A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

[ThatZenoGuy]

1232231.PNG How will this create problems ?

I mean for starters the depicted lines wouldn't allow for the gun to elevate/depress. XD Not without a redesigned mantlet and possibly trunnions at least.

Additionally, and I am basing this off of eyeball maths, it would also weigh more unless the plates were thinned, meaning a less balanced turret and thus less traverse speed (if any at all)

Turrets are really a big pain in the ass for tank designers, you can't just slap a box together and assume it'll work.

Turrets need to be balanced or serious issues come about, turrets need to ensure volume for depression/elevation, crew ergonomics, sight placement, and countless factors.

Maybe one day I'll try to actually 'engineer' a turret for a German hypothetical upgrade but right now it's beyond me to figure it out. X_X

[Destroyer500]

I mean for starters the depicted lines wouldn't allow for the gun to elevate/depress. XD Not without a redesigned mantlet and possibly trunnions at least.

Additionally, and I am basing this off of eyeball maths, it would also weigh more unless the plates were thinned, meaning a less balanced turret and thus less traverse speed (if any at all)

Turrets are really a big pain in the ass for tank designers, you can't just slap a box together and assume it'll work.

Turrets need to be balanced or serious issues come about, turrets need to ensure volume for depression/elevation, crew ergonomics, sight placement, and countless factors.

Maybe one day I'll try to actually 'engineer' a turret for a German hypothetical upgrade but right now it's beyond me to figure it out. X_X

The mantled would have to be redesigned for sure for that kind of angle.Ill think of all this a bit more

[ThatZenoGuy]

Going to semi-necro this thread with a couple of simple but quite possible options

1: Turn the standard Panzer 3 into an infantry support tank via the 75mm short gun earlier (maybe try to squeeze a short barrel 105 ala the Sherman if possible?), which makes all of those 50mm 'useless' turrets a fair bit more useful as you can rip the guns out and shove them on the AtlantikWall.

2: Try to get a MG151 triple/quad AA tank using the Panzer 3 chassis before the fighter bombers start getting too thick. If MG151 is too rare due to the Luftwaffe being everywhere, try single 37's or Flak 38's instead.

[Destroyer500]

An 105 wouldnt be bad but i dont know if they could fit one in the turret.The Sherman has a bigger turret ring and a more spacious turret.Without a new turret the panzer 3 will most probably not do it.A PAW gun would make more sense

The AA idea sounds nice

[Richard Anderson]

1: Turn the standard Panzer 3 into an infantry support tank via the 75mm short gun earlier (maybe try to squeeze a short barrel 105 ala the Sherman if possible?), which makes all of those 50mm 'useless' turrets a fair bit more useful as you can rip the guns out and shove them on the AtlantikWall.

Sorry, but "squeez[ing] a short barrel 105 ala the Sherman" was a not a simple process, as US Army Ordnance discovered. While the original concept of the Medium Tank M4 drawn up in August 1940 included provisions for a 105mm howitzer as one of three armaments, it wasn't until February 1942 that work on the project could proceed. Two pilots designated M4A4E1 were completed in November using a modified gun mount and shield with the standard M2A1 105mm Howitzer. It didn't work. Ordnance then took the new shorter M3 105mm Howitzer and modified it as the T8, which work was completed in August 1943. Two different mounts were tested in the M4E5 and after minor further modifications one was selected for production. It then had to be programmed for production and the first two were completed in February 1944.

The Germans had no piece comparable to the 105mm Howitzer M3 until Böhler completed design of the 10.5cm Gebirgshaubitze 40...in 1941.

[danebrog]

The installation of a 10.5-cm leFH was tested on the Pz.Sfl.IVb "Heuschrecke". The dimensions of the turret make it clear that such a solution was out of the question for the Pz III.
In addition, better (more economical) solutions were found with the "Wespe" and the StuH III.

An Flakpanzer III with the "biscuit tin" of the Flakpanzer IV was planned towards the end of the war, but this failed due to a lack of material.

[ThatZenoGuy]

Welp I stand corrected, 105 is out of the question!

A short 88 then!

[Richard Anderson]

What "short 88"?

[paulrward]

Hello All :

Mr. Anderson asked :

What "short 88"?

The Short 88 mm Gun was developed in Germany during the war by a brilliant engineer
who discovered that, starting with a standard Flak 88, and using a Hack Saw, you could
make a Short 88 mm Gun.

C'mon, Mr. Anderson, haven't you ever shortened the barrel on a handgun ?

Respectfully:

Paul R. Ward

Ruger Birdsheads.jpg

[ThatZenoGuy]

What "short 88"?

I mean according to OP, we're dealing with hypotheticals.

