A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

[Destroyer500]

Yep.

I dont see a reason why they could not add something similar to a panzer 3 or 4 that had received some sort of angled frontal plate and apart from that thats a very simple "upgrade" to make

[Richard Anderson]

Lol why the panzer 2 ? Even if they did what youre saying with the panzer 2 how where they supposed to fight other tanks with just a 20mm gun ? Built thousands of panzer 2Hs ? Unless its more of a rhetorical kind of answer.Technicaly they could replace the panzer 2 with the vk16.02 (or something a bit bigger of similar design) which was what they wanted to do but that wouldnt be a thing until late 1943 unless they rushed it or something.But i guess im missing the point.

Yeah, I think you missed the point.

They played well with what they had,all im saying is that they just sticked with 1( or 2) designs for their main tank instead of 10 they historically did.They could definitely upgrade that standardized tank to the point where the upgrades would make a big difference

They did stick with 1(or 2) designs for their main tank, Panzer III and IV. At least until later 1941. They never had 10, either historically or fantastically. What they did have was effectively 9 main manufacturers, 9 smaller manufacturers, 3 smaller still, and 2 Czech plants of limited capacity. And that was by the end of the war. They began with just 6 major, 1 smaller, and the 2 Czech plants; the others were wartime additions. However, only one of the nine main manufacturers, Nibelungenwerk, was able to turn out more than about 100-125 tanks of any kind per month at peak. The reason wasn't a lack of standardization, it was a lack of production capacity and limited facilities. Even Nibelungenwerk had problems - it was designed to mass produce a standardized tank, the Panzer IV, as well as be at least theoretically bombproof. So adding additional production lines was never possible. It was Porsche's playground, so VK 3001(P), VK4501(P), and Ferdinand/Elefant got built there...and very likely delayed production of Panzer IV in the plant.

Then there is Alkett, which became so important producing the StuG III that when its main assembly plant at Berlin-Borsigwalde was flattened by Allied bombers, the most economical and efficient means of continuing production was to take over a defunct locomotive plant at Falkensee for final assembly...with the partly completed hulls being horsedrawn there from the component plants at Tegel and Spandau.

You need both quantity and quality for a campaign like Barbarossa but of course quality should be first.Due to the Germans always being outnumbered the best solution would be some sort of ww2 HSTVL with a big and strong autocannon.The idea of something like the HSTVL came to mind in the 80s when the western countries realized they could never match the Soviet blocks numbers but they could definitely find a way to kill more with less.I made some posts in this thread about this autocannon thing and i wont go any further.

Now you're getting into ASB territory.

No it wont go down the path "if they had sufficient industrial capacity"

Then you can't go down the "let's standardize" path because that requires the "if they had sufficient industrial capacity" path to work.

[Richard Anderson]

Yep.

I dont see a reason why they could not add something similar to a panzer 3 or 4 that had received some sort of angled frontal plate and apart from that thats a very simple "upgrade" to make

Because the armor plate can't be thumb-tacked on. It is structural. The "angled frontal plate" has to have jury-rigged angled support plates welded onto the sides and it all has to support the weight of a turret. Didn't you wonder why Panzer IV didn't get just a bigger turret for the 7.5cm KwK 42 along with its new "angled frontal plate"? Although they maintained the fiction it was a "tank" for a while and actually began by calling it the Panzer IV L/70.

[T. A. Gardner]

They did stick with 1(or 2) designs for their main tank, Panzer III and IV. At least until later 1941. They never had 10, either historically or fantastically. What they did have was effectively 9 main manufacturers, 9 smaller manufacturers, 3 smaller still, and 2 Czech plants of limited capacity. And that was by the end of the war. They began with just 6 major, 1 smaller, and the 2 Czech plants; the others were wartime additions. However, only one of the nine main manufacturers, Nibelungenwerk, was able to turn out more than about 100-125 tanks of any kind per month at peak. The reason wasn't a lack of standardization, it was a lack of production capacity and limited facilities. Even Nibelungenwerk had problems - it was designed to mass produce a standardized tank, the Panzer IV, as well as be at least theoretically bombproof. So adding additional production lines was never possible. It was Porsche's playground, so VK 3001(P), VK4501(P), and Ferdinand/Elefant got built there...and very likely delayed production of Panzer IV in the plant.

