A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

[Richard Anderson]

For the sake of defending my panzer 3 debate i will say the following;if we take into consideration that when the 2 tanks were designed the panzer 4 was only chosen for the fact it had the short 7.5cm that was latter fitted in the panzer 3 then we can say that had they tried to fit the short 7.5cm on the 3 the 4 would never really even be designed.

This is what happens when you start listening to ignorant blather. No, the "panzer 4 was" NOT "only chosen for the fact it had the short 7.5cm". That twists the reality. Krupp received the prime contract for the Panzer I, with DB and others acting as subs. DB got the prime contract for the Panzer II, with Krupp and others acting as subs. The Panzer III was developed DB as the prime contractor and others as subs. The Panzer IV was developed by Krupp with others as subs.

Do you notice a pattern? Much of the largess from the Nazis in armaments was to curry favor from the industrialists. Sharing the trough was good for the Nazi Party. That was the point of the question regarding compensation to DB.

Nor were the Panzer III and IV developed simultaneously because "Because only an Idiot or an Employee of a Military Think Tank would decide to build two competing chassis". That in fact requires an idiot to think that it might be an actual reason.

The two were developed because the Germans perceived a tactical need for them due to the technological limitations they had to work with. The Maybach HL108TR engine, which was the cutting edge then of German engine development, was capable of 250 HP. There is a reason the Panzer III and IV are both considered medium tanks, but the Heer classified the III organizationally as leichte and the IV as mittlere. To achieve a tank with a 75mm gun and the desired ammunition stowage, it had to weigh more. The Panzer IV Ausf A weighed 17.3 tons and every iteration from there kept getting heavier. The Panzer III Ausf A weighed 15.4 tons and also kept getting bigger. To get the Ausf N fitted with the 7.5cm KwK meant it went up to 23 tons. The Germans simply were not interested in or consider it necessary to fit a 7.5cm gun in the Panzer III initially. They also did not want only a 7.5cm HE thrower, they wanted a hole-puncher, the 5cm initially, but got the 3.7cm, and that is a different story.

Adding weight adds stress to suspension systems, increasing ground pressure, adds stress to the engine, transmission, and brakes, most of which were barely capable of handling the initial weight of the vehicles. The German solution was two designs, a leichte tank primarily to combat enemy tanks, and a mittlere tank primarily to fire HE at enemy AT guns, infantry, and soft targets.

They also weren't the only ones with the problem. The British tried to create a support tank on the same cruiser chassis, which failed miserably. The Americans chose to stay with the 37mm gun and rely on lots of machine guns instead of an HE thrower, until engine development improved to the point they could experiment with a 75mm gun...in a sponson initially because they did not have the capability of cutting the larger turret ring.

The French tried to put both a hole puncher and an HE thrower in the same chassis which also failed miserably, mostly due to the overworked crew, but more crew means more weight, and the Char B was a heavy tank anyway.

All this also requires multiple decision points, which was the point of the factory retooling question. Of course they could retool, STOOOOPID is thinking that is the issue and that waving a magic wand changes it. Going to the VK16 in either iteration means radically changing Panzer production in December 1939, when the VK16 wasn't even ready for testing, or later, when multiple companies were frantically trying to finish the backlog of Panzer III orders. So retool them all and accept a six to nine month delay when none of them are producing tanks, just as the war was heating up? How does the France 1940 campaign work when the Germans only have Panzer I and II in quantity and some Panzer 35(t) and 38(t)?

The situation was basically the same that faced them in 1943 when the decision was made to build Panther. And why would the Heer decide to do a "competitive test" between the Panzer III and Panzer IV in 1936 when they were not in competition? Since they weren't actually developing two DIFFERENT 20 ton tanks, why would they decide they DON'T NEED two DIFFERENT 20 ton tanks? Nor, Historically, is this exactly what happened and, no, it didn't take place until 1943...that is an almost hysterically funny and bizarrely wrong-headed reading of the history that may have come out of a comic book.

