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.
User avatar
T. A. Gardner
Member
Posts: 3568
Joined: 02 Feb 2006 00:23
Location: Arizona

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by T. A. Gardner » 06 Oct 2022 19:08

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 13:01
Takao wrote:
06 Oct 2022 02:07
Destroyer500 wrote:
05 Oct 2022 23:57
Well its not really just a StuG and with that angle the protection will be great
Sure it is a StuG...That turret is so unbalanced, weight-wise, it will never rotate.

Not to mention the turret extends well into the engine compartment.
Yea thats true.Hmm i guess it needs some elongation and maybe an extra wheel to be able to hold that extreme armor angles at the front and also give the driver and radio operator-machine gunner hatches.My version could do it without elongation but widening the chassis a little would be needed for any bigger turrets-guns to fit properly anyway so why not do both at this point since were building something new ?
ThatZenoGuy wrote:
06 Oct 2022 12:51
The top one might be possible, but the L/48 in that turret, oh my god no way.
Why not ? Just widening the hull a bit will do the trick.The panzer 4s turret could carry that gun and it wasnt that huge
I suggested that back on like page 1 or 2 of this thread... Of course, you no longer have a Pz III...

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 06 Oct 2022 19:50

You have a Panzer IV....

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Destroyer500 » 06 Oct 2022 22:53

I missed the part where you killed off Guderian prior to 1934.

Was it Colonel Mustard, in the conservatory, with the candlestick?
Hahahaha where did that come from ? I think that i explained that they cancel it after they test it and find that theres no reason it existing when its gun can be mounted on the 3 chassis and do the same job multiple times before.There was also the other guy that said some similar about the panzer 4 and that they should cancel the panzer 3 instead.I wont go into further details you were around at that point actively replying and taking part in the discussion so i guess you remember.Weather we agree or disagree about all this that another thing.


I suggested that back on like page 1 or 2 of this thread... Of course, you no longer have a Pz III...
And and i too realized after i tried to propose "upgrades" every way i possibly could that it wont work and that a jump to something that has been altered in the factory not just the field is needed.
Takao wrote:
06 Oct 2022 19:50
You have a Panzer IV....
Well its not really a panzer 4 the way i proposed it because the geometry is completely different along with things like the suspension but since its the next tank after the panzer 3 i wouldnt be shocked if you called it a panzer 3 2.0 or a panzer 4.But the panzer 3 2.0 is a better choice since its mainly derived from the 3 design but "upgraded".Its like going from an M3 to an M4.Anyway the naming is not the problem.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 07 Oct 2022 00:55

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 22:53
Hahahaha where did that come from ?
The boardgame was called CLUE!
Was hoping you would get it, since you apparently don't have one.

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 22:53
I think that i explained that they cancel it after they test it and find that theres no reason it existing when its gun can be mounted on the 3 chassis and do the same job multiple times before.There was also the other guy that said some similar about the panzer 4 and that they should cancel the panzer 3 instead.I wont go into further details you were around at that point actively replying and taking part in the discussion so i guess you remember.Weather we agree or disagree about all this that another thing.
Actually, that would have been the Panzer III that got canceled.
The Panzer IV was a success from the beginning. While the Panzer III had to be fiddled with for some years before the Germans came up with a viable tank fit for production.

That is why I can only conclude that Guderian was murdered.
The P3 was tested & failed, redesigned, tested & failed, redesigned, tested & failed, wash, rinse, repeat, until the Germans get to the E.
While the P4 moved from success to success, with only limited changes.

Why cancel the more successful tank? You have never answered this.

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 22:53
Well its not really a panzer 4 the way i proposed it because the geometry is completely different along with things like the suspension but since its the next tank after the panzer 3 i wouldnt be shocked if you called it a panzer 3 2.0 or a panzer 4.But the panzer 3 2.0 is a better choice since its mainly derived from the 3 design but "upgraded".Its like going from an M3 to an M4.Anyway the naming is not the problem.
No need to mince words...It's a Panzer IV in size & dimension & gun.