Then there is Alkett, which became so important producing the StuG III that when its main assembly plant at Berlin-Borsigwalde was flattened by Allied bombers, the most economical and efficient means of continuing production was to take over a defunct locomotive plant at Falkensee for final assembly...with the partly completed hulls being horsedrawn there from the component plants at Tegel and Spandau..

There's also the problem of subcontractors to make parts that go into the tanks. The Germans made no concerted effort to ensure that there were sufficient subcontractors making parts to allow for a massive assembly line-like production. For example, there was just one (1) manufacturer in all of Germany that could produce the horseshoe turret for a Tiger I. They had one rolling machine that could form that turret part.

To compare, in the US, tanks were designed to use plate or castings so more manufacturers could participate. Where there wasn't sufficient capacity to meet needs or planned production, more subcontractors were pulled into the program to make the needed parts. Often, these were companies that had never made anything close to what they were supposed to now make.

So, the Germans faced a production problem where they never fully tried to iron out inconsistent production between subcontractors to ensure that the factory making the final product was getting sufficient numbers of subassemblies.

Look at the Ta 154 Moskito. There was one (1) factory in all of Germany capable of using the Tego glue process necessary to make this plane. That factory was bombed into oblivion and there was no backup plan. The plane was a failure because one company with one factory controlled the needed process to make the parts.

The same goes for tungsten carbide. Krupp through their subsidiary, Hartzmetallzentrall had a monopoly on production. They made just three (3) grades of TC and would only sell one grade to any company other than Krupp. The government did nothing to rectify that. Thus, TC remained an often unobtainable material for any company to use in production of anything, even machine tools.

[Richard Anderson]

There's also the problem of subcontractors to make parts that go into the tanks. The Germans made no concerted effort to ensure that there were sufficient subcontractors making parts to allow for a massive assembly line-like production. For example, there was just one (1) manufacturer in all of Germany that could produce the horseshoe turret for a Tiger I. They had one rolling machine that could form that turret part.

Probably not a good example, since Tiger was intentionally specialized and low-rate production.

Worse was that essentially every tank produced had its transmission manufactured at Zanradfabrik...in one major factory site until a second shadow factory was built in 1942 IIRC. Ditto tank engines. Maybach produced basically all of them at one facility until expansion during wartime.

To compare, in the US, tanks were designed to use plate or castings so more manufacturers could participate. Where there wasn't sufficient capacity to meet needs or planned production, more subcontractors were pulled into the program to make the needed parts. Often, these were companies that had never made anything close to what they were supposed to now make.

Armor plate was concentrated in a few steel manufacturers, but essentially yes.

[T. A. Gardner]

Probably not a good example, since Tiger was intentionally specialized and low-rate production.

Worse was that essentially every tank produced had its transmission manufactured at Zanradfabrik...in one major factory site until a second shadow factory was built in 1942 IIRC. Ditto tank engines. Maybach produced basically all of them at one facility until expansion during wartime.

It was like U-boat batteries. There were just 3 factories producing these, and the major one made like 80% of them. Bombing the snot out of it would have pretty much ended the U-boat campaign but the Allies didn't recognize that.

[Destroyer500]

They did stick with 1(or 2) designs for their main tank, Panzer III and IV. At least until later 1941. They never had 10, either historically or fantastically. What they did have was effectively 9 main manufacturers, 9 smaller manufacturers, 3 smaller still, and 2 Czech plants of limited capacity. And that was by the end of the war. They began with just 6 major, 1 smaller, and the 2 Czech plants; the others were wartime additions. However, only one of the nine main manufacturers, Nibelungenwerk, was able to turn out more than about 100-125 tanks of any kind per month at peak. The reason wasn't a lack of standardization, it was a lack of production capacity and limited facilities. Even Nibelungenwerk had problems - it was designed to mass produce a standardized tank, the Panzer IV, as well as be at least theoretically bombproof. So adding additional production lines was never possible. It was Porsche's playground, so VK 3001(P), VK4501(P), and Ferdinand/Elefant got built there...and very likely delayed production of Panzer IV in the plant.

Then there is Alkett, which became so important producing the StuG III that when its main assembly plant at Berlin-Borsigwalde was flattened by Allied bombers, the most economical and efficient means of continuing production was to take over a defunct locomotive plant at Falkensee for final assembly...with the partly completed hulls being horsedrawn there from the component plants at Tegel and Spandau.

