Alternative German tanks & AFVs (2 Viewers)

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.

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.

PFVA63 said:

• 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.

Click to expand...

Agreed all the way.

PFVA63 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

PFVA63 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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

PFVA63 said:

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.

Click to expand...

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.

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.

A lot depends on what you actually want the vehicles to do.
Even a Stug is not a tank.
Tank has a fulling rotating turret AND a co-ax machine gun. Stugs don't get a machine gun that can be operated from below armor until 1944. Something to work on?

Timing is also important, what year/s?
German Bridging (ferry) equipment would not handle 20+ ton tanks in 1939/40. MK IIIs were an overload and they handled carefully and/or with reduced fuel/ammo/crew until they crossed over and were replenished.
German MK IIIs with short 75s carried about 3/4s the amount of 75mm ammunition that the MK IVs did.
German MK IIIs with 75mm guns carried 54/64 rounds (depending on base hull) while 37mm armed tanks carried 131 rounds and the short 50mm armed MK III carried 99 rounds.
Yes the 75mm is more effective (depending on target and ammo used). But the tanks need to stay in battle or have resupply in armored carriers.

Germans made extensive use of the MK II and 38(t) chassis for SP guns (both AT and artillery) but the chassis were small, over loaded and required extra vehicles to carry ammo.
The Wespe was a good use of resources but far from Ideal. 32 rounds of ammo? 8 minutes at sustained rate of fire? Just under 20% were actually completed without guns to act as ammunition carriers (90 rounds) and/or spare chassis in case of break down. Howitzer crews need more room than AT gun crews. Howitzer crews often have to adjust powder charges on every round and fit fuses to the noses if shells (fuses are in separate storage except a few ready rounds). Cramped SP guns do not give the same sustained fire as towed guns.

I had been thinking of a MK II/38(t) with a two man turret and a tank MK 101 30mm gun, sort of a 1940 Rarden gun
But this may be too much effort for too little result. Without tungsten carbide the AP may not be any better than a 37mm gun.

Keep the StuG - even though it was intended as mobile artillery for infantry (and was originally part of infantry units), it ended up destroying more enemy tanks in combat than actual Panzer units.

It was very, very useful. Especial on defense. But it was not a tank and could not do some of the things tanks could do.
The Stug got a commanders cupola in Dec 1942 which aided the commanders situational awareness. Perhaps something could have been done sooner.
Stug carried about 44/54 rounds for the long barreled guns, MK IV carried 87 (?) rounds for the long 75. Granted a lot of tanks got knocked out before they used up all their ammo but having a battalion starting with 50-60% ammo to begin with?

The StuG was also economical to produce, with quick production turn out.

As noted, the StuG was basically "sturm artillerie" supporting Landsers. Once it became evident that it was a capable tank destroyer, the added cupola allowed a better ability to engage enemy elements.

Aside from the economic advantages, the StuG had a low profile and good frontal armor and was extremely successful operating from ambush.

Shortround6 said:

A lot depends on what you actually want the vehicles to do.
Even a Stug is not a tank.
Tank has a fulling rotating turret AND a co-ax machine gun. Stugs don't get a machine gun that can be operated from below armor until 1944. Something to work on?

Click to expand...

StuG was a way to have a big gun on a modest vehicle, without much of a hassle, on time and on dime. Better that having a small gun on a rotating turret, but not as good as having a full-blown tank.
The StuG-III armed with the 7.5cm na16 or the FK 38 equivalent still can double as an artillery piece for lobbing the shells, in indirect fire if needed, but it can also tackle the stronger targets (not just tanks, but also the houses the enemy might be, or other light fotifications) in the direct fire mode. Outfit it with a MG early on. All of this can be done from the day one.

Shortround6 said:

Timing is also important, what year/s?
German Bridging (ferry) equipment would not handle 20+ ton tanks in 1939/40. MK IIIs were an overload and they handled carefully and/or with reduced fuel/ammo/crew until they crossed over and were replenished.
German MK IIIs with short 75s carried about 3/4s the amount of 75mm ammunition that the MK IVs did.
German MK IIIs with 75mm guns carried 54/64 rounds (depending on base hull) while 37mm armed tanks carried 131 rounds and the short 50mm armed MK III carried 99 rounds.
Yes the 75mm is more effective (depending on target and ammo used). But the tanks need to stay in battle or have resupply in armored carriers.

