Alternative German tanks & AFVs (2 Viewers)

[tomo pauk]

We've criticized the British and French enough in the latest threads, lets criticize the Germans now As well as suggest the different paths in the development of the armored stuff for their army, say, from 1935 on.
Fair game are: reduction (or increase?) of the AFV/tank main designs, different guns, engines, layouts of the tanks. Guns - from the MGs and auto-cannons to the really big pieces. Engines - gasoline or diesel, inline, radial or V, 4 to 12 cylinders.

To start in a modest fashion: the 'waffentraeger' and light tank based on the long Pz-II, ie. the hull of similar outward dimensions to the self-propelled 15cm gun. Extra space can be used for the 7.5 or 10.5cm ammo, better suited for installation of a good AA gun.

 

[PFVA63]

Hi,
I think as far as discussing tanks and AFVs is concerned,assuming that the Germans wouldhave to fight in whatever situation arises (as was the case historically) flexibility would make a lot of sense. To that point, two things that come to mind are;

• Instead of having a separate Panzer III and Panzer IV,would it maybe be possible to have a singlle hull that could be outfitted with a different main gun for the two different missions envisioned.
• Would it maybe make more sense to make the 50mm gun the main gun for whatever tank takes the Panzer III role.

However, either of these options would likely come at a cost that might limit the ability to field enough tanks. As I understand it historically many Czeckoslovakian 35ts and 38ts had tobe fielded to provide support during the invasion of France and the Low Countries as is. So, any changes to planned production that may resultin even fewer Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs (or their alternate equivalents) could be an issue.

The Other big issue that would come to mind for me would be armor protection. As alluded toothers above, it appears that the armor protection of many (most?) German tanks was notnecessarily as goodas the protection on several (though not all)of the Allied tanks that they faced. However, as with the previous discussion above any attemptat increasing the armor protection of the Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks would likely also comeatthe expense of reducing the number that could be fielded quickly and may also either slow the designs or overstrain their drive systems, potentially causing reliability issuesand/or greater maintenance requirements.

I guess an alternate thought might be to keepthe Panzer III pretty much as is, but torevise the Panzer IV design to be even bigger, with more armor and a higher velocity 75mm gun if available (or something else if there is an exisitng more powerful gun than the short barrel75mm that they were initially fitted with), and then use this new larger Panzer IV as a combined support/anti-fortification tank and an anti-tank tank, available in smaller numbers than the Panzer III, for taking out the most heavily armored Allied tanks.

 

[tomo pauk]

• Instead of having a separate Panzer III and Panzer IV,would it maybe be possible to have a singlle hull that could be outfitted with a different main gun for the two different missions envisioned.
• Would it maybe make more sense to make the 50mm gun the main gun for whatever tank takes the Panzer III role.

Agreed all the way.

However, either of these options would likely come at a cost that might limit the ability to field enough tanks. As I understand it historically many Czeckoslovakian 35ts and 38ts had tobe fielded to provide support during the invasion of France and the Low Countries as is. So, any changes to planned production that may resultin even fewer Panzer IIIs and Panzer IVs (or their alternate equivalents) could be an issue.

Yes, German tank/AFV production was insufficient. Even prompting them to incorporate a lot of the tanks that were barely better than the Pz-II, or that were worse than the StuG-III.
Perhaps the stretched Pz-II hull from the OP here might allow it to became a 37mm armed tank? There were even plans for the new-ish light tabnk to be armed with the long 5cm gun, but that is more of a 'baby M18 Hellcat' territory (together with the open-topped turret), than a proper tank.
The small waffentraeger could've been outfitted with the 7.5cm guns of desired power in the 'casemate' layout, and early enough.

The Other big issue that would come to mind for me would be armor protection. As alluded toothers above, it appears that the armor protection of many (most?) German tanks was notnecessarily as goodas the protection on several (though not all)of the Allied tanks that they faced. However, as with the previous discussion above any attemptat increasing the armor protection of the Panzer III and Panzer IV tanks would likely also comeatthe expense of reducing the number that could be fielded quickly and may also either slow the designs or overstrain their drive systems, potentially causing reliability issuesand/or greater maintenance requirements.

Agreed again. Even the addition of armor plates just to the frontal arc of the tanks would've been a boon for the panzers.

I guess an alternate thought might be to keepthe Panzer III pretty much as is, but torevise the Panzer IV design to be even bigger, with more armor and a higher velocity 75mm gun if available (or something else if there is an exisitng more powerful gun than the short barrel75mm that they were initially fitted with), and then use this new larger Panzer IV as a combined support/anti-fortification tank and an anti-tank tank, available in smaller numbers than the Panzer III, for taking out the most heavily armored Allied tanks.

Even a quick glance to the German tanks show the 'hole' - no tank of 30-35 tons, that were the staple of Allied tanks' production and use.
So yes, a more ambitious 'big Pz-IV' made instead of the historical tank makes a lot of sense.

 

[tomo pauk]

It is interesting to note how many 37mm AT guns were manufactured in Germany (more than 11000 - eleven thousands - before 1940), vs. how many tanks/AFVs were actually carried these guns in combat in 1939-40 (perhaps 1000 all together?). So while the 37mm gun was not the answer to the Heer's prayers, having several hundred of extra those guns on self-propelled form would've made their sailing smoother in 1940; Germans lost almost 1000 tanks - among other stuff - in the battles of May and June of 1940, while receiving about 470 from the factories.
(link)
Having the Pz-III (or it's equivalent) armed with the 75mm L24 gun would've helped them still, ditto for the better armor protection of their tanks.