The panzer 3 is longer and a bit thinner while the panzer 4 is shorter but wider.

I'm afraid you need to pay attention to data already posted instead of letting your imagination get away from you. The Panzer III was not "small" or "nimble" It was 54cm shorter and 24cm lower, but 8cm wider than the Panzer IV and weighed about two tons less.

[Destroyer500]

1)If the pz3s front is angled you automaticaly have more space because that space has been taken from the box design 2)you have the survivability bonus of the pz4,when you decide to angle it,which is the chassis hatches t34,i proposed,that you can add to the front or you can add one like that on the american m24 3)a slight widening shall the need arise is possible but i dont think it will be up until later on and if the widening cannot for some reason be done make the turret a bit taller 3)i dont know how many times do i have to say it but every gun i proposed is either "full auto" or-and big enough to carry a good HE round or some of a shrapnel round and im not even going to mention the fact that i proposed the same long gun the pz4s had but a bit modified to fit on smaller turrets

Not true either. Just because the front is now angled doesn't equate to room to place additional radio equipment. The radios of the period are large, and have to be accessible to the operator both for operation and repair so they can't just be shoved in some oddly shaped space.
The front hatch on the T34 was quickly seen by the Russians as a weak point that needed elimination. The only reason it wasn't is there wasn't an easy way to provide an alternative in design. By 1944, the T34's successors like the T44 or T54 had it removed in favor of a hatch in the top of the hull. The Germans did the same thing, for the same reason with the Panther, getting rid of the early version's front vision hatch in favor of a large, rotating, periscope.

By WW 2, nobody is still using a "shrapnel" (aka case) round. A viable HE round was found to be 75mm and up in size.

The full auto loading isn't going to happen. It takes too much space and is difficult to reload once you shoot off whatever is held in the loader. That certainly isn't happening internally in the vehicle. I posted pictures of the BK 7.5 cm system earlier. The amount of space that takes up is massive.

I guess this solves a lot of radio and hatches and space problems definetly not all of them though

received_391075139555387.gif

[Destroyer500]

For the sake of defending my panzer 3 debate i will say the following;if we take into consideration that when the 2 tanks were designed the panzer 4 was only chosen for the fact it had the short 7.5cm that was latter fitted in the panzer 3 then we can say that had they tried to fit the short 7.5cm on the 3 the 4 would never really even be designed.

This is what happens when you start listening to ignorant blather. No, the "panzer 4 was" NOT "only chosen for the fact it had the short 7.5cm". That twists the reality. Krupp received the prime contract for the Panzer I, with DB and others acting as subs. DB got the prime contract for the Panzer II, with Krupp and others acting as subs. The Panzer III was developed DB as the prime contractor and others as subs. The Panzer IV was developed by Krupp with others as subs.

Do you notice a pattern? Much of the largess from the Nazis in armaments was to curry favor from the industrialists. Sharing the trough was good for the Nazi Party. That was the point of the question regarding compensation to DB.

Nor were the Panzer III and IV developed simultaneously because "Because only an Idiot or an Employee of a Military Think Tank would decide to build two competing chassis". That in fact requires an idiot to think that it might be an actual reason.

The two were developed because the Germans perceived a tactical need for them due to the technological limitations they had to work with. The Maybach HL108TR engine, which was the cutting edge then of German engine development, was capable of 250 HP. There is a reason the Panzer III and IV are both considered medium tanks, but the Heer classified the III organizationally as leichte and the IV as mittlere. To achieve a tank with a 75mm gun and the desired ammunition stowage, it had to weigh more. The Panzer IV Ausf A weighed 17.3 tons and every iteration from there kept getting heavier. The Panzer III Ausf A weighed 15.4 tons and also kept getting bigger. To get the Ausf N fitted with the 7.5cm KwK meant it went up to 23 tons. The Germans simply were not interested in or consider it necessary to fit a 7.5cm gun in the Panzer III initially. They also did not want only a 7.5cm HE thrower, they wanted a hole-puncher, the 5cm initially, but got the 3.7cm, and that is a different story.