Click to expand...

Still, Germans made the NbFzg of 23+ tons well before ww2, and they were also serious with the VK20 serious that started with 20 tons, as well with the 30-33 ton design as early as 1937. So having the Germans making a serious enough attempt on 30+ ton tanks is not something out of ordinary.

With the stretched Pz-II being armed with the 37mm gun, the appeal to have the Pz-III outfitted with the kwk 37 should've been even more present. Stretching the Pz-III by one set of wheels and torsion bars on each side would've probably meant another 50 cm of length added, that can be used to store more ammo. If Germans can make a shorter engine than the HL 210 of 12 cylinders for the Pz-III, that is even better. A 20L V8 or a V6, or even their equivalent of the R-975 would've been great, since it can give greater internal volume without making the tanks longer/bigger/heavier.

I'll blow into my own trumpet one more time, and suggest that the installation of the Czech 47mm on the Pz-III is also explored.

By all means, the 30 ton tanks should've been all-singing all dancing designs, with a V12 engine and a good 75mm gun, ie. a tank no worse than the Sherman, but already working up by 1939.

Shortround6 said:

Germans made extensive use of the MK II and 38(t) chassis for SP guns (both AT and artillery) but the chassis were small, over loaded and required extra vehicles to carry ammo.
The Wespe was a good use of resources but far from Ideal. 32 rounds of ammo? 8 minutes at sustained rate of fire? Just under 20% were actually completed without guns to act as ammunition carriers (90 rounds) and/or spare chassis in case of break down. Howitzer crews need more room than AT gun crews. Howitzer crews often have to adjust powder charges on every round and fit fuses to the noses if shells (fuses are in separate storage except a few ready rounds). Cramped SP guns do not give the same sustained fire as towed guns.

Click to expand...

Looking at this report, even the 'normal' Wespe was deemed slow by 1943 standards, while the engine, transmission and suspension were considered over-stressed. So that will go against my suggestion that the stretched Pz-II will work well with the 10.5cm as-is, since it will also require the engine and transmission to be upgraded.
Here is the pic of the Wespe, the amount of space the engine used was immense, while the combat compartment was small.

Making the same with the Pz-38(t) chassis would've also meant a lot more of space, but probably with less of the negative connotations. The 5th pair of wheels perhaps in the layout of the M3 light?

Shortround6 said:

I had been thinking of a MK II/38(t) with a two man turret and a tank MK 101 30mm gun, sort of a 1940 Rarden gun

RARDEN - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

But this may be too much effort for too little result. Without tungsten carbide the AP may not be any better than a 37mm gun.

Click to expand...

The Pz-II with the Pz-38(t) turret is an excellent idea.

Yes, the 30mm gun will be very much dependent on the supply of tungsten, same as the 28mm PzB. So not making (or toning down) the 28mm should've allowed for more tungsten for the 30mm, while the later gun will be far less restricted wrt. the HE shell.
Appeal of the 30mm firing the APCRs vs. the 37mm doing the same is probably that for each 37mm shot of that type, two can be made for the 30mm.

BTW - seems like that 37mm pak & kwk have never gotten the very hot-loaded APCR cartridge that the Flak 18 and 43 gotten. It used 240-260 g of propellant (sources disagree) for a 405-410g shot, and penetration went upwards by a good margin. The 37mm ground lubbers used 170-180 g of propellant for a 350g shot.
Granted, the 37mm AT and tank guns were being phased out by the time these hot loaded cartridges for the Flak appeared, but still.
All of this meant that penetration with APCR was something like this: 3.7cm Flak 18 & 43 > MK 101/103 > 3.7cm pak/kwk.

Make your tanks economical and efficient to produce. Make your tanks easy to maintain in the field, including fast engine and transmission swaps. Don't neglect mobility over firepower and protection in your later tanks. Make your tanks operable in extreme cold, also better able to operate in soft terrain.

tomo pauk said:

StuG was a way to have a big gun on a modest vehicle, without much of a hassle, on time and on dime. Better that having a small gun on a rotating turret, but not as good as having a full-blown tank.
The StuG-III armed with the 7.5cm na16 or the FK 38 equivalent still can double as an artillery piece for lobbing the shells, in indirect fire if needed, but it can also tackle the stronger targets (not just tanks, but also the houses the enemy might be, or other light fotifications) in the direct fire mode. Outfit it with a MG early on. All of this can be done from the day one.

