Alternative German tanks & AFVs (1 Viewer)

z42 said:

I don't think the torsion bars would require a full foot. Just eyeballing your picture, maybe 10-15cm?

As for alternative suspensions, what about hydropneumatic? I'm not aware of any applications to tanks in the WWII time-frame, but AFAIU oleo struts were used in aircraft so at least the principle was well understood.

Click to expand...

Spielberger quotes it as 14cm in his book on Panther and Variants for the height addition due to torsion bars.

Torsion bars had the advantage of being protected from mud and other debris by being inside the hull. They also allowed the Panther to travel cross country at almost 45 km/h, while leaf suspension limited the Pz. IV to barely 20km/h.

Back to the German light tanks.
Looking at the schematics of the the Pz-IB, the 'consumption' of the protected volume by the propulsion group seems excessive. The Vickers Mk.V light tank , while having the similar motorization, was a lot shorter affair, also lighter, with space for 3 men crew (vs. just 2 on the Pz-I). Perhaps relocating the engine aside the gearbox (and opposite to the driver) would've freed a lot of space.
The Pz-II is a tougher cookie, the bigger gearbox was occupying the best part of the front volume aside to the driver. Here a shorter engine would've helped, especially if relocated amidships. The I6 engine really took a lot of space, as it can be seen by the Wespe cutaway, that saw the engine relocated from the rear position - perhaps this is a right place for a small radial, or for a V6?
Rotating the engine by 90 deg on the Pz-II/Wesepe might've freed more of internal space.

In cases of both Pz-I and -II, all of these nip & tuck jobs also cancel the volume needed for the prop shafts and their protection.

z42 said:

I don't think the torsion bars would require a full foot. Just eyeballing your picture, maybe 10-15cm?

Click to expand...

You may be right. What we really need to do is get that driveshaft out of the way by putting the transmission and sprockets in the back, like on the T-34. Or scrap the transmission entirely, like on….

tomo pauk said:

Looking at the schematics of the the Pz-IB, the 'consumption' of the protected volume by the propulsion group seems excessive. The Vickers Mk.V light tank , while having the similar motorization, was a lot shorter affair, also lighter, with space for 3 men crew (vs. just 2 on the Pz-I). Perhaps relocating the engine aside the gearbox (and opposite to the driver) would've freed a lot of space.

Click to expand...

The Pz-Ib was a bodge job. They had screwed up sticking an underpowered flat 4 engine of 3.5 liters (air cooled) into a 5 ton tank and it was not working. The Ib was an attempt to solve the problem with minimal retooling. Stretch the hull, put in inline 6 in place of the flat 4 opposed engine and mount an extra road wheel to carry the extra weight (which wasn't all that much) and size. They made fewer Ib's than they did Ia's. They used the same engine that was in the 1 ton half-track.
They could have done better but why? Production ended in 1937 for all practical purposes.
There were two later "versions" that were total wastes of time, resources. A side from general size they had nothing in common with the Pz Ib.
They were ordered in late 1939 but due to other things having "priority" they were not built (or completed) until the middle of 1942. They were bad ideas in the Fall of 1939, proved to be bad ideas in the BoF in 1940 and may only have been built to keep cash flow going to the companies. They were useless in 1942.

8 tons 30mm armor on the front, 20mm sides and rear, still a 2 man crew. A high revving 4.7liter engine and 8 forward gears and 2 in reverse (or a 4 speed with a 2 speed?)
The gun was a odd ball firing the same 7.9mm ammo as the German AT rifles. Whatever use it had in 1939/40 was long gone in 1942 and there was no HE ammo (I am sure this time)
40 built. It was fast and it was fast and it was.............................fast.
The other was worse.

Somebody saw a British photo of a Maltida I and said "we got to have something even stupider!!!"
So they labored mightily for over 2 years and produced something that was even dumber than the Maltida I.
At least the Matilda I was cheap.
This thing was twice as heavy (24 short tons, 80mm armor on the front), used an engine of nearly twice the power and went twice as fast (A blistering 25kph, on a road)
Twin MG34s may have been better than the MG 13s in the Pz I but wither they were much better than a Vickers gun is subject to question.
30 built or at least partially. Turrets may have been used in some fortifications?
What is truly astonishing is that each of these had a further development prototype built or building.

The Pz II was an improved Pz I
British were testing this in 1938.

But it didn't really enter production until the summer of 1940.
You need a heck of an improvement to get a Pz II up this level in 1940-41 or even up to the level of a Soviet T-26 mod 39.