Adding weight adds stress to suspension systems, increasing ground pressure, adds stress to the engine, transmission, and brakes, most of which were barely capable of handling the initial weight of the vehicles. The German solution was two designs, a leichte tank primarily to combat enemy tanks, and a mittlere tank primarily to fire HE at enemy AT guns, infantry, and soft targets.

They also weren't the only ones with the problem. The British tried to create a support tank on the same cruiser chassis, which failed miserably. The Americans chose to stay with the 37mm gun and rely on lots of machine guns instead of an HE thrower, until engine development improved to the point they could experiment with a 75mm gun...in a sponson initially because they did not have the capability of cutting the larger turret ring.

The French tried to put both a hole puncher and an HE thrower in the same chassis which also failed miserably, mostly due to the overworked crew, but more crew means more weight, and the Char B was a heavy tank anyway.

All this also requires multiple decision points, which was the point of the factory retooling question. Of course they could retool, STOOOOPID is thinking that is the issue and that waving a magic wand changes it. Going to the VK16 in either iteration means radically changing Panzer production in December 1939, when the VK16 wasn't even ready for testing, or later, when multiple companies were frantically trying to finish the backlog of Panzer III orders. So retool them all and accept a six to nine month delay when none of them are producing tanks, just as the war was heating up? How does the France 1940 campaign work when the Germans only have Panzer I and II in quantity and some Panzer 35(t) and 38(t)?

The situation was basically the same that faced them in 1943 when the decision was made to build Panther. And why would the Heer decide to do a "competitive test" between the Panzer III and Panzer IV in 1936 when they were not in competition? Since they weren't actually developing two DIFFERENT 20 ton tanks, why would they decide they DON'T NEED two DIFFERENT 20 ton tanks? Nor, Historically, is this exactly what happened and, no, it didn't take place until 1943...that is an almost hysterically funny and bizarrely wrong-headed reading of the history that may have come out of a comic book.

The panzer 3 is longer and a bit thinner while the panzer 4 is shorter but wider.

I'm afraid you need to pay attention to data already posted instead of letting your imagination get away from you. The Panzer III was not "small" or "nimble" It was 54cm shorter and 24cm lower, but 8cm wider than the Panzer IV and weighed about two tons less.

Thanks for talking the time to write that big a reply.

They believed a bigger chassis and a different vehicle was needed for the support of the panzer 3 and for the anti AT guns-infantry role and all im saying is that,while yes the pz3 started small and became bigger and got adapted to new requirments,they could have tried to use it for the panzer 4 role.It came to them as a latter need because it could get no bigger guns and because it was by 1943,in many aspects weak(talking about the 3) and by that time it was a different tank from its first versions yes yes yes and yes to all that but they could have done it far earlier.They could have built a "bigger" or more suitable panzer 3 chassis to carry the bigger 75 ammo and the gun and then if they could not in any way do what i just said make a different tank.But from point 0 they just made 2 designs for 2 different roles when one could do both had they tried.Thats all im saying.Yes there is a development proscess and trial and error that takes place for designs to get better in the roles theyre being designed for but i dont think im proposing such a crazy what if scenario.

The bit bigger but not panther sized vk 16.02 version of mine (or the standart sized,the one they envisioned vk16.02 with my modifications) would be a really good tank but it could only come as a replacement for the pz3 (my pz3 version in my version of the german tank design) the same way the panther tried to do to take the place of the pz4.After a lot of thought i dont think it would be needed.It wouldnt matter that much though since by the time it would come in large numbers Germany would have either finished with USSR had they played their cards correctly or just be on an endless fall back that could only be stopped by a miracle tactic like the backhand blow Guderian proposed after Stalingrads loss.In an eastern front that would be won propably things would get a bit quiter and factory retooling for my fancy leopard could happen but im getting into book worthy fantasies.I just liked the design and as always modified it in my way and for my purposes but not in an irrational way.