Click to expand...

It can be done, but some of this needs experience and planning. The original StuG's seem to be misunderstood. They were never supposed to be ersatz tanks. They were supposed to be close artillery support. Using direct fire if need be. Not direct fire primarily. They were allocated (to start) on basis of one battery (6 vehicles) per unit with supporting vehicles. They were not grouped into larger formations (3 batteries per unit) until later. The supporting vehicles included armored observation vehicles (for indirect firing) and armored ammunition carriers. The StuGs were supposed to operate in an area where they could be under fire but they were certainly not supposed to lead an attack with infantry following.
Fitting them with higher performance guns means it is harder for them to do the designed mission. They could only elevate the guns to 20 degrees and this meant that with the short 75mm gun they could lob shells over friendly troops and onto the hostiles while remaining back. They had artillery type sights. They would have parked and either set out aiming stakes if possible or used landmarks. The short 75mm used fixed ammo, the 7.5cm na16 or the FK 38 used separate projectiles and adjustable charges. The loader needs more space to work (adjust charges, fit fuses, etc). Just using max charge can mean not being able to Lob shells, you may fire over an obstacle but the shell lands too far past it.
StuGs got an MG 34 to stow in the hull with around 600 rounds fairly early, loader opened his hatch, stuck head and shoulders out and fired the gun with the bipod, if lowered, bouncing around on the roof of the vehicle, useful for close-in self defense. In a tank the commander spots the tartget/s, orders gunner to traverse onto target, gunner uses the main sight to aim, and the traverse and elevation controls to adjust impact. The co-ax gun is much longer ranged and more effective at any range (up 1200-1600 meters) than any of the hand/pivot mountings. StuGs later got a flat plate (mostly flat).

But not a lot use in close cover (town or woods) and with a 4 man crew what is not happening when this gun is being used?
The remote control guns like the Hetzer had were a lot later. But had a lot of problems, at least the crewman had a better chance of not getting shot.

tomo pauk said:

With the stretched Pz-II being armed with the 37mm gun, the appeal to have the Pz-III outfitted with the kwk 37 should've been even more present. Stretching the Pz-III by one set of wheels and torsion bars on each side would've probably meant another 50 cm of length added, that can be used to store more ammo. If Germans can make a shorter engine than the HL 210 of 12 cylinders for the Pz-III, that is even better. A 20L V8 or a V6, or even their equivalent of the R-975 would've been great, since it can give greater internal volume without making the tanks longer/bigger/heavier.

Click to expand...

This is sort of reinventing the wheel, more later.

tomo pauk said:

I'll blow into my own trumpet one more time, and suggest that the installation of the Czech 47mm on the Pz-III is also explored.

Click to expand...

Just get the crew working on the 50mm short to speed things up (and demand the bigger gun from the start, to heck with using the same ammo as the Infantry gun).
AND start issuing the Czech 47 (with rubber tires) as fast as 3 shifts a day can make them to the infantry.

tomo pauk said:

By all means, the 30 ton tanks should've been all-singing all dancing designs, with a V12 engine and a good 75mm gun, ie. a tank no worse than the Sherman, but already working up by 1939

Click to expand...

It is one thing to have 30 ton tanks in development so everything can come together once you have the bridging and recovery systems (and transporters) but make sure your 20-25 ton stuff actually works first.

tomo pauk said:

Looking at this report, even the 'normal' Wespe was deemed slow by 1943 standards, while the engine, transmission and suspension were considered over-stressed. So that will go against my suggestion that the stretched Pz-II will work well with the 10.5cm as-is, since it will also require the engine and transmission to be upgraded.
Here is the pic of the Wespe, the amount of space the engine used was immense, while the combat compartment was small.

Click to expand...

The driver sat next to the inline 6. This is what you get with 'conversions'. Take MK II tank, take out (most) of the drive shaft, move engine up next to the driver, use old engine compartment as fighting compartment. BTW this is what the Americans did with the 155mm SP guns.