So KwK 38 L/24 88mm, some German attempt to making a light howitzer.

[Richard Anderson]

I mean according to OP, we're dealing with hypotheticals.

So KwK 38 L/24 88mm, some German attempt to making a light howitzer.

They already had a light howitzer. The 10.5cm leichte Feld Haubitze 18. And spent a good part of the 1930s perfecting it just as the US Army worked on their 105mm Howitzer M1. Why would the Germans piddle away Reichmarks on such a quixotic idea?

Of course, the US Army had so little funding they were unable to produce more than a battery worth of M1 Howitzers, so the design remained moribund until 1938-1939 when a redesign resulted in it beings standardized as the M2. Then on 25 September 1941, the Ordnance Committee proposed taking a hacksaw to the M2 and cutting 6.5 calibers off it (call it 16 inches) so it could be used as an airborne howitzer. The result of this hillbilly engineering saw the light of day six months later in March 1942. It worked well enough but the ammunition then had to be redesigned, using a faster burning propellant because the cut down tube resulted in extreme flash from partly combusted propellant - not something you want to deal with in a tank gun especially. The final product, the M3 was ready for production by March 1943...leading to the Medium Tank M4E5 and the production Medium Tank M4 (105) - in February 1944.

Maybe German hacksaws cut faster? Mind you, I'm seriously curious what would happen when an 8.8cm round designed for a 53.5 caliber tube was lit off in one cut down to 24 caliber? Hope they beef up the trunnions and the recoil cylinders a bit. American Ordnance did cut down the 3-inch Gun by 15 inches (5 calibers) to fit in the Medium Tank M4 as the 76mm but that was an issue with balance and not enough to change the ballistics that much.

[ThatZenoGuy]

They already had a light howitzer. The 10.5cm leichte Feld Haubitze 18. And spent a good part of the 1930s perfecting it just as the US Army worked on their 105mm Howitzer M1. Why would the Germans piddle away Reichmarks on such a quixotic idea?

Of course, the US Army had so little funding they were unable to produce more than a battery worth of M1 Howitzers, so the design remained moribund until 1938-1939 when a redesign resulted in it beings standardized as the M2. Then on 25 September 1941, the Ordnance Committee proposed taking a hacksaw to the M2 and cutting 6.5 calibers off it (call it 16 inches) so it could be used as an airborne howitzer. The result of this hillbilly engineering saw the light of day six months later in March 1942. It worked well enough but the ammunition then had to be redesigned, using a faster burning propellant because the cut down tube resulted in extreme flash from partly combusted propellant - not something you want to deal with in a tank gun especially. The final product, the M3 was ready for production by March 1943...leading to the Medium Tank M4E5 and the production Medium Tank M4 (105) - in February 1944.

Maybe German hacksaws cut faster? Mind you, I'm seriously curious what would happen when an 8.8cm round designed for a 53.5 caliber tube was lit off in one cut down to 24 caliber? Hope they beef up the trunnions and the recoil cylinders a bit. American Ordnance did cut down the 3-inch Gun by 15 inches (5 calibers) to fit in the Medium Tank M4 as the 76mm but that was an issue with balance and not enough to change the ballistics that much.

It's a hypothetical, treat it as such or remain silent please. You're adding nothing to the discussion. If you want to have a super historical discussion by all means make your own thread, I am sure you can make very good posts in that regard.

In this scenario the Germans, remaining in a WW1-esque "artillery is 75mm or around abouts" mood moved to 88mm instead of 105 (105mm coming later in the war).

The cartridge would be smaller than the Tiger's gun, although probably sharing some projectiles, thus a smaller breech and recoil systems.

[Georg_S]

A small reminder the subforum "What if" is just a way to think about what history have turned into "if" , so most theories are just "what if" ..

//Georg

[Richard Anderson]

A small reminder the subforum "What if" is just a way to think about what history have turned into "if" , so most theories are just "what if" ..

//Georg

Sorry, but have the guidelines changed? "The What If’s need to be a plausible variation on actual military/political events occurring up to the end of 1985 or viable alternatives in their conception. This is a vital pre-requisite to any What If thread, if they do not meet this requirement they will locked or removed." Part of the point of what ifs is that the provide viable alternatives and pointing out why an alternative might not be viable is part of of the process. Otherwise in this case for example, we could argue that mounting a HIMARS on the Panzer III is just "what if" and threads such as what if Napoleon had a B-52 at Waterloo becomes just a way to think about history.

[Terry Duncan]

A post from ThatZenoGuy was removed. Please avoid crass comparisons and telling other members to 'get out' of threads, this is not allowed. Remember we have more people reading threads than posting in them, and many may decide not to join in if they see such attitudes on display.

Terry