I was wrong about the pz3s dimensions youre right i rechecked it

[Richard Anderson]

They believed a bigger chassis and a different vehicle was needed for the support of the panzer 3 and for the anti AT guns-infantry role and all im saying is that,while yes the pz3 started small and became bigger and got adapted to new requirments,they could have tried to use it for the panzer 4 role.

Why? Why when they were developing what they thought was a perfectly viable split to accommodate technical realities would they suddenly say, "hey, no, let's build a 23-ton tank, 5 tons heavier than what we want, that only has an HE thrower, let's throw out the idea we might need a tank to punch holes in enemy tanks, and weight, smeight? Seriously. Why?

It came to them as a latter need because it could get no bigger guns and because it was by 1943,in many aspects weak(talking about the 3) and by that time it was a different tank from its first versions yes yes yes and yes to all that but they could have done it far earlier.

Could they have? Without the experience gained in the previous 13 Ausfuhrungen? Just jump in and build an Ausfuhrungen N? Why?

The actual evidence is that they desperately wanted the Panzer III to work, not that they wanted to replace it. That did not happen until the winter of 1942/1943. Why would it happen six years earlier?

They could have built a "bigger" or more suitable panzer 3 chassis

That is not a Panzer III chassis. It is a Panzer IV or the hybrid Panzer III/IV chassis.

But from point 0 they just made 2 designs for 2 different roles when one could do both had they tried.Thats all im saying.

But they did not try, mostly because they were concerned with weight containment - for very good reasons - and they were pretty happy with what they had...until late 1941.

Yes there is a development proscess and trial and error that takes place for designs to get better in the roles theyre being designed for but i dont think im proposing such a crazy what if scenario.

Then describe how and why the multiple POD's occur logically.

[Destroyer500]

Why? Why when they were developing what they thought was a perfectly viable split to accommodate technical realities would they suddenly say, "hey, no, let's build a 23-ton tank, 5 tons heavier than what we want, that only has an HE thrower, let's throw out the idea we might need a tank to punch holes in enemy tanks, and weight, smeight? Seriously. Why?

I never said that they should built just an early pz3 N or just an HE thrower or something along those lines,what i mean by fitting the short 7.5cm is that they could have 2 panzer 3s one with the 3.7 later 5cm gun and one with the 7.5cm short and not need the pz4 to fill that HE thrower role.

Could they have? Without the experience gained in the previous 13 Ausfuhrungen? Just jump in and build an Ausfuhrungen N? Why?

Well youre right about this and i have to give it to you because as i said myself thats how progress is made but had they gone down the 2 roles panzer 3 road im talking about then they would definetly not have an N by 1936-1939 but something that looked like an early pz3 with a short 7.5

The actual evidence is that they desperately wanted the Panzer III to work, not that they wanted to replace it. That did not happen until the winter of 1942/1943. Why would it happen six years earlier?

Yes i was thinking about this too and youre right but if they wanted it to work they could modify it in the ways i have mentioned in so many replies and posts of mine in this thread and by 1943 have a monster in their hands.That of course again requires a 2 roles panzer 3 tank that i mentioned above because in any other scenario the panzer 4 exists it takes the "MBT" role automaticaly for reasons i dont even have to mention.

That is not a Panzer III chassis. It is a Panzer IV or the hybrid Panzer III/IV chassis.

If it came to that,which is a point they would come to had the need for a 75mm L70 appear,then i guess a hybrid like that would be understandable.If we have in mind that in my version the pz4 would not even be built then we are talking about just a bigger pz3 but i guess that the design would change a lot so a panzer 4 of some sorts with some elements of the 3 would have to exist

But they did not try, mostly because they were concerned with weight containment - for very good reasons - and they were pretty happy with what they had...until late 1941.