The radial engine was moved to the space behind the drivers. Old engine compartment became the gun/fighting compartment. Also BTW. All of these were radial engine powered. No V-8 powered versions were built (or at least not standardized.)

Germans do have problem with engines for smaller vehicles. Under 7 liter engines are not going to cut it and the 7.7 liter Czech engine only helps a some.

Shortround6 said:

It can be done, but some of this needs experience and planning. The original StuG's seem to be misunderstood. They were never supposed to be ersatz tanks. They were supposed to be close artillery support. Using direct fire if need be. Not direct fire primarily. They were allocated (to start) on basis of one battery (6 vehicles) per unit with supporting vehicles. They were not grouped into larger formations (3 batteries per unit) until later. The supporting vehicles included armored observation vehicles (for indirect firing) and armored ammunition carriers. The StuGs were supposed to operate in an area where they could be under fire but they were certainly not supposed to lead an attack with infantry following.

Click to expand...

(my bold)
I'm afraid that you are wrong in that bolded part. An excerpt from here:
In order to be able to fulfil its main task – to fight down enemy positions that were difficult to perceive from a distance – the assault gun had to approach the enemy's main battle line, the commander had to locate pockets of resistance on the basis of his own observation and fight them in direct aiming (i.e. with shallow fire).

Shortround6 said:

Fitting them with higher performance guns means it is harder for them to do the designed mission. They could only elevate the guns to 20 degrees and this meant that with the short 75mm gun they could lob shells over friendly troops and onto the hostiles while remaining back. They had artillery type sights. They would have parked and either set out aiming stakes if possible or used landmarks. The short 75mm used fixed ammo, the 7.5cm na16 or the FK 38 used separate projectiles and adjustable charges. The loader needs more space to work (adjust charges, fit fuses, etc). Just using max charge can mean not being able to Lob shells, you may fire over an obstacle but the shell lands too far past it.

Click to expand...

As seen from the above excerpt, lobbing of the shells was not the primary job. Need be, these field guns will do a better job in that regard, since they were with the incremental charges, up to a point - the FK 38 was indeed using such charges in the 'Brazilian ammo', but not in the 'German ammo', where the AP ammo was using full charge, and HE was using reduced charge):



(Pulvegew. = Pulvergewicht = weight of the propellant)
Note that the best AP ammo that the Germans used on the French 75mm have had only 805 g of propellant. The short kwk 37 used 40+370g of propellant.
It was not until the StuH-42 that the elevation became suitable for lobbing of HE in the indirect fire; or perhaps the 15cm howitzer on Pz-II was the 1st?

Shortround6 said:

This is sort of reinventing the wheel, more later.

Click to expand...

Talking about the engines' choice?

Shortround6 said:

Just get the crew working on the 50mm short to speed things up (and demand the bigger gun from the start, to heck with using the same ammo as the Infantry gun).

Click to expand...

If the 5cm gun is still in the cards (there is no great reason that it is), I'd go with the big gun and cancel the small one.

Shortround6 said:

It is one thing to have 30 ton tanks in development so everything can come together once you have the bridging and recovery systems (and transporters) but make sure your 20-25 ton stuff actually works first.

Click to expand...

Make the Pz-III equivalent in as many copies as humanly possible, and don't skimp on the gun size - aim for the 75mm from the get go. Don't forge to make the frontal armor impervious against the 4cm guns and under at ~300m.

Shortround6 said:

The radial engine was moved to the space behind the drivers. Old engine compartment became the gun/fighting compartment. Also BTW. All of these were radial engine powered. No V-8 powered versions were built (or at least not standardized.)

Click to expand...

Excellent thing, these radial engines

Shortround6 said:

Germans do have problem with engines for smaller vehicles. Under 7 liter engines are not going to cut it and the 7.7 liter Czech engine only helps a some.

Click to expand...

A 10L inline 6 (or V6?) would've been interesting.
Although, German small vehicles were very small. Including the Czech stuff.

Shortround6 said:

The StuGs were supposed to operate in an area where they could be under fire but they were certainly not supposed to lead an attack with infantry following.

Click to expand...

To elaborate on this premise further: if a 7.5cm gun is required to lob shells, installing it on a Pz-I or Pz-II hull is a far better thing to do. The small tanks now have an excellent level of firepower, and there is no draw on the number of Pz-III hulls so more actual tanks can be made.