As you said they did stick to 1-2 designs but only until 1941,id say until 1942 but still doesnt change much.After that things get messed up when they shouldnt.

When it comes to manufacturing plants or anything related to that i have no knowledge and if you could in any way expand more on the topic i would be happy

Now you're getting into ASB territory.

Yes but i like playing with the idea of an autocannon tank killer

Then you can't go down the "let's standardize" path because that requires the "if they had sufficient industrial capacity" path to work.

My short opinion on that subject is that the loss of ww1 and the Treaty of Versailles put them far behind in comparison to other nearby countries for them to be able to ever have sufficient or i should better say near ideal industrial capacity.Apart from that Germany had no colonies or any kind of foreign land in its possession to help the whole situation.

[Richard Anderson]

As you said they did stick to 1-2 designs but only until 1941,id say until 1942 but still doesnt change much.After that things get messed up when they shouldnt.

They continued to do so after 1941, they just changed what the second design was.

When it comes to manufacturing plants or anything related to that i have no knowledge and if you could in any way expand more on the topic i would be happy

I'm sorry, but I'm not your research assistant.

Yes but i like playing with the idea of an autocannon tank killer

Then play with it at WoT, not here. The closest a large-caliber autocannon-equipped tank came to exist in reality was Medium Tank T20E1, T22E1, and T23E1.

My short opinion on that subject is that the loss of ww1 and the Treaty of Versailles put them far behind in comparison to other nearby countries for them to be able to ever have sufficient or i should better say near ideal industrial capacity.Apart from that Germany had no colonies or any kind of foreign land in its possession to help the whole situation.

Germany's industrial capacity was easily equal or greater to any of its opponents even if it did not possess "foreign land". However, its industrial capacity did not exceed most combinations of opponents or that of the United States, which also did not possess foreign lands...and, yes, the Philippines, but they did not contribute to American industry.

[Tom from Cornwall]

… the United States, which also did not possess foreign lands...

Tell that to George III.

Regards

Tom

[ThatZenoGuy]

Weird suggestion for ahistorical tank alterations.

The Germans should've made the lower glacis of the Panther removable ala the Sherman.

Big issue with German tanks is not so much that they broke down, but that keeping them in fighting shape was more challenging.

You'd lose a bit of armor strength there, but hits to the lower glacis probably aren't a good thing anyways due to it being less thick in the first place.

[Destroyer500]

Then play with it at WoT, not here. The closest a large-caliber autocannon-equipped tank came to exist in reality was Medium Tank T20E1, T22E1, and T23E1.

Ill do some research on the T tanks then

Germany's industrial capacity was easily equal or greater to any of its opponents even if it did not possess "foreign land". However, its industrial capacity did not exceed most combinations of opponents or that of the United States, which also did not possess foreign lands...and, yes, the Philippines, but they did not contribute to American industry.

Was Germany really able to outproduce Britain or the US or the USSR at any point ( if we look at those countries individualy ) ? I dont think so

[Richard Anderson]

Ill do some research on the T tanks then

To be clear, those are American tank designs, not German.

Was Germany really able to outproduce Britain or the US or the USSR at any point ( if we look at those countries individualy ) ? I dont think so

If you re-read what I posted you will notice I said Germany's industrial capacity was not equal or greater to that of the United States.

Yes, German industry did out produce the Soviet Union - the Soviets did not produce nearly the numbers of naval vessels or ammunition as did the Germans for example (and German ammunition production overall was greater than even the United States in total volume although the United States output at peak was greater than Germany's).

Yes, German industry did out produce Britain, but only after c. 1943 when British industry was peaked and German industry was peaking. Much of the early war disparity in production between Germany and Britain were specifically in terms of aircraft, tanks, and ships, where the British either had more idle industry in the sector prewar - as in ship building - or had invested slightly earlier in industrial expansion - as in aircraft - or were more frantic in building anything possible by industrial conversion - as in tanks. Much of Germany's munitions expansion plans funded in the 1930s were badly affected by the 1937 economic downturn and the prewar German financial crisis that limited import of raw material and slowed the completion of plant expansion, as well as the worker crisis...most of which were finally coming together in Germany's favor 1942-1943, especially since the Allied CBO was not yet effective. Also, as a note, I was speaking specifically of Britain rather than the British Empire, Dominions, and Colonies. Note also that some "British Dominion" production resulted from American dollars through Lend-Lease funding, especially in Canada.