Yes i get that and again i was thinking about that up until 1941 there was no need for upgunning but lets say they did the 2 role pz3 thing i talked about,by 1942 they would definetly try to upgun it just like they did with the pz4 f2 version and problems like weight could be solved its not like theyre unsolvable.

Then describe how and why the multiple POD's occur logically.

Does PODs mean points of digression ? If yes then i guess i answered that above.This is my version of how german tank design should have been and i made the initial post so as you people to try to poke holes in it and see if i can patch them,in a logical manner.As we talk im learning and developing my arguments to fit more with the happenings of the time back then.

This pz3

111.gif

along with the other modifications i mentioned would be ideal for 1943.The front glacis can be angled a bit more and still leave space for top hatches and a driver periscope to be added.By 1943 the germans had understood really well the importance of angled armor so its not a stretch they would do that

[Destroyer500]

The full auto loading isn't going to happen. It takes too much space and is difficult to reload once you shoot off whatever is held in the loader. That certainly isn't happening internally in the vehicle. I posted pictures of the BK 7.5 cm system earlier. The amount of space that takes up is massive.

Almost forgot to answer this.The autoloader is not even an option for a tank.Even if it magicaly somehow fits the design will be very expensive in a massive scale.I guess a belt or feed tray like system for the 5cm guns i mentioned could be realized ? The feed tray sounds better.It would have to be a bit angled for the rounds to fall in the gun and for someone to be able to add a different round easily.The belt system would restrict you to whats in it and i guess it would be hard to change it in the vehicle but i have an idea of how it could be done even with a belt,ill share it latter on because i have to make a drawing in paper to properly demonstate it.

[Takao]

No point in a feed tray. The loader is still feeding the gun single rounds.

[ThatZenoGuy]

Pz3 is simply too small of a tank to be a competitive WW2 Medium for the whole war.

Yes, a re-jigged modified Panzer 3 could've been a world-class early war medium tank, capable of beating even the T-34-76 headon. But you can only push that suspension so far before it gives up.

Panzer 4's external suspension has far more leeway, although strangely enough the Germans really didn't capitalize on that. In theory external suspensions allow you to just stack spring after spring until it works (Merkava, E-Series, Sherman, etc).

With the given weight of the Panzer 3 I could see a long 75 and maybe 50mm of sloped frontal armor, but that'd be the maximum such a chassis could tank IMO, without serious drawbacks.

But that'd require transmissions, engines, etc which...Simply didn't exist. If we're going alt-history, sure they'd be within the means of Germany.

Truth is that Germany was facing a serious issue, it was seriously outnumbered and thus any attempt to match the enemy numbers would require smaller weaker tanks.

Smaller weaker tanks can't defeat larger stronger tanks, so they lose if they match the numbers. (Not to mention lack of fuel, crews, etc)

So they went for the opposite, with fewer larger tanks (supplimented with smaller stuff like STUG, Hetzer, etc which were more mobile anti-tank guns than tanks anyways) instead. Worked out pretty well for them, considering what they were up against (I.E unbeatable odds).

Realistically the cheapest option Germany could've done was get some 8 or 10cm PAW cannons in the turret and just lob HEAT grenades.

[T. A. Gardner]

Germany did a fairly rational set of choices during the war when it came to tanks and antitank. As far as self-propelled and panzers, they were pretty rational about their choices.

On tanks, they upgunned and up armored their existing designs while developing new replacements for those pre-war designs. The problem they had in this was the new designs were too complex to mass produce and fully replace the existing panzers.

On the antitank front, the first generation of panzerjäger were improvisations on obsolete tank chassis. They plopped a big gun on an existing chassis and added some armor for fragment and bullet protection. These were better than nothing and worked out reasonably well.
The next generation added more armor and fully enclosed the crew. These vehicles were still on existing chassis.
The third generation saw movement to the new and current tank designs and vehicles that were heavily armored, low silhouette, and well designed.

They were going for a more rationalized production with the E series, but those never materialized.