ThatZenoGuy
Member
Posts: 576
Joined: 20 Jan 2019 10:14
Location: Australia

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by ThatZenoGuy » 07 Oct 2022 06:20

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 16:33

The Panzer 3's turret was already upgunned to the 50mm long and the 75mm Short. The 75mm Long is a whole 'nother beast.

Fitting a 75mm long in the Panzer 3? Certainly possible, but with compromises, and one of those compromises would 100% be "Not a super sloped thick armored turret".
Why is it not possible to have the supper sloped turret ? It will be like that of the e100s Henschel turret ,when it come to the frontal part,but shorter.
The only E-100 turret had only a slightly sloped front. (and laughably thin side armor)

You could get away with that, sure, but not as sloped as the picture you posted.

In general turrets weren't all too sloped, excluding cast ones.

You basically need a nice volume front to fit the coaxial, trunion, recoil cylinders, etc.

Generally this is accomplished by simply making the turret front relatively flat and thick with an overlapping mantlet for additional protection.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 07 Oct 2022 15:27

The E-100 Henschel turret is a well-known "fake" created by modeler Michael Rinaldi(sp?) In the early 2000s.

Orwell1984
Member
Posts: 578
Joined: 18 Jun 2011 18:42

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Orwell1984 » 07 Oct 2022 15:49

Takao wrote:
07 Oct 2022 15:27
The E-100 Henschel turret is a well-known "fake" created by modeler Michael Rinaldi(sp?) In the early 2000s.
Great little potted history of it here:

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/e-100-au ... is-turret/

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 07 Oct 2022 16:28

Never let facts get in the way of a good story.

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Destroyer500 » 07 Oct 2022 19:10

Orwell1984 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 15:49
Takao wrote:
07 Oct 2022 15:27
The E-100 Henschel turret is a well-known "fake" created by modeler Michael Rinaldi(sp?) In the early 2000s.
Great little potted history of it here:

https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/e-100-au ... is-turret/
I meant this turret https://tanks-encyclopedia.com/e100-entwicklung-100/ which is a turret made by Krupp.the impoved maus 2 turm as the article sais but for some reason i remembered it was by Henschel.
Takao wrote:
07 Oct 2022 00:55
Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 22:53
Hahahaha where did that come from ?
The boardgame was called CLUE!
Was hoping you would get it, since you apparently don't have one.

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 22:53
I think that i explained that they cancel it after they test it and find that theres no reason it existing when its gun can be mounted on the 3 chassis and do the same job multiple times before.There was also the other guy that said some similar about the panzer 4 and that they should cancel the panzer 3 instead.I wont go into further details you were around at that point actively replying and taking part in the discussion so i guess you remember.Weather we agree or disagree about all this that another thing.
Actually, that would have been the Panzer III that got canceled.
The Panzer IV was a success from the beginning. While the Panzer III had to be fiddled with for some years before the Germans came up with a viable tank fit for production.

That is why I can only conclude that Guderian was murdered.
The P3 was tested & failed, redesigned, tested & failed, redesigned, tested & failed, wash, rinse, repeat, until the Germans get to the E.
While the P4 moved from success to success, with only limited changes.

Why cancel the more successful tank? You have never answered this.

Destroyer500 wrote:
06 Oct 2022 22:53
Well its not really a panzer 4 the way i proposed it because the geometry is completely different along with things like the suspension but since its the next tank after the panzer 3 i wouldnt be shocked if you called it a panzer 3 2.0 or a panzer 4.But the panzer 3 2.0 is a better choice since its mainly derived from the 3 design but "upgraded".Its like going from an M3 to an M4.Anyway the naming is not the problem.
No need to mince words...It's a Panzer IV in size & dimension & gun.
Why attack me like that man ? You have no idea what a what if is as it seems.There is no pod NO POD in this world that will satisfy any what if scenario.From the most Alien Space Bats to just saying what if he sat on a different chair.They did what they did not because they couldnt think better or have any kind of foresight.For any what if to materialize the whole history of the world up to that point has to change.

