- Thread starter
- #61
Short 50mm was at 400 kg for the total gun = barrel + breech block + breech (together 223 kg) + cradle + recoil system (together 177 kg). Long 50mm was at 435 kg, while the short 75mm was at 490 kg.
From here.
Alternative German tanks & AFVs (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter tomo pauk
- Start date
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
From here.
Good point about the size of the cartridge maximum diameter.
As for diesel, I think we've discussed it in several threads over the past few years. At the level of the individual tank the difference might not be hugely significant, as the smaller fuel tanks for a given range are offset by a bigger and heavier engine?
But reducing the logistics volume might be significant, although partially offset by requirement to support both petrol and diesel rather than only petrol?
But the biggest benefits would have been in the fuel production itself. Fischer Tropsch plants (suitable for diesel type fuels) are much less capital intensive than the Bergius process plants that produce high octane petrol. And even if you have access to crude oil, diesel production requires only fractional distillation and none of the petrochemical heroics required for high octane petrol.
The Germans originally chose petrol for their tanks because they thought that petrol would be easier to come by. When eventually it was reported to them that synthetic diesel production would be easier they started programs to design diesel tank engines, but nothing became of them before the end of the war.
don4331
Senior Airman
Or the limiting factor in stacking the rounds is the ability to slip my mitts under the round to pick it up and that is significantly more than the 1cm of rim difference = more/less the same volume to stack the same number of rounds.
Diesels get much better mileage running under light load...but tanks are rarely run under light load (tracks don't just roll down the road) - you rail/transport them to the front, fight your battle, then rail them to the next location. So, 100s of km, not 1,000s. As a result, the difference for tanks isn't as significant as say trucks. Mixing petrol for you trucks with diesel for your tanks will result in some logistics issues.
The fuel injection for a diesel is much more expensive than the carb for a gasoline engine. You don't have issues with your gasoline jelling in the cold (just water in the block freezing). And a fire, the result of spilled diesel is as bad or worse the petrol - just much less chance of explosion...
Heer towed single axle trailer behind their panzers holding couple 45 gal drums for external fuel. Which was just about as easy/safe method of providing external fuel. (Probably better for the suspension not to have the additional load).
Pay attention to Soviets when they question whether you are really building short 50mm gunned tank as the post Spanish conflict main tank. Pz III & IV should have been rationalized: Take the basic Pz III hull/suspension, enlarge to Pz IV size (I think it means adding a boggy), then Pz IV "superstructure". If you take the post Czech/pre-BoP time to convert Skoda to building the rationalized tank, you have commonality. And the rationalized tank can take up to the 75mm/48
Germans went to a 40-45 ton tank for the Pz V because they got burned just going from 10-15 ton tanks to 20-25 ton tanks (or did they really just got to 15-20 and 25 tons is already overloaded for the Pz. III/IV). They skipped the 30-35 class, so they wouldn't get burned again.
- Thread starter
- #64
IMO, there was probably not a lot to choose wrt. the possible ammo count or the ease (or lack of it) of manhandling of either the Panther's or the Tiger's ammo.
A good idea might've been not to mix the fuels. Same as what the Soviets, British, USMC or the Japanese did.
Even the good plans don't survive the meeting with the enemy. So having the potential for greater mileage can be a nice cushion when the things go south, and we know that many times that happened. Cutting of the raliroads and marshaling yards happened time after time, and not just to the Germans. We also have a thing of railroads not being where we want/need them.
German ability to make mechanical devices was far better than their access to the liquid fuel of any kind.
Diesels still worked in the cold.
A 45+ ton tank should've been an all-singing all-dancing type. Panther was not that.
ThomasP
Senior Master Sergeant
Is there any reason to think that the 'other' Panther design (I do not remember who this was by - maybe BMW Daimler-Benz?) would have been better than the historical Panther? My understanding is that the 'other' design was at first selected for production but that the selection was fairly quickly changed to the historical Panther.
edit: I just checked - the 2 main designs were by MAN (the Panther as historically built) and Daimler-Benz (the original winner of the design competition). Changed BMW to Daimler Benz in my post.
edit: I just checked - the 2 main designs were by MAN (the Panther as historically built) and Daimler-Benz (the original winner of the design competition). Changed BMW to Daimler Benz in my post.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #66
There was also the Skoda T-25 project, that looked like the T-34 with Panther's gun. Germans more or less blindly copying the KV-1 (but with the German gun and engine) is my idea
But indeed the DB proposal does not look bad in hindsight.
Shortround6
Major General
Well, allowing for the same "mitt" spacing between rounds you are going to get about 10% less ammo into the same length of rack for 10% larger ammo. And if the rack is double row things aren't too bas but triple starts to get questionable.
