than try be careful with every word i say so as not sound a fool.

After a certain point the prevailing thought i had in mind involved the initial doctrinal aspect of the design of the two tanks.I must start from there and actually take some time to answer some other questions to myself that i have.I strongly believe that one of the two hulls was good enough for what they wanted but i now understand better why they did what did.

The part about compromises is something i sometimes forget because i like to make as little compromises as possible in what i do but on a scale such as that of a state its hard to not make any.

The only thing i disagree involves angled armor.I dont want to upload again the angled frontal hull armor of the panzer 3 that i designed but basically the added weight and strain to the system would be minimal while adding hatches and better protection for the hull.The turret could also benefit from having a frontally angled plate but anyways.

I have some ideas about possible panzer 3 conversions later on in the war that i may post here at some point just for the sake of it.They will probably make a bit more sense.
Last edited by Destroyer500 on 15 Aug 2022, 02:09, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018, 11:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#372

Post by Destroyer500 » 15 Aug 2022, 01:24



No, well-crafted what ifs help us to understand what was and was not possible and why. The problem in this and other what if sections at other sites is that they usually are just echo chambers for confirmation bias...the "I got a great idea tell me how brilliant it is" crowd, who rarely acknowledge that their ideas are driven solely by hindsight.
It would require a long answer from me to fully give my opinion.In short certain what ifs would work a lot easier than others hindsight or not.

You seem to be acknowledging reality. Thus, you are not of the "I got a great idea tell me how brilliant it is" ilk. Congratulations. :D
Thanks man :)
Well, we can see just what their thinking is and when based upon the Versuch-Serie Panzerkampfwagen neuer Bauart, especially the VK 20 series and VK 30 series of late 1937 and early 1938. By that time they had gained some practical experience with the Panzer III and IV and could see the shortcomings. Of course by that time they were heavily committed to the Panzer III and IV in terms of contracts, money, production tooling, which limited how practical a course change to new designs could be, especially without the urgency of an ongoing war. Then when war broke out it appeared the III/IV combination was good enough, so why mess with a winning combination and anyway, production is ramping up and any changeover to a new design would delay the already delayed production by at least six months...
Ok then 2 questions;1)by 1942 why not make the panzer 3 or-and 4 have sloped frontal armor ? Making the frontal plate of the 3 and 4 have a t34 like angle while keeping it at like 60mm thick would strain them less especially the 4 that was getting very heavy for what it could take and give them better protection. 2)why not make the pz3/4 tank a reality ?

Richard Anderson
Member
Posts: 6349
Joined: 01 Jan 2016, 22:21
Location: Bremerton, Washington

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#373

Post by Richard Anderson » 15 Aug 2022, 05:13

Destroyer500 wrote:
15 Aug 2022, 01:24
Ok then 2 questions;1)by 1942 why not make the panzer 3 or-and 4 have sloped frontal armor ? Making the frontal plate of the 3 and 4 have a t34 like angle while keeping it at like 60mm thick would strain them less especially the 4 that was getting very heavy for what it could take and give them better protection. 2)why not make the pz3/4 tank a reality ?
1a) Because despite what you seem to believe sloping armor increases the area covered by the armor. Yes, you can reduce the thickness to reduce the weight, but there can be a point of diminishing returns, especially if you are adding sloped armor to an existing tank design constructed without sloped armor, such as the Panzer III and IV.
1b) You cannot simply thumbtack armor plate into place; for one thing, there is no weight savings at all if you don't remove the existing armor. However, if you remove, say the frontal armor plates of the Panzer III, then what holds it together? It's an armored box, designed that way partly because of simplicity of construction. So then, let's remove the side plates of the box and replace them with new side plates designed to support the new dloped front plate...er, I think we have completely rebuilt the basic hull of the tank. Note that the Panther was about 1.8 meters longer, .5 meters wider, and .3 meters higher than Panzer IV, but weighed nearly twice as much.
1c) The German designers weren't idiots and knew of the advantages of sloped armor. However, they also understood the tradeoffs of area coverage, weight, and difficulty in assembling such large complex shapes. Panther was the first time they tried it, after 8+ years of development on designing and manufacturing tanks.
2) They did, It was VK 20. It was cancelled at the point where it was ready to begin construction and probably could have been manufactured at any of the existing German tank plants. That would have solved one issue with Panther, which was during production conversion at the existing Panzer III plants production was lost, mostly in preparing the massive jigs required to do hull assembly. It did not have sloped armor, but it did have more of it and it could mount either a 5cm Kwk 39 or a 7.5cm KwK 37 and could have easily accommodated the 7.5cm KwK 40.
Richard C. Anderson Jr.

American Thunder: U.S. Army Tank Design, Development, and Doctrine in World War II
Cracking Hitler's Atlantic Wall
Hitler's Last Gamble
Artillery Hell

paulrward
Member
Posts: 665
Joined: 10 Dec 2008, 21:14

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#374

Post by paulrward » 15 Aug 2022, 06:11

Hello All

Mr. Anderson posted:
........ but there can be a point of diminishing returns, especially
if you are adding sloped armor to an existing tank design constructed
without sloped armor......
Yeah. It's basically impossible to re-design a given tank chassis from vertical side or frontal armor
to sloped armor.


Sloped Armor.jpg
Sloped Armor

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward
Information not shared, is information lost
Voices that are banned, are voices who cannot share information....
Discussions that are silenced, are discussions that will occur elsewhere !

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 574
Joined: 20 Jan 2019, 11:14
Location: Australia

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

#375

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 15 Aug 2022, 07:34

Sloping the front of a tank in WW2 seems pretty logical, especially when you can try to not 'lose' any crew-space via putting a transmission/fuel tank/something else in the sloped area.

The issue is when you slope the sides, because suddenly you lose volume for ammo, fuel, elbows, etc, but you gain so little in terms of defence.

45mm flat and 45mm with a slight angle might as well be the same plate of armor 9/10.

As I understand it, another issue Germany faced was redesigning their MG mounts to work with slopes, hence the Panther D not having a ball mount.

Post Reply

Return to “What if”