The panzer 4 has no reason existing because all it had that mattered compared to the panzer 3 was the short 75 and later on the long 75.I dont care if Guderian had dreams about 2 tanks i dont care if he wanted 3 or 4 or 50.The US had just 1 medium and did fine with it the entire war.They developed it from the M3 and only started replacing it when they were getting outgunned and outarmoured late in the war and even then their medium was more that enough for anything they faced en mass.Hell that medium was so successful that with some changes they made it a heavy tank.

I also dont see how the panzer 4 was more successful.In my eyes the only plus it has compared to its smaller brother is the gun.Yes it was an amazing gun but thats all there is to it.Armor is shit,mobility is worse,mechanical failures were worse than the panthers during the latter stages of its life,the hull geometry was overly complicated for nothing really the only positives i can find are ergonomics and crew comfort but guess what THE 3 HAD THEM TOO ! Even if i rooted whole heartedly for the panzer 4 i would still propose the exact same things i do with the panzer 3 because that piece of metal crap called panzer 3 or 4 has to finally evolve.The Germans knew that too but what did they do ? They created a totally different tank that had no hope of ever being created in sufficient numbers to cover its previous versions and that was overly big and tall for no reason.

I wont change my mind on this because i havent seen a proper argument apart from "Guderian envisioned 2 tanks in his doctrine".

The only E-100 turret had only a slightly sloped front. (and laughably thin side armor)

You could get away with that, sure, but not as sloped as the picture you posted.

In general turrets weren't all too sloped, excluding cast ones.

You basically need a nice volume front to fit the coaxial, trunion, recoil cylinders, etc.

Generally this is accomplished by simply making the turret front relatively flat and thick with an overlapping mantlet for additional protection.
1232231.PNG
How will this create problems ?
You do not have the required permissions to view the files attached to this post.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 07 Oct 2022 22:39

Destroyer500 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 19:10
Why attack me like that man ? You have no idea what a what if is as it seems
Sure I do. There are good what ifs & there are bad what ifs. A good what if has a reasonable POD and goes from there -What if Germany went with the 50mm/L60 first, instead of the 50mm/L42. A bad what if relies on implausability, fantasy, or Deus Ex Machina - What if Germany had 50,000 Tiger tanks? What if the US had B-52s in WW2?

Your fantasy is a Panzer III with a big gun & heavily sloped armor looks cool. Rather than than ask "How do I rationally achieve that?" You use Deus Ex Machina, and POOF! Germany has Panzer IIIs that are cool looking with big guns.
Destroyer500 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 19:10
.There is no pod NO POD in this world that will satisfy any what if scenario.From the most Alien Space Bats to just saying what if he sat on a different chair.They did what they did not because they couldnt think better or have any kind of foresight.For any what if to materialize the whole history of the world up to that point has to change.
Sure there is. The entire world history does not need to change for the Confederates to win at Gettysburg. The entire world history does not need to change for Custer to avoid getting massacred at Little Big Horn.

The entire world history would need to change for Germany to have nuclear power in the 1700s. And would likely have to be radically different to have Battlemechs in 1940.

It all depends on the what if.


Destroyer500 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 19:10
The panzer 4 has no reason existing because all it had that mattered compared to the panzer 3 was the short 75 and later on the long 75.
And the Panzer III had no reason for existing either. It was a dead end design with little to no room for upgrades. It's saving grace was superior German tactics.

Destroyer500 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 19:10
I dont care if Guderian had dreams about 2 tanks i dont care if he wanted 3 or 4 or 50.The US had just 1 medium and did fine with it the entire war.
Sorry, Charlie...The US had THREE medium tanks during World War II.