The US didn't like dealing with diesel for logistical reasons during WW II and even well beyond. The US didn't really shift to diesel until Nov 1956 with the decision to use a diesel in the M-60 tank. Took a while for the design and testing. M48A3s with diesels were rebuilds. Most NATO countries didn't get into diesels until the mid-late 1950s, that is they started programs to shift to diesel as the common NATO standard fuel. Expecting the Germans to do it in the late 30s and early WW II period seems a bit much.
Not sure that building a 'standard' larger, heavier, costlier tank is going to result in larger tank production totals in 1940-41-42. Might have paid dividends in 1943.
German "mass" production wasn't mass production in those years. Even in 1942 with 2958 MK III chassis built there were 7 different factories making them, Some factories made a lot more than others. For the MK IVs in 1942 with just under 1000 chassis built in 3 different factories the 3 factories were averaging just under 28 tanks per month per factory.
In 1940 with just under 1500 MK IIIs and IVs built in total (fewer factories) I am not at all sure that there would have been any real difference in total production.
If the MK IV takes 10% more material and labor to make do you get more or fewer tanks at the end of the year? The Germans were craft producing tanks in numerous small shops that were spread out. They weren't mass producing anything.
- Thread starter
- #68
American and German fuel situation was not the same. Americans could've afforded to burn the fuel as much as it was needed and to give it out for free, while Germans were in the opposite situation.
For the reasons known just to them, Germans opted to make the Pz-IV just at Krupp before 1941. While Krupp concern was opposite of what was/is a small shop, getting another 2-3 factories to make the Pz-IVs already by 1939 should've been a priority. It was 2 additional factories that were involved into the Pz-IV production from 1941 on.
The Pz-III was already by 1940 being produced by both DB and MN, while in 1941 the number of factories making the Pz-III and StuG-III was at 1st 6, with 7th quickly following.
Germans were mass-producing the Pz-I and -II, at least for the conditions of the late 1930s, but managed to make very restricted tanks out of them.
Shortround6
Major General
Very true, but the American Army gave just about all of the Diesel powered US tanks (and tank destroyers) to the British, Soviets and US Marines. Mostly so the Army didn't have to deal with supplying diesel fuel. The US army had different priorities and not having to arrange for special supply convoys to keep the Diesel powered vehicles moving was one of them.
For the Germans attacking France the ability to use captured French fuel may have been an advantage. In 1941 the vast majority of Soviet tanks used gasoline.
Diesel is the better technical answer, for a number of reasons. But there were reasons for not using also.
- Thread starter
- #71
US armed forces were an outlier.
It is/was incomprehensible from a point of view of any other country/military that anything that is war material can be spent in the lavish fashion, from fuel and food to hardware.
As the weight of the tanks grews, and together with it the required engine power, the diesel engine starts to became ever more appealing. So while the Pz-I and -II might be left alone wrt. the fuel choice, by the time tanks are in the 20 tons and engine powers are at 300 HP, diesels starts to make sense?
- Thread starter
- #72
Shortround6
Major General
Yes and no. The US was certainly experimenting with Diesel engines, they just weren't getting the results they wanted and they were worried about the logistics. The US had the resources to make the diesel fuel, what they were trying to do was not duplicate the supply chain for the field armies.
They had used some radial diesels in the M2/M1 combat car and M3 light tanks ( a few hundred?)
They had use the twin GMC diesels starting in the M3 medium tanks and they had built around 75 M4A6 tanks with Caterpillar radial diesels (rest of the order canceled).
There may have been a few other one-offs?
Aside from the twin GMC diesels they didn't have good luck with diesels they tried.
For the US there was fear than they could not supply the needed fuel/s in a timely manner thousands of miles away from the US. If, for instance, you have division/field army with diesel tanks achieve a breakthrough and advance dozens of miles and start running out of diesel, what do they do? It does them no good to reroute gasoline from the field army on their left flank that stalled and didn't advance very far because the gasoline won't work in the diesel vehicles or the other way around. In France after the Breakout from Normandy they would up laying a pipeline over ground to pump fuel to a forward depot to reduce the time it took for the trucks to reach the front lines. Even the lavish US did not have enough trucks, men to keep up the supplies. Need to lay another pipe line? or use the pipe line for gasoline while some of the tanker trucks drove much further to get the diesel at the port/s? The roadways were nightmare. Some of the roads were turned one way. Returning empty trucks used smaller roads paralleling the major route/s. Motorized divisions could use well over 100 tons of fuel per day if they were moving, more if they were moving fast, less if they were stopped (but unless resting they generally used more ammo).
I would note that the British didn't use diesel powered tanks in their later models. In part because the British didn't have much in the way of suitable diesel engines once they had exceed the two bus engine solution.