The StuG III was sort of an odd exception that worked out quite well. It started off as an artillery support vehicle for the infantry and morphed into an all-purpose assault gun and tank killer.

[Richard Anderson]

I never said that they should built just an early pz3 N or just an HE thrower or something along those lines,what i mean by fitting the short 7.5cm is that they could have 2 panzer 3s one with the 3.7 later 5cm gun and one with the 7.5cm short and not need the pz4 to fill that HE thrower role.

Okay, if they do that then they have a Panzer III with 7.5cm gun that is about eight tons heavier than they wanted. That was the whole reason for the larger Panzer IV. It simply makes no sense in terms of German requirements in design from 1934-1942.

Well youre right about this and i have to give it to you because as i said myself thats how progress is made but had they gone down the 2 roles panzer 3 road im talking about then they would definetly not have an N by 1936-1939 but something that looked like an early pz3 with a short 7.5

If they don't have an Ausfuhrung N, then they don't have an "early pz3 with a short 7.5".

Yes i was thinking about this too and youre right but if they wanted it to work they could modify it in the ways i have mentioned in so many replies and posts of mine in this thread and by 1943 have a monster in their hands.That of course again requires a 2 roles panzer 3 tank that i mentioned above because in any other scenario the panzer 4 exists it takes the "MBT" role automaticaly for reasons i dont even have to mention.

Modifying it in the way you want - increasing the length of the top deck and adding a sloped front, actually increases weight. Weight was the key.

If it came to that,which is a point they would come to had the need for a 75mm L70 appear,then i guess a hybrid like that would be understandable.If we have in mind that in my version the pz4 would not even be built then we are talking about just a bigger pz3 but i guess that the design would change a lot so a panzer 4 of some sorts with some elements of the 3 would have to exist

Okay, then how does eliminating the Panzer IV help?

Yes i get that and again i was thinking about that up until 1941 there was no need for upgunning but lets say they did the 2 role pz3 thing i talked about,by 1942 they would definetly try to upgun it just like they did with the pz4 f2 version and problems like weight could be solved its not like theyre unsolvable.

Sorry, but no, the weight increase problems in the Panzer III and IV were unsolvable, given they never managed to solve them. Saying they were solvable appears to be more than a bit irrational.

Does PODs mean points of digression ?

Or point of departure, yes.

If yes then i guess i answered that above.This is my version of how german tank design should have been and i made the initial post so as you people to try to poke holes in it and see if i can patch them,in a logical manner.As we talk im learning and developing my arguments to fit more with the happenings of the time back then.

No, you did not. There has to be a good reason that the Germans would junk their plan for two purpose-designed tanks for two different roles for a single, multi-roll tank they had already decided was impractical given their current technology. Yes, they did begin development of a multi-role vehicle in 1938 in the VK20, then VK30 in 1939, but they did not become completed designs until 1942. However that is not what you are arguing. Your argument simply does not fit with the happening of the time and you have yet to show how or why it would.

[Destroyer500]

Pz3 is simply too small of a tank to be a competitive WW2 Medium for the whole war.

Yes, a re-jigged modified Panzer 3 could've been a world-class early war medium tank, capable of beating even the T-34-76 headon. But you can only push that suspension so far before it gives up.

Panzer 4's external suspension has far more leeway, although strangely enough the Germans really didn't capitalize on that. In theory external suspensions allow you to just stack spring after spring until it works (Merkava, E-Series, Sherman, etc).

With the given weight of the Panzer 3 I could see a long 75 and maybe 50mm of sloped frontal armor, but that'd be the maximum such a chassis could tank IMO, without serious drawbacks.

But that'd require transmissions, engines, etc which...Simply didn't exist. If we're going alt-history, sure they'd be within the means of Germany.

Truth is that Germany was facing a serious issue, it was seriously outnumbered and thus any attempt to match the enemy numbers would require smaller weaker tanks.