Medium Tank M-2
Medium Tank M-3
Medium Tank M-4

1+1+1=1? No, doesn't work like that.
1+1+1=3. That's better.

The M-2 was designed in 1939 and entered full production in 1940. As the war proceeded, and France fell. It was realized how bad the M-2 actually was, and the production contract was greatly reduced, before being canceled altogether...With 18 M-2s and 94 M2A1s being completed. It's saving grace was that many components were reused in the M-3, to help speed construction.

The M-3 was a "stop-gap" tank, being produced simply because it could be put into production immediately. The US not having the capability to produce a large enough turret in quantity. Many parts were reused from the M-2 to speed construction, as well as, the sponson mounted 75mm which was trialed on the M-2 using a 75mm howitzer.

The M-3 design was quickly finished, which led to the M-4, again reusing many parts to speed construction.

Destroyer500 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 19:10
They developed it from the M3 and only started replacing it when they were getting outgunned and outarmoured late in the war and even then their medium was more that enough for anything they faced en mass.Hell that medium was so successful that with some changes they made it a heavy tank.
Yes, the US created a robust design, capable of many modifications without creating too many problems. The polar opposite of the Panzer III, a limited design, incapable of major modifications without a near complete reworking of the design.

IIRC, it was Assault Tank T14("heavy" is a post-war addition) that was a few ton shy of the Panther medium tank. It performed very poorly and was quite problematic. So much so, that neither the British or Americans wanted it in production.
Destroyer500 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 19:10
I also dont see how the panzer 4 was more successful.In my eyes the only plus it has compared to its smaller brother is the gun.Yes it was an amazing gun but thats all there is to it.Armor is shit,mobility is worse,
Same can be said for the Panzer III.

Destroyer500 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 19:10
mechanical failures were worse than the panthers during the latter stages of its life,
Unsupported by facts...
Percentage Operational At The Front:

                          EASTERN FRONT          WESTERN FRONT

       %       Pz IV     Panther      Tiger     Pz IV     Panther      Tiger

31 May44     84          77          79            88          82             87

15 Sep44     65          72           70           80           74             98

30 Sep44     65          60           81           50           57             67

31 Oct44     52          53            54           74            85             88

15 Nov44     72          66           61           78            71              81

30 Nov44     78          67           72           76            71              45

15 Dec44     79          69           79           78            71              64

30 Dec44     72          61           80           63             53             50

15 Jan45     71          60            73           56             45             58

15 Mar45     54          49            53           44             32             36

Overall         68          62            70           71             65             65


From Jentz.


Destroyer500 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 19:10
the hull geometry was overly complicated for nothing really the only positives i can find are ergonomics and crew comfort but guess what THE 3 HAD THEM TOO !
Yet, the Panzer III went the way of the Dodo in 1943, while the Panzer IV remained in production.

Destroyer500 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 19:10
Even if i rooted whole heartedly for the panzer 4 i would still propose the exact same things i do with the panzer 3 because that piece of metal crap called panzer 3 or 4 has to finally evolve.
They did...eventually.
Destroyer500 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 19:10
The Germans knew that too but what did they do ? They created a totally different tank that had no hope of ever being created in sufficient numbers to cover its previous versions and that was overly big and tall for no reason.
You are apparently not well versed in German tank design.

Have you actually stopped and looked at the many VK designs the Germans went through before arriving at the Panther & Tiger? And they are many.

Germany was not looking for "good enough", they wanted "better".
Because they had realized that they could not hope to surpass Allied tank production. Sure, they eventually turned to Stugs & Jagdpanzer to fill the many gaps. But, Panzer III production was 5,000+, Panzer IV was 8,000+, Panther production was 5,000+

-Notice- Panther production did replace the III, but not the IV.

And Tiger I & II production was 2,000.

Even if Germany settled on 1 tank...And this magically doubled production...That is still 40,000 tanks.