Engineering time should have been going into better/improved Pz III & IV tanks (or new 24-28 ton tank)

Shortround6 said:

They could have done better but why? Production ended in 1937 for all practical purposes.
There were two later "versions" that were total wastes of time, resources. A side from general size they had nothing in common with the Pz Ib.
They were ordered in late 1939 but due to other things having "priority" they were not built (or completed) until the middle of 1942. They were bad ideas in the Fall of 1939, proved to be bad ideas in the BoF in 1940 and may only have been built to keep cash flow going to the companies. They were useless in 1942.

Click to expand...

Idea is not to go overboard with the MG-armed tanks, but to make something less cluttered and more useful in the years before ww2. Thus a not-Pz-Ib (ie. a tank made instead the Pz-Ib) with the engine being next to the transmission and the combat compartment in the rear, armed with 20mm gun in a revolving turret, 3 crew members. It also makes outfitting of the chassis with some more substantial weapon easier, even if going with the 150mm howitzer on it is not recommended. Perhaps install the turret from the PSW 222 (85 deg elevation for the 20mm), or some short 75mm in the 'casemate'. Or a 37mm ATG in an open-topped turret, or the 47mm in the less compromised mount than it was on the PzJgd-I.
Heck, Germans installed a 105mm M16 howitzer on the captured Vickers light tanks.

While the Pz-I was not a stellar tank, German army was still 'hungry' not just for tanks, but also for all kinds of self-propelled mounts.

These heavy MG-armed tanks were really a waste.

Shortround6 said:

The Pz II was an improved Pz I

Click to expand...

Pz-II was also pretty ... lavish in how the volume under armor was spent. The inline 6 engine is a great volume-eater unless it is installed parallel to the gearbox and/or next to it, while the prop shaft also adding to the negative math. IMO, the Pz-II should've been also with the engine next to the gearbox from the day one, thus offering much more of volume for crew/ammo/main weapon.
If the 'distributed' powerpack layout is still insisted upon, engine needs to be a V6, or a small radial. Once the engine is moved to the center, like in the case of the Wespe, it also makes the combat compartment bigger, but without the increase in outward volume.

With 20mm moved down to the Pz-I, the Pz-II needs to start out with 37mm.

It seems that German tank design, similar also to aircraft, suffered from an expectation of a short victorious war, and thus there was not enough resources to put into the pipeline of future tanks under development, which came to bit them later on.

I agree with tomo pauk 's suggestion that the Pz III and IV were 'too similar' to each other; it would have made more sense to make a support version of the Pz III with the short 7.5cm gun (like the later Pz III Ausf N actually did), and instead develop the Pz IV as a true next generation tank in the 30-35 ton size class. Developed from the outset with a high velocity 7.5cm gun (the L43/48) in mind, with upgrade potential to eventually mount the 7.5cmL70 from the OTL Panther?

Engine-wise, KISS. Make a family of engines all sharing the same bore, pistons, valves, etc., and make I4, I6, V8, V12 configurations depending on the requirements for each application. V8 for a medium tank, V12 for a heavy.

z42 said:

and instead develop the Pz IV as a true next generation tank in the 30-35 ton size class. Developed from the outset with a high velocity 7.5cm gun (the L43/48) in mind, with upgrade potential to eventually mount the 7.5cmL70 from the OTL Panther?

Click to expand...

Good knows that Germans were making a whole host of 75mm guns that were begging to be installed in the tanks. Barrel lengths (to make the best use of the ammo 'power') from 26, 34, 36, 40.8, and 60 calibers were made before ww2, while the ww2 saw the L43 and L48 sharing the same ammo, and the 46 cal (pak 40) used the ammo of similar dimensions to the L60 Flak weapon. Even the L54 weapon was made in a few dozens. Then we have the ~75mm guns from Czechoslovakia and from Poland, and, indeed, the L70 weapon for the Panther.

Still, it took Germans an eternity to move up from the short 75mm gun. Even the M36 mountain gun and the FK 18 were more powerful than the Kwk 37, with muzzle energies being some 25-30% greater.
Making a real effort to up-gun the Pz-III with a good 75mm gun would've netted the Germans with a tank comparable (if slower) to the early Cromwell, but years earlier. And a much better tank than the 75mm gunned Valentine.
(turret ring diameter was 1530 mm on the Pz-III, 1450mm on the Cromwell)

tomo pauk said:

Good knows that Germans were making a whole host of 75mm guns that were begging to be installed in the tanks.

Click to expand...

Makes me wonder just how far the 75 mm could be developed postwar.

Admiral Beez said:

Makes me wonder just how far the 75 mm could be developed postwar.

Click to expand...

The post war French 75s were a direct development of the Panther L70 gun