Smaller weaker tanks can't defeat larger stronger tanks, so they lose if they match the numbers. (Not to mention lack of fuel, crews, etc)

So they went for the opposite, with fewer larger tanks (supplimented with smaller stuff like STUG, Hetzer, etc which were more mobile anti-tank guns than tanks anyways) instead. Worked out pretty well for them, considering what they were up against (I.E unbeatable odds).

Realistically the cheapest option Germany could've done was get some 8 or 10cm PAW cannons in the turret and just lob HEAT grenades.

If the pz4 did not exist due to reasons i mentioned then they would have to upgrade the panzer 3 and add a suspension able to handle the extra weight,a stronger engine,extra armor and all the things i talked so many times about.The pz4 had a really bad armor layout all around with the front being 4 times more armored than the back which led to problems with transmisions and suspensions and i guess a bad center of gravity ? The pz3 had 50mm back front that became 70mm on the front from the L model afterwards.Make that 70mm plate a single piece,slope it and connect it the way i showed and the weight goes max 1 ton up.Now if you want more armor a new suspension and engine is needed.Slope and make one piece the armor on the turret front too and you have a really good when it comes to survivability tank.
I know they were facing a ton more enemy armor than they had but thats why i proposed the 5.5cm gerat 58 or a gun of that kind.Its a full auto 55mm that had it had an apcbc round and a good enough muzzle velocity it could kill more tanks way faster while keeping the overal size of the design down.I guess that a 5.5cm shell at around 1000m/s velocity could have the same lethality as the long 75.Germany was mainly facing t34s,t34-85s,is1s,kv1s on the east.The "small" ones could be dealt even from a distance by the 5.5auto gun and i guess the heavies with an apds or apcr round coult be dealt from distance too.The western tanks did not really have that much armor apart from the american designs.Of course my panzer 3 variant also has a long 75 so i guess that will take on the big boys and in case the 5.5cm seems weak which i doubt it then it(the 75) can be its standart gun.In the end there wont just be pz3s but stugs and TDs of all kinds which will help defeat stronger armor.If the need for a heavy arose they could have made some sort of a tiger 1-2 and be fine.
I have never ever heard of the 8-10cm PAW.I took a look at them and they seem mediocre with small ranges.

[Destroyer500]

No point in a feed tray. The loader is still feeding the gun single rounds.

There was a tank called begleitpanzer with a 57mm full auto gun in the 70s.It used a magazine hanging below the gun.Cant tell if they could adapt a system like that back then but doesnt seem that sophisticated

[Destroyer500]

Germany did a fairly rational set of choices during the war when it came to tanks and antitank. As far as self-propelled and panzers, they were pretty rational about their choices.

On tanks, they upgunned and up armored their existing designs while developing new replacements for those pre-war designs. The problem they had in this was the new designs were too complex to mass produce and fully replace the existing panzers.

On the antitank front, the first generation of panzerjäger were improvisations on obsolete tank chassis. They plopped a big gun on an existing chassis and added some armor for fragment and bullet protection. These were better than nothing and worked out reasonably well.
The next generation added more armor and fully enclosed the crew. These vehicles were still on existing chassis.
The third generation saw movement to the new and current tank designs and vehicles that were heavily armored, low silhouette, and well designed.

They were going for a more rationalized production with the E series, but those never materialized.

The StuG III was sort of an odd exception that worked out quite well. It started off as an artillery support vehicle for the infantry and morphed into an all-purpose assault gun and tank killer.

The eseries would be amazing in my opinion

[Destroyer500]

Okay, if they do that then they have a Panzer III with 7.5cm gun that is about eight tons heavier than they wanted. That was the whole reason for the larger Panzer IV. It simply makes no sense in terms of German requirements in design from 1934-1942.

But the first panzer 4s weighed the same as the first panzer 3s and even afterwards their weight differences were small so is my pz3 short 75 pz design so unreasonable ?

If they don't have an Ausfuhrung N, then they don't have an "early pz3 with a short 7.5".