AND...you don't even begin to consider Germany's ever chronic fuel shortages.


Destroyer500 wrote:
07 Oct 2022 19:10
I wont change my mind on this because i havent seen a proper argument apart from "Guderian envisioned 2 tanks in his doctrine".
Oh? That is simple.

STEP 1: Remove blinders.
STEP 2: Remove hands from in front of eyes.
STEP 3: Open eyes.

Vision Restored!
Last edited by Takao on 08 Oct 2022 00:38, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 08 Oct 2022 00:15

Destroyer500,

In case you are wondering. This is the Medium Tank M2A1.
Image

Looks really familiar doesn't it.

Before you ask...Yes, the turret was reused on the Light Tank M-3 Stuart.

But that is not what I am referring to.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8267
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Oct 2022 00:33

Takao wrote:
07 Oct 2022 22:39

Percentage Operational At The Front:

                          EASTERN FRONT          WESTERN FRONT

       %       Pz IV     Panther      Tiger     Pz IV     Panther      Tiger

31 May44     84          77          79            88          82             87

15 Sep44     65          72           70           80           74             98

30 Sep44     65          60           81           50           57             67

31 Oct44     52          53            54           74            85             88

15 Nov44     72          66           61           78            71              81

30 Nov44     78          67           72           76            71              45

15 Dec44     79          69           79           78            71              64

30 Dec44     72          61           80           63             53             50

15 Jan45     71          60            73           56             45             58

15 Mar45     54          49            53           44             32             36

Overall         68          62            70           71             65             65


From Jentz.
Oft-used table but in my mind misleading because the NWE numbers miss the whole Normandy campaign. The actual numbers for June-Aug are way below the averages used by Jentz and I suspect they were deliberately omitted because they did not fit the narrative.

User avatar
Takao
Member
Posts: 3776
Joined: 10 Mar 2002 19:27
Location: Reading, Pa

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Takao » 08 Oct 2022 00:42

Michael Kenny wrote:
08 Oct 2022 00:33
Oft-used table but in my mind misleading because the NWE numbers miss the whole Normandy campaign. The actual numbers for June-Aug are way below the averages used by Jentz and I suspect they were deliberately omitted because they did not fit the narrative.
If you have the missing numbers could you please post them.

I found this list on another forum, as my tank books are all boxed up as I am redoing the library/computer room & 2nd bedroom(2nd library).

User avatar
Destroyer500
Member
Posts: 309
Joined: 16 Oct 2018 10:14
Location: Athens

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Destroyer500 » 08 Oct 2022 01:20

Sure I do. There a are good what is & there are bad what is. A good what if has a reasonable POD and goes from there -What if Germany went with the 50mm/L60 first, instead of the 50mm/L42. A bad what if relies on implausability, fantasy, or Deus Ex Machina - What if Germany had 50,000 Tiger tanks? What if the US had B-52s in WW2?

Your fantasy is a Panzer III with a big gun & heavily sloped armor looks cool. Rather than than ask "How do I rationally achieve that?" You use Deus Ex Machina, and POOF! Germany has Panzer IIIs that are cool looking with big guns.
What i learned from here is that nothing in tank design Germany wise could change or happen earlier-differently for many reasons.Germany needed a 25-30 ton tank in 1940.At that point they would have a platform from which upgrades of all sorts would be a lot easier.1943 for something like the panther was just too late and that thing was too heavy.The pz 4 was somewhat of a stopgap between the the pz 3 and the panther but in my opinion if the 3 could carry the gun from early on and even with modifications carry the long 75 then the pz4 has no real purpose here.The panzer 4 should be a totally new design and be that 30 ton tank i talked of earlier.Any other version of this story ends with a mediocare pz4 or a good in some aspects but very late panther.The Germans may have been unable to create that 30 ton tank earlier for many reasons but find an excuse for it to happen.Its a what if after all
Sure there is. The entire world history does not need to change for the Confederates to win at Gettysburg. The entire world history does not need to change for Custer to avoid getting massacred at Little Big Horn.

