- Thread starter
-
- #21
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
That is because the numbers fitted the doctrine.The 3:1 production ratio of the Pz-III vs. Pz-IV was sustained during even through 1942; same was the thing about the on-hand numbers. Production of StuG-III was in the ballpark with the Pz-IV production, from 1940 to 1942.
Now in France in 1940 proposed doctrine was a real mess in the Field because there were nowhere near the number of MK IIIs needed to fill out the tables of organization. Which led to the hundreds of MK 1 and MK II tanks being used to fill out the numbers in the medium tank companies. Also the numbers of Pz 35(t) and Pz 38(t)s used as ersatz PZ IIIs. in two divisions.
The short 75 didn't penetrate any more armor than the 37mm gun did so the Pz IVs were not intended to be the anti-tank element of the Pz division.
This is a "what if" and we don't have to follow the historical path, but the historical path was driven by doctrine, at least at times. We also had to consider some of these prototypes to show us what was technically possible. The VK 3001 for some reason used a 300hp 11 liter 6 cylinder engine and had a top speed of 25kph (?). Lack of torque?
11-12 liter engines are not going to work in 30 ton tanks unless you use a lot of gears. Yes you can build new engines. Germans had hole in their engine selection, not much except experimentals between 12 liters and 21 liters.
How much work was needed to "upgrade" the Pz II to 37mm gun? New mantlet? New periscope/sight? or new turret with two men in the turret.There were about thousand of Pz-I and Pz-II manufactured before 1940, each. Up-gunning several hundred of Pz-IIs with 37mm guns would've been a prudent move IMO. Granted, not as good as the proper Pz-III, or even the Pz-38(t), but they will be able to harm the majority of the French and British tanks without the need to close to the stone-throw distances.
Lifts a lot of the burden from the Pz-III units, too.
At what ranges and using what for ammo?In theory, maybe.
In practice, the short 75mm gun was judged to be a better anti-tank weapon in 1940.
Full agreement on changing to the 50mm gun on the Pz III in 1939 if possible. Changing the 75mm on the Pz Iv and Stug may be counter productive for 1940.Germans don't need to limit themselves to the 37mm on Pz-III as early as 1939, nor to limit themselves to the short 75mm on the Pz-IV (if it still gets built) and StuG-III also as early as 1939.
The radial engine in the M2-M3-M4 series was a 16 liter engine. The difference in torque was lot different than the difference in nominal HP. The Liberty was a 27 liter engine, one reason the British could get away with 4 speed transmissions (although that may have been a mistake in hind sight).300 HP was too feeble power for a 30 ton tank, unless it is a specifically designed 'infantry' tank, like what the British were making. A V8 engine of the same lineage would've been better (~400 HP), and the V12 (500 HP, but less stressed) would've been even better.
Preferably a 2-men turret, like the one used on the Czech tanks once the Germans gotten their hands on these.A bit long winded but what is the set up for a 37mm gun in the Pz II? Single man in the turret with the radio operator slapping rounds into his out stretched hand? Bigger turret so that the loader can actually get head/shoulder/arm into turret to slap rounds into the breech? What is the rate of fire and more importantly, what is the rate of engagement?
The 'no free lunch' rule still applies.How much 37mm ammo can you fit in a Pz II tank?
A 37mm gun has more firepower, as long as the ammo holds out. Is it faster to get repeat shots with or to swing onto a new target? If you you need a new turret how much does it weigh? What else aren't you getting while the shops/factories build new turrets?
On the normal combat distances in the 1940 campaign, and with next to no HEAT ammo.At what ranges and using what for ammo?
How much HEAT did they have? The HEAT works (if it hits) at any range, the problem is getting the hits at long range.
Waste of resources.Preferably a 2-men turret, like the one used on the Czech tanks once the Germans gotten their hands on these.
Germans didn't issue 20mm HE to the tanks. Soft targets were machine gun only.Against the soft targets, what the 37mm gun does with one shell, the 20mm will need to fire perhaps 3, maybe more, or maybe one will suffice. Against the hard targets, the 20mm might be completely useless
Reduce orders for the Pz II, assign them to recon, build more Pz 38(t) and Pz IIIs.You don't get the turrets for 20mm guns. Amount of the 37mm guns is in huge surplus anyways. Yes, the 37mm ammo count will be smaller than that of 20mm.
Not for 1939-40.Waste of resources.
Are we positive about that?Germans didn't issue 20mm HE to the tanks.
Good idea.Reduce orders for the Pz II, assign them to recon, build more Pz 38(t) and Pz IIIs.
That is what this book seems to say.Are we positive about that?
If a commander wants to change 20mm ammo he has to take the current magazine out and put the new type of ammo in?
Swap out the Panther's torsion bars for the Panzer IV's leaf spring double-bogie suspension and we can get the height down by at least a foot.Panther was indeed 10 tons overweight for what it was offering, and it was too big, making for a rewarding target.
Excerpt from the book about the Pz-II from Jenz, wrt. the experiences of 1940:
Use of HE ammo was also noted during the Norwegian campaign.
Thank you for the correction/s.Not a problem, especially with teh small magazines. Although, loading alternatively the magazines with AP and HE ammo would not be unheard of.
One does wonder about the lack of use of the Czech 37 in other German vehicles, on paper it has several good points. The British were in no hurry to change it.
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:
It was certainly possible to do better than the T-34. Eg. the transversal transmission might save perhaps half a meter? Add to the your suggestions, for even greater effect. Having a shorter, more compact engine (like the German V12s, or Kestrel, or Merlin/Meteor, or a V8) also can help a lot.Yes, but in retrospect it might be possible to do better than the T-34 even with a rear transmission and a longitudinally mounted engine. Have more angle on the upper front hull plate, put the driver in a more inclined position and look out through a periscope, and you could get a longer but lower hull? Like on the Centurion (pic of a much newer version, but the basic layout is the same as the Mk I that just missed WWII):
The earlier they start doing it, the better their tanks/AFVs became. They can start as early as Spring of 1939.When can the Germans start tapping into Czech tank production, and how quickly can that be scaled up? If possible to do better here than in the OTL, maybe switch to Pz38-derived designs for anything where a light chassis is sufficient, shut down domestic light tank production (Pz I and II), and convert the domestic tank production to heavier ones?
- A Pz38 derived 10.5cm SP howitzer instead of the Wespe?
If it dawns on the Germans very early, then yes.Can we get the Hetzer into production sooner?
And Pz38/Hetzer derived SPAA (there was the single 20mm variant, but maybe the slightly bigger Hetzer chassis can take a single 37mm, with an open turret with some minimal splinter protection, later the Kugelblitz style enclosed turret with twin 30mm?) , recovery vehicles, bridge layers, ammo carriers etc.?
Considering how common rear drive tanks were even after the adoption of thick frontal armor and/or heavy turrets and guns including in the postwar era (almost all NATO tanks), it seems at least that it was still fine from a mass distribution standpoint.Yes, but in retrospect it might be possible to do better than the T-34 even with a rear transmission and a longitudinally mounted engine. Have more angle on the upper front hull plate, put the driver in a more inclined position and look out through a periscope, and you could get a longer but lower hull? Like on the Centurion (pic of a much newer version, but the basic layout is the same as the Mk I that just missed WWII):
I don't think the torsion bars would require a full foot. Just eyeballing your picture, maybe 10-15cm?Swap out the Panther's torsion bars for the Panzer IV's leaf spring double-bogie suspension and we can get the height down by at least a foot.