The AP abilities of the Czech 47mm are listed here: picture. Note that also the Austrian AP shot could've been used (1st column in the penetration data).
Seems like the short 5cm had nothing worthy to offer above it.

The case of ZW (Pz III) and BW is complex because the reason both projects were separate and that unification wasn't obvious until 1936 is that the respective target weights were originally very different (10t for Z.W tank, 15-18t for B.W. tank).

I am more versed in logistical weight classes for the French and British, less so for the Germans although IIRC they used 18-tonne bridges, hence the B.W. weight limit.

IMO, a lot of the OTL decisions surrounding the Z.W. and B.W. would be completely different if:
- the Germans had a higher target weight in mind for the logistical class and didn't split between 10 and 18 tonnes
- the Germans went for more than bulletproof armor

The former would permit more armor or heavier armament, and would make weight differences between the Z.W and B.W less necessary.
The latter in particular would force the Germans to maybe consider more than the 37mm KwK and short 75mm, and to consider placing the transmission at the rear to balance the weight of thicker front armor and avoid overloading the front sprocket/wheels/final drives. With all the bonuses of rear transmission (easier setup of maintenance hatches, less exposed final drive housings, better performance in terrain, less crowded crew compartments, possibility to combine all transmission elements in a single, lighter unit).
Heavier, shell-proof armor would also make sloping more relevant. A few degrees had disproportionate effects on bullets, but higher slopes matter more against projectiles of greater caliber and the required thickness of plate is also more conducive to the use of sloping while keeping adequate structural integrity.

IMO, the OTL front transmission became a huge deal once the Germans went for heavy front armor/guns, as seen in the many mid/latewar designs that were overloaded on the front wheels or ballooned in weight because the driveshaft contributed (in part) to relatively tall hulls relative to what was possible. The few attempts to bring it back to the rear OTL (VK 3002 (DB)) arguably didn't try hard enough to actually reduce hull height (the DB's gearbox setup was also far from compact).

Gun wise, I'd also be for moving away from Infantry standards. The 37 can stay as a stopgap, but the 50mm tank gun idea from IIRC 1932 can go forward (even if it isn't any of the OTL 50mm). It's less necessary for the 75, but a barrel at 30 caliber lengths and above (MV at or beyond 450 m/s like the many Soviet 76mm guns tested or used in the period) would be fine. If the weight limit permits unification of the Z.W. and B.W., try to stick to a sufficiently high MV 75mm (in excess of 500 m/s).

---

Engine wise, the Maybachs were pretty much the correct layout for a tank of the day. I would just go for slightly greater displacement relative to weight (eg closer to 30L for the HL 230).
However, Maybach IMO had too many redundant engine projects (basically same power but trying to make them smaller or in inline instead of Vee form, many such cases around 300 PS). I'd just go for setting up distinct power categories, making the appropriate engines for it and then sticking with those engines to continuously improve their reliability, performance and leverage economies of scale. If specific power can be increased, it will just increase power which will neatly go in hand with the natural weight growth of vehicles. Vees in general, inlines for light, narrow vehicles. Ideally if possible, the inlines could use the same cylinders and parts as the Vees, if the power categories are suitable.

I don't think the move to diesels can be done any faster than OTL, unless it is figured out diesel fuel will be common sooner. However, I'd recommend swapping the development process for the Mercedes-Benz MB-809: stick with the original displacement (close to 20L) but improve specific power, instead of using the same power but reducing displacement. This should result in a 400hp+ engine which would be a genuine change from the HL 120.

Worth noting that the Maybachs are rather short so could be rather conducive to transversely mounted layouts, which tie well with the wide big cats.

---

Recently I have trended towards assessing programs, e.g. what are you getting from all this time and these scientific and industrial ressources thrown at something.
There are a couple German projects which IMO were pointless in their OTL forms, and other periods when it would have been nice to use the time to start a new project. And most of the critical points are before 1941.

I would first point out the duplication between the recon (neue Art) and heavily armored evolutions of the Pz I and II - almost the same weight categories. Could they really not stick to either Pz I or Pz II class?