If you want to call it N thats fine but the N in our times was an M with a short 75 so i guess it would be different had it used the first pz3s chassis

Modifying it in the way you want - increasing the length of the top deck and adding a sloped front, actually increases weight. Weight was the key.

Yes youre right but i dont think the weight increase would be that substancial.It would be an increase but how much ? 1-2 tons max ? Didnt they already get heavier from the L afterwards ? Its more of a layout change not a thickness change.

Okay, then how does eliminating the Panzer IV help?

The panzer 4,it would only have the name panzer 4 and not at all the design of our known panzer 4,would only exist to carry a bigger gun and in general be bigger.If the panther is the panzer 5 then in my timeline it would be the panzer 4,i would not really make it as big as the panther but you get the point.In other words the panzer 4 then becomes a different tank that just has happens to be the 4rth itteration on the line and not a copy paste pz3 design but bigger.

Sorry, but no, the weight increase problems in the Panzer III and IV were unsolvable, given they never managed to solve them. Saying they were solvable appears to be more than a bit irrational.

They managed to make an 188 tank move and they even managed to make it turn like a panther in a time most had problems with far lighter designs.They just didnt care to upgrade them,they wanted to replace them.They may have cared about the pz4 but they wanted to replace it with the panther in the end.Had they tried more and were they bould to upgrade their pz3s in my case were they didnt even make the 4 solutions would be found.Would it require redesigns ? Yea sure.What i propose is more like making a t34 a t34 85 and when it comes to an 100mm gun make a different chassis and call it t44-100.I think in terms of the upgrades the t34 received when it comes to my pz3

No, you did not. There has to be a good reason that the Germans would junk their plan for two purpose-designed tanks for two different roles for a single, multi-roll tank they had already decided was impractical given their current technology. Yes, they did begin development of a multi-role vehicle in 1938 in the VK20, then VK30 in 1939, but they did not become completed designs until 1942. However that is not what you are arguing. Your argument simply does not fit with the happening of the time and you have yet to show how or why it would.

Its a what if,if i go 100% the way they went then nothing changes.Its the same as saying "Hitler did split his armies in Stalingrad to group A and B because he felt confident due to the successes of the previous battles so theres no point in arguing that he should not do that because then everything would have to be different for him to be more cautious" what if he got a feeling that he shouldnt do that despite the victories ? What if his generals simply disagreed so much like never ever before that they forced him to reconsider ? Its a what if.If Hitler didnt want 100000 million designs then there would be no 1000000 designs.If i was Adolf and wanted to upgrade the living shit out of the pz3 then i would make everyone do it just like he made them make the maus and the tiger 2 and the jagdtiger and all those tanks that didnt really matter at that point.Im more reasonable than him though when it comes to tank design and i believe that its not spirit or quality above all(gheist uber alles),numbers matter too so i make the pz3 edition z or whatever.
Of if Hitler doesnt intervene with the designs and the scientists simply mount the 75 on the pz3 very early on because they think "Hey why not ?" and see that the pz4 that they are playing with has no purpose then they are to forced to upgrade the pz3 up to a certain point the way i propose,at least up until the long 75 cause the 55mm auto gun is something i dont know they would think of.

So as to not digress completly we mostly disagree on weight, i think they can manage it do they really and trully try.The pz3 will be unrecognizable after a certain point but so was the t34-85.I guess that like the t44-100 would take over the 34-85 a vk16 leopard-panther like tank would take the place of my pz3.

[Takao]

No point in a feed tray. The loader is still feeding the gun single rounds.

There was a tank called begleitpanzer with a 57mm full auto gun in the 70s.It used a magazine hanging below the gun.Cant tell if they could adapt a system like that back then but doesnt seem that sophisticated

The sophistication comes in reliably loading the gun at any angle.
The French first solved this problem with the AMX-13, by using an oscillating turret. Reliable autoloaders in normal tank turrets did not begin operational service until the mid-60s, and even then there were many problems with reliability.

IIRC,the Begleitpanzer was a one-off that no one really wanted.