# Your WW2 armor: 1942-1945



## MacArther (Feb 17, 2009)

Ok, I limited the years to make things easier. This is not neccessarily a topic where one would take piecemeal from one country and another the best tanks and other armor. Rather, if you were in charge of your made up (or not) country's armor production, what sort of things would you focus on?

For instance, if I were in charge of armor development in America, I would get the 76mm guns on the Shermans ASAP. Also, Give the M36 priority status in the lead-up to D-Day. Finally, use the same concept as the "Kangaroo" APCs and take older or surplus M7 Priests and make some more suitable front line APCs. For Britain, I would take the Cromwell and get the 77mm gun developed sooner so that a lighter version of the 17 pounder would have been available to Cromwells.
What would you guys/gals do?


----------



## tomo pauk (Feb 17, 2009)

Sherman's chassis would lend itself indeed to be used as heavy APC and SP artillery. Simply move the engine in front (like Merkava) and there is plenty of space for dismounts, or even 8in howitzer. 

Germany could have gone the same way with Pz-III and Pz-IV, both for APC and SP artillery. Yet, the German industry hardly could produce them the was US could.

As for British..., they've really went wrong with Crusader series. Perhaps souped-up Valentine would do the trick, with adopted 3in AA gun's barrel as main ordnance.


----------



## Amsel (Feb 17, 2009)

If I was in charge of German armor production during that time period I would take into consideration the cost in materials and skilled manpower to produce armor. I would keep the PzKpfw VI only until the Sd.Kfz. 171 became available in 1943. The Tiger I was an excellent design with superior armament and armor but was too heavy for bridge crossing and was a drain on materials. The Panther was as not as heavily armored on the sides but the long barreled 75mm was very good. I would use the factories and materials saved from discontinuing the Tiger production to ease the change from the Pz. IV to the Panther.

I would also develop the Jagdpanzer-38 faster and in greater numbers. By cutting out the numerous designs and concentrating on mas producing these excellent designs I would hope it would free up manhours and materials to the general war effort.


----------



## BombTaxi (Feb 17, 2009)

Priority for the UK would have to be developing a viable battle tank. The Churchill was too slow and heavily armoured to be much use in mobile warfare, while the cruiser tanks which culminated in the Cromwell series were too lightly protected to survive against Panthers and Tigers. Both types lacked the firepower to engage German tanks on even terms either, their turret rings being too small to accept a 17-pounder, except in the awkward and ultimately unsuccessful Challenger.

This problem was largely down to British armour theory being tied to a re-run of WWI, where heavily armoured 'Infantry' tanks like the Churchill would punch holes in the enemies trench lines, through which 'Cruiser' tanks like the Cromwell would pour to cause havoc in the rear, like the light cavalry of the Napoleonic period. The issue of the enemy having tougher, better armed tanks was never addressed because the Germans weren't allowed to have tanks under the terms of Versailles  

So, my development would see the end of both the Infantry and Cruiser tank lines, which would be amalgamated into a single type with reasonable armour, reasonable speed and a 17-pounder or better gun. In short, I'd scrap everything else in the works and get the Centurion into production pronto  Redundant cruiser hulls could be used as Kangaroo style APC's, while surplus Churchills could be used as SPA platforms. If the Centurion could have been bought into action a year earlier, the fighting around Caen might have been shorter and less excruciatingly bloody for the British divisions, IMHO.


----------



## MacArther (Feb 17, 2009)

> So, my development would see the end of both the Infantry and Cruiser tank lines, which would be amalgamated into a single type with reasonable armour, reasonable speed and a 17-pounder or better gun.



So, something like the Archer? provided it was a Tank Destroyer, but it used the Valentine chassis with a 17 pounder facing the rear in fixed semi-open position.

Britain's Self Propelled 17 pdr, Valentine, Mk I, Archer - World War II Vehicles

Or possibly the the A30 Avenger? Also a tank-destroyer, but it had a semi-enclosed turret in lieu of a fixed position.


----------



## BombTaxi (Feb 17, 2009)

No, I would develop an MBT (or universal tank, as the MoD called it), something like the Centurion. TD's cannot go head-to-head with tanks on a mobile battlefield - they are only useful in ambushes, especially if, like the Archer, they are built around a single specific ambush tactic. For the purposes of this exercise, I would aim to have the Centurion or it's equivalent in Normandy on D-Day, in significant numbers. This would no doubt have proved a rude awakening to the Germans had it actually happened.


----------



## Vassili Zaitzev (Feb 17, 2009)

If I was in charge of German armor production, I would follow what Amsel laid out. The Tiger was a fearsome tank, but only 1300 were made. I'd say scrap the Tiger, and concentrate on developing on the Panzer IV, and to a lesser extent the Panther. I'd also get rid of the Jadgtiger, it had a 128 mm cannon, and thick armor, but and underpowered engine left much to be desired.


----------



## Watanbe (Feb 23, 2009)

BombTaxi said:


> Priority for the UK would have to be developing a viable battle tank. The Churchill was too slow and heavily armoured to be much use in mobile warfare, while the cruiser tanks which culminated in the Cromwell series were too lightly protected to survive against Panthers and Tigers. Both types lacked the firepower to engage German tanks on even terms either, their turret rings being too small to accept a 17-pounder, except in the awkward and ultimately unsuccessful Challenger.
> 
> This problem was largely down to British armour theory being tied to a re-run of WWI, where heavily armoured 'Infantry' tanks like the Churchill would punch holes in the enemies trench lines, through which 'Cruiser' tanks like the Cromwell would pour to cause havoc in the rear, like the light cavalry of the Napoleonic period. The issue of the enemy having tougher, better armed tanks was never addressed because the Germans weren't allowed to have tanks under the terms of Versailles
> 
> So, my development would see the end of both the Infantry and Cruiser tank lines, which would be amalgamated into a single type with reasonable armour, reasonable speed and a 17-pounder or better gun. In short, I'd scrap everything else in the works and get the Centurion into production pronto  Redundant cruiser hulls could be used as Kangaroo style APC's, while surplus Churchills could be used as SPA platforms. If the Centurion could have been bought into action a year earlier, the fighting around Caen might have been shorter and less excruciatingly bloody for the British divisions, IMHO.



Very Very well said, that is exactly what I would do! Although I consider the Cromwell quite a good tank and it definately had its place but not fighting Panthers and Tigers in the open!


----------