[jbroshot]

Was Germany really able to outproduce Britain or the US or the USSR at any point ( if we look at those countries individualy ) ? I dont think so

If you re-read what I posted you will notice I said Germany's industrial capacity was not equal or greater to that of the United States.

Yes, German industry did out produce the Soviet Union - the Soviets did not produce nearly the numbers of naval vessels or ammunition as did the Germans for example (and German ammunition production overall was greater than even the United States in total volume although the United States output at peak was greater than Germany's).

US munitions production 1940 - 1945

https://cgsc.contentdm.oclc.org/digital ... 3332/rec/8

Title Official munitions production of the United States by months, July 1, 1940 - August 31, 1945.
Author Civilian Production Administration
Abstract Contains data on actual production by months from July 1, 1940 at the beginning of the War Program, through August 31, 1945, the last month of actual fighting against Japan. Covers aircraft, ships, ordnance and automotive vehicles (guns and small arms, ammunition and bombs, combat and motor vehicles, U.S. programs in Canada and foreign purchase), communications and electronic equipment, and other equipment and supplies (petroleum products, machinery, railroad equipment, clothing, medical supplies and subsistence rations).

[Konig_pilsner]

Similar to a thread I made a while back where I argued the Panzer 4 should have been accepted as the MBT in '37.
viewtopic.php?f=11&t=226775#p2061093

If you want to figure out why the Wehrmacht was using Panzer 2's and 38t's in 1941, just take a look at the prolonged development cycle of the Panzer 3. While the Panzer 4 was ready for mass production in 1937, the Panzer 3's problematic suspension delayed it until 1939. Can't have a panzer army if you aren't making panzers...

[paulrward]

Hello All:

Mr. Konig_pilsner is correct, and as I pointed out upthread ( Postings #s 68 and 69 ) the
delays in getting the suspension issues with the Pzkw III sorted out unnecesarily delayed
the equipping of the Heer's Panzer divisions - Had the Heer standardized on the Pzkw IV
chassis, and gone into full production in 1937, they could have had at least 650 tanks
at the outbreak of the war, and, by continuing productions of Pzkw IVs with 37/ 50mm
AT guns, Pzkw IVs with 75 mm infantry support guns, and Pzkw IVs fitted as Stug IVs,
the Heer could have had over 1000 tanks by the time of the Battle of France, all with
the same chassis, giving them spare parts commonality, maintenance support commnality,
and operator training commonality.

With the production lines going full blast, by the time of Barbarrossa, the entire Heer
could have been equipped with more than enough Pzkw IV chassis'ed tanks to deal
with any contingency, and, as the fighting against the Soviets progressed, and it was
obvious that a tank with the 75mm AT gun was necessary, the same turret that was
ultimately developed for the PzkwIV using the 75mm L48 gun could have been retrofitted
to ALL of the older chassis as desired, allowing the Germans to produce turrets instead
of new tanks, a significant savings in materials and production time.

Forward depots could have been set up, where older tanks had their turrets removed
and new turrets fitted, and any modifications and improvements could have been
made to keep the older tanks at the state of the art.

Kind of like the way the USAAF upgraded Fighters in the field, with new engines,
new propellers, and new weapons.

By having Krupp, DB, Rheinmetal, and MAN making a common Pzkw IV chassis, it would
have meant, of course, that no further Light Tanks could be produced by any of them.
However, if Skoda had been ' Encouraged ' to continue production of the Czech T-38,
then you would have been able to make all of the light tanks that were needed - and
remember, after the first few weeks of Barbarrossa, people like Guderian were already
commenting on the fact that the Light Tank was virtually useless. So, Skoda would be
allowed to run down the T-38 production line, and then go into production of something
else, for example, an SP Gun or a AA gun carrier based on the T-38 chassis.

And, this means that, with a lot of good engineering work going into the Pzkw IV chassis,
it might have been ' Grown ' in the same manner that the U.S. Army ' grew ' the M-3/M-4
chassis, adding length to the hull with additional suspension units, increasing the power
with a newer engine, sloping the armor, and possibly making the hull wider to accomodate
a larger turret ring for a bigger turret and gun.

Respectfully :

Paul R. Ward