Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
Spielberger quotes it as 14cm in his book on Panther and Variants for the height addition due to torsion bars.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.
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….I don't think the torsion bars would require a full foot. Just eyeballing your picture, maybe 10-15cm?
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.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.
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.
The Pz II was an improved Pz I
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.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?
Makes me wonder just how far the 75 mm could be developed postwar.Good knows that Germans were making a whole host of 75mm guns that were begging to be installed in the tanks.
The post war French 75s were a direct development of the Panther L70 gunMakes me wonder just how far the 75 mm could be developed postwar.
Tanks were often space (volume) limited. Granted a lot of high command requirements (especially before the war) where based on theory and not practice.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)
The Pz III was too small to take the big 75mm guns. So it seems that idea is to 'blend' the Pz III and IV, which means a bigger, heavier, costly tank than the Pz III even if not as costly as the Pz IV. Not sure if total cost is actually much different. The Germans went overboard on the Panther, but they needed a 30-35ton tank in 1942, not 1940.instead develop the Pz IV as a true next generation tank in the 30-35 ton size class.
How about this crazy idea: ditch the Pz-III all together?The Pz III was too small to take the big 75mm guns. So it seems that idea is to 'blend' the Pz III and IV, which means a bigger, heavier, costly tank than the Pz III even if not as costly as the Pz IV. Not sure if total cost is actually much different.
The Germans went overboard on the Panther, but they needed a 30-35ton tank in 1942, not 1940.
Converting field artillery to tank guns just gives you a starting point, ammo, tube (sort of) and breech block. You need to come up with mounts, recoil systems, and sights.
A lot of engineering time. Pick wisely. And the bigger guns need bigger turret rings to absorb the recoil without cracking ,or being damaged. Some turrets used a small number of rollers. Much of of the recoil may be directed to just a few rollers.
You reminded me of the AMX Sherman.The post war French 75s were a direct development of the Panther L70 gun
Tanks were often space (volume) limited. Granted a lot of high command requirements (especially before the war) where based on theory and not practice.
A MK IV carried about 30-33% more main gun ammo than the MK III (after they were converted). MK IV also had power traverse. MK IV J had the power traverse deleted, picked up enough fuel storage to increase driving range by around 50%.
You would need a lot more 'support' MK IIIs to give you the same support fire power than the MK IVs. Even more ammo carriers don't quite work the same. You need to get the the tanks back to a safe/safer ammo to replenish ammo and you need to do it rotation (by platoon) if things get drawn out.
German tank doctrine may have been screwed up, but until you change that (pre-war) adding a 2nd support company (even if both are reduced a bit) to the battalion is not saving much in the way of costs of all kinds.
The Pz III was too small to take the big 75mm guns. So it seems that idea is to 'blend' the Pz III and IV, which means a bigger, heavier, costly tank than the Pz III even if not as costly as the Pz IV. Not sure if total cost is actually much different. The Germans went overboard on the Panther, but they needed a 30-35ton tank in 1942, not 1940.
They got overconfident (or believed their own speeches) on superweapons.
The Germans went overboard on the Panther, but they needed a 30-35ton tank in 1942, not 1940.
If Panther offered an all-around armor protection like the KV-85 or IS tanks did, then it would've been really a great tank. (Un)fortunately, sides were every bit as vulnerable as it was the case with the Sherman or T-34 of the time, while the Panther represented a rewarding target to shoot at, and it was not as fast and easy to manufacture as these two tanks (= shortcomings of a heavy tank). Greater weight also meant that any corner-cutting measure will backfire in service, even before the chance to fire at enemy. Vehicles to tow it - again, one cannot use the stuff that is not well-dimensioned to do it, and these don't come in cheap.As for the Panther going overboard, maybe, maybe not. When it was eventually introduced, I don't think a 45 ton general purpose tank was necessarily a bad choice.
If Panther offered an all-around armor protection like the KV-85 or IS tanks did, then it would've been really a great tank. (Un)fortunately, sides were every bit as vulnerable as it was the case with the Sherman or T-34 of the time, while the Panther represented a rewarding target to shoot at, and it was not as fast and easy to manufacture as these two tanks (= shortcomings of a heavy tank).
Greater weight also meant that any corner-cutting measure will backfire in service, even before the chance to fire at enemy. Vehicles to tow it - again, one cannot use the stuff that is not well-dimensioned to do it, and these don't come in cheap.
Roof armor was very thin, 16mm.
The gun chosen was light and compact for the AP performance it offered, but it meant that a whole new gun and ammo needs to be designed and manufacture; ammo was not compact anymore, as it was the case with the gun Pz-IV used, the barrel life was bad, a consequence of the big propellant weight (30-50% more than on the Tiger's gun for AP shots) and the high MV. At the end of the day, the known 88mm did that job as good, it was with the better HE abilities, and with triple the barrel life. Redesigning the Tiger's gun to be a bit more compact would've probably been a good thing to do, so it is as compact as the Soviet 85mm gun?
That may have been doctrine and not related to actual production capacity, or related as much. They seem to have done fairly well with the MK IV design from the start. In part because it was 18-19 ton tank from the start. But even at 20 tons (D model) it only had 30mm armor at the front and 20mm armor on the sides, earlier MK IVs were even thinner. The Early MK IIIs (A-D) were 16 ton tanks with 15mm armor. They also were built in small numbers, perhaps because they were not happy with the suspension (changed 3 times) the transmission (or performance (also changed 3 times) and there was the argument between the tank guys (we want a 50mmgun) and the regular army supply guys (37mm gun/ammo is cheaper and is common with the infantry for easier logistics). Perhaps due to shorter hull the MK III had 30mm side armor on the E model (Dec 1938?) MK IV didn't get 30mm side armor until the F model of April 1941 (maybe my old source book is wrong?) Building lots of early versions they didn't like or were experimenting with might not have been smart.While the production of Pz-IIIs picked up handsomely from mid-1940 and on, it was actually Pz-IV that was a more numerous tank during the winter of 1939/40, and was conceived a tad earlier (despite the nomenclature suggesting otherwise).
True but in 1939/early 1940 there was not quite the logistics nightmare there would be later.Another benefit is that German logistics becomes a tad easier, with one ammo type to work with.
You are quite right, it was cost cutting maneuver, or supply problem (copper for the electric motor). But it does illustrate the volume problem. The fuel tank that replaced the traverse system was 200 liters. Most earlier MK IVs held 470 liters. There was never enough room for everything inside the tank. Until an army had seen a fair amount of combat judging was truly important vs just nice to have had room for error.As for the late war Pz IV variants lacking power traverse, AFAIU that was more a desperation cost cutting maneuver when everything started going pear shaped. ~1min30s for a full 360deg traverse is better than no tank at all, I suppose, but sheesh.
Panther's ammo was wider at the rim, 122 mm vs. 111 for the Tiger. Or, the area of the case bottom was ~20% greater. So stacking 80-90 of either might've result in the Panther's ammo needing greater volume than the Tiger's ammo.On the Panther, trying to hold just about the same ammo (80 rounds vs 87?) of the much larger ammo means you need a larger hull.
You are quite right, it was cost cutting maneuver, or supply problem (copper for the electric motor). But it does illustrate the volume problem. The fuel tank that replaced the traverse system was 200 liters. Most earlier MK IVs held 470 liters. There was never enough room for everything inside the tank. Until an army had seen a fair amount of combat judging was truly important vs just nice to have had room for error.