Second would be the DW family and the AW/VK 65 series. All this just to get hilariously overweight "uparmored Pz IVs", with the same armament and overall worse performance for the weight than foreign analogues. The 1935 proposal for a 30t+ tank with 600hp, a higher velocity 75mm gun and 30-50mm of armor had more merit, although by the time it gets into service it would be closer to a normal medium tank than the "mini-Tiger" it initially felt like. Basically, we are talking about bringing the specs that led to the VK 30.01 (P) forward by a few years. In some respects, this can also be seen as a close match to the Char G1 program and some Soviet late interwar concepts.

The VK 20 program needed to be more than merely refined 1941 Pz IIIs and IVs "neue Art". It needs to be a quantum improvement in firepower, protection or both while slightly increasing power to weight ratio.

I had explained it before in another forum, but the 88mm L56 was quite close in power to the Soviet 85mm guns and the US 90mm gun. However, its installation proved less efficient and bulkier. Meanwhile, the Tiger I's hull was pretty big. I do not believe it was impossible to come up with something close to the IS-1 or M26 in terms of size and weight efficiency even in 1942.

Both Panther and Tiger II effectively required the rear transmission and size-saving measures mentionned previously to limit weight growth. Panther's gun mount and mantlet design was problematic and worsened balance issues tied in part to the small turret and long gun (prior to Schmalturm).

I am torn about the 75 L70 and 88 L71. Both guns are actually closer in total length to the likes of the postwar Soviet 115 and 125mm smoothbore guns than to Western 90mm or 105mm guns. At the same time, smaller calibers seem to be the more efficient choice when you need to use full caliber AP projectiles. Those German guns maybe weren't essential for most of WW2, but considering that certain Soviets designs were coming with near immunity against them, the Germans sorta needed to anticipate future needs and couldn't settle on 75 L48 forever. A compact and light 88 L56 as I mentionned above however could have been an excellent mid/late war gun even for medium tanks (see T-34-85 and the intended spam of M26 and later).

Elan Vital said:

IMO, the OTL front transmission became a huge deal once the Germans went for heavy front armor/guns, as seen in the many mid/latewar designs that were overloaded on the front wheels or ballooned in weight because the driveshaft contributed (in part) to relatively tall hulls relative to what was possible. The few attempts to bring it back to the rear OTL (VK 3002 (DB)) arguably didn't try hard enough to actually reduce hull height (the DB's gearbox setup was also far from compact).

Click to expand...

If the engine+transmission is in the rear, and the turret+gun barrel is in the front, there is still a lot of weight in the extreme front. You still have the possible case of muzzle digging in the terrain on an uneven ground.
A shorter engine might've helped in both cases, though. Or, be very advanced, and rotate the engine by 90 deg if the all-rear layout of the powerpack is chosen, as it was the case with the T-44, so the whole combat compartment can be shifted back by 60-90 cm?
T-34-76 vs. the T-44-85:

Elan Vital said:

I had explained it before in another forum, but the 88mm L56 was quite close in power to the Soviet 85mm guns and the US 90mm gun. However, its installation proved less efficient and bulkier. Meanwhile, the Tiger I's hull was pretty big. I do not believe it was impossible to come up with something close to the IS-1 or M26 in terms of size and weight efficiency even in 1942.

Click to expand...

A 'KV-88' for the Germans?

It could be interesting to consider what the effect of Porsche's VK 30.01 (P) becoming the Tiger and mores, the impact of its gasoline-electric drivetrain. I appreciate many of these were converted into the Elefant Panzerjäger and thus did see service but these were in limited numbers.

Another thread to pull on would be if Germany had focussed upon a true Panzer III/IV replacement. Specifically, developing a good, medium weight tank rather than increasingly focussing on heavier and heavier tanks. Even the Panther could be considered quite heavy in this regard - being about 10 tonnes (or more) than equivalent Allied designs - and thus putting a lot of strain on engine and drive trains.

Thus a design of about 30 - 35 tonnes, sloped armour, good suspension, and probably a 75mm KwK 40 or KwK 42 L/70 main gun.

Agreed all the way.
Panther was indeed 10 tons overweight for what it was offering, and it was too big, making for a rewarding target.

I suppose this is where the Germans were originally heading with the planned VK20 or VK30 designs.