The entire world history would need to change for Germany to have nuclear power in the 1700s. And would likely have to be radically different to have Battlemechs in 1940.

It all depends on the what if.
This requires an essay answer that im not willing to give but i dont consider it 100% correct.I get what youre trying to say but i have my examples too.In the first century there was a guy in Alexandria of Egypt that had created a mechanism that could open doors and even makes sounds using steam.He also made many more inventions but well focus on that one.If he played a bit more with his designs and had made a connection between his machines and maybe moving ships or carts around then we could have steam powered vehicles a lot earlier and possible an industrial revolution by maybe 3-4th century so Germany could have mechs or anything for that matter in 1700s.There were also others after him that played with that kind of tech far earlier from when steam powered vehicles became a thing what if they had made some breakthrough or played around enough to find out ? Can you tell me that this wouldnt happen ? Can you tell me that technology would not have advanced from a far earlier time ? If it wasnt for Chirstianitys dogmatism and spiritual darkness im sure we would have been there far earlier but thats a matter for another topic.Theres always a way for things to work out if we want to.
Sorry, Charlie...The US had THREE medium tanks during World War II.

Medium Tank M-2
Medium Tank M-3
Medium Tank M-4

1+1+1=1? No, doesn't work like that.
1+1+1=3. That's better.

The M-2 was designed in 1939 and entered full production in 1940. As the war proceeded, and France fell. It was realized how bad the M-2 actually was, and the production contract was greatly reduced, before being canceled altogether...With 18 M-2s and 94 M2A1s being completed. It's saving grace was that many components were reused in the M-3, to help speed construction.

The M-3 was a "stop-gap" tank, being produced simply because it could be put into production immediately. The US not having the capability to produce a large enough turret in quantity. Many parts were reused from the M-2 to speed construction, as well as, the sponson mounted 75mm which was trialed on the M-2 using a 75mm howitzer.

The M-3 design was quickly finished, which led to the M-4, again reusing many parts to speed construction.
Yes but you dont mention that in the end only the m3-m4 mattered.50 thousand m4s 6 thousand m3s and just a few hundred m2s,well i only see the m4 really making a difference here.
Yes, the US created a robust design, capable of many modifications without creating too many problems. The polar opposite of the Panzer III, a limited design, incapable of major modifications without a near complete reworking of the design.
Im trying to propose a new tank that can be like the m4 but anyway yes the panzer 3 and also 4 were never close to being like the m4.

Unsupported by facts...
Percentage Operational At The Front:

                          EASTERN FRONT          WESTERN FRONT

       %       Pz IV     Panther      Tiger     Pz IV     Panther      Tiger

31 May44     84          77          79            88          82             87

15 Sep44     65          72           70           80           74             98

30 Sep44     65          60           81           50           57             67

31 Oct44     52          53            54           74            85             88

15 Nov44     72          66           61           78            71              81

30 Nov44     78          67           72           76            71              45

15 Dec44     79          69           79           78            71              64

30 Dec44     72          61           80           63             53             50

15 Jan45     71          60            73           56             45             58

15 Mar45     54          49            53           44             32             36

Overall         68          62            70           71             65             65


From Jentz.
I dont deny the numbers but tell me this,how many bridge problems due to weight did they have ? How many had multiple mechanical failures that reduced their effectiveness substantially ? How much time did it take for a reliable version of the panther to be created ?
They did...eventually.
Yes but what im arguing is that the completely new shiny tanks were never gonna be fully capable in time because they needed more development.

You are apparently not well versed in German tank design.

Have you actually stopped and looked at the many VK designs the Germans went through before arriving at the Panther & Tiger? And they are many.

