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.