Germany was not looking for "good enough", they wanted "better".
Because they had realized that they could not hope to surpass Allied tank production. Sure, they eventually turned to Stugs & Jagdpanzer to fill the many gaps. But, Panzer III production was 5,000+, Panzer IV was 8,000+, Panther production was 5,000+

-Notice- Panther production did replace the III, but not the IV.

And Tiger I & II production was 2,000.

Even if Germany settled on 1 tank...And this magically doubled production...That is still 40,000 tanks.

AND...you don't even begin to consider Germany's ever chronic fuel shortages.
That would make 40 thousand reliable,easily reparable and very refined tanks not 5-6 designs each one requiring completely different tools of production,training,amunition,amounts of fuel e.t.c.
Oh? That is simple.

STEP 1: Remove blinders.
STEP 2: Remove hands from in front of eyes.
STEP 3: Open eyes.

Vision Restored!
So Guderian couldnt have thought differently ? Does history confine me in looking at things only one way ?

Mr Takao i would also like to give you some credit for taking the time to write all the things you do.Although i dont like the attitude i understand that i come out as someone who doesnt have a clue about what im talking.I dont think thats the case but i certainly dont have your level of expertee.I have changed multiple times my rhetoric because i learned so many things while being in this thread and because i understand for the most part when and where im wrong.At this point this post has little to do with the panzer 3.Im not totally deaf nor blind to what youre saying and showing to me.I like the small thing and that makes me biased but when i say that a panther sized tank wont cut it im not saying it out of bias.The panther was an amazing tank but its potential was actualized a little too late.Germany could never outproduce in any way shape or form its enemies.Germany could only win by making the right moves not by having a super vehicle.A standard design thats easy to produce,maintain,repair,refuel,upgrade,that isnt too heavy,doesnt require much training to be used,that is a comfortable living and fighting place,that can be trasported,that can be very easily recovered and that can move around the battlefield with ease is that they wanted.I believe that the panzer 3 shape on the panzer 4 and maybe a bit bigger size with a panther like protection when it comes to angles would be the ideal German Sherman.The panzer 4s geometry is just too complicated for nothing else at this point i would root for it no problem.That tank would look somewhat like a t44 and be exactly what they needed.

The Germans got compliant with their victories and thought that they would face an isolated inferior enemy in Russia and when things turned out differently it was too late.From the moment they went in unprepared for the long run,which means a Russia backed from 2 other super powers and a not short campaign they lost.The "tank equipment" issue were discussing here only alleviates one of their problems but that on its own is crucial enough that even if they go in unprepared in helps them substantially.Again i consider the panzer 3s hull shape a good basis for a new medium tank to be born.The panzer 4 is just too complicated and needs major redesigns.The panther is really good but too tall for nothing and also too heavy.If something like the panther is to be chosen then it has to be shortened to the vk 16.02 height and widened a little bit more than it.I dont expect the Germans to make such an evolutionary jump from one day to another so a tank that is closer to their existing designs but "upgraded" is the more sane option.That tank to repeat myself again should look somewhat like a t44
Last edited by Destroyer500 on 08 Oct 2022 13:08, edited 3 times in total.

Michael Kenny
Member
Posts: 8267
Joined: 07 May 2002 19:40
Location: Teesside

Re: A Panzer 3 is all there needed to be

Post by Michael Kenny » 08 Oct 2022 01:26

The number used by Jentz and the fortnightly counts and I presume the chaos of the German summer of 1944 meant the June-August documents are either lost of never collated. The surviving individual Units records for that period means you can 'reconstruct' a lot of the missing information. It requires effort and educated guesses but a quick look through Zetterling shows that (for example)12th SS had a good day if 50% of its available Panther/Pz IV tanks (those destroyed not counted) were in service by late June. It would be impossible to distinguish between mechanical/combat damage to the tanks in repair but the May 31 numbers should be considered as being an indication that under the best possible circumstances (no enemy contact or interference) they could keep 88% of the Pz IVs running. The Pz Lehr numbers show a similar situation.

Return to “What if”