Fall 1942. What if Tiger I placed into large scale production?

GrauGeist said:

Oh here we go...

So in your world, Dave, the Wehrmacht could care less about the T-34 and didn't even acknowledge it existed.

The reality was that the Ju87D(field mod)/G and Hs129 operated at risk as the Luftwaffe lost air supremacy in spite of thier anti-armor effectiveness.

In 1941, the Wehrmacht was shocked when they encountered the T-34. Up to that point, they had been enjoying great success over the BT series Soviet tanks. At that time, there wasn't sufficeint numbers of Wehrmacht armor that were equipped with the PaK38, which was the only real effective weapon they had to stop the T-34, and that was only at dangerously close ranges.
The bulk of German armor was the PzKfw II, III, IV and 38(t) at that time and all were vulnerable to the T-34.

The PzKfw V (Panther) was a response to the T-34, being designed based on that threat and being put into production and reaching the battlefield by 1943, getting it's baptism of fire at Kursk.

In the case of the King Tiger, the idea of a heavy tank had been considered for some time (since late 30's) but with the advent of the T-34, it became aparent one was needed. The King Tiger was designed with the T-34 in mind, as a battlefield supremacy objective and also reached the battlefield in 1943.

I won't go into deep details regarding those, as it's been exhaustively discussed already and I don't want to hijack the thread...but there it is...the T-34 forced a new-threat upgrade with German armor.

Click to expand...

You beat me to the punch! (But it wasn't the King Tiger that was designed with the T-34 in mind, it was the Tiger I!)

davebender said:

What urgency would you be referring to?

7.5cm Pak40 AT gun was already in pipeline. Production of SP variant (i.e. Marder) remained small.

Panzer III remained armed with 5cm main gun rather then lengthening chassis so it could be armed with 7.5cm high velocity cannon.

Panzer IV production was not significantly increased until 1943. Until then production did not exceed 1,000 vehicles per year (i.e. less then 100 per month average).

Henschel Vk3001(H) and Vk3601(H) chassis were more or less ready to go during 1941. Heer was in no hurry to add vehicle hull and turret then rush the new medium tank into production. In fact neither vehicle ever had a complete prototype (chassis + hull + turret).

Tiger tank was never placed into large scale production.

Ju-87D was an effective tank killer using cluster munitions or under wing cannon. Ju-87 production did not drastically increase and the first cannon armed variants didn't appear until 1943.

Hs.129 was an effective tank killer and development was completed during 1941. However only 221 produced during 1942.

Click to expand...

Mr. Bender is making claims which are truly lies!

As Juha posted the Marder series was a conversion of different chassis with captured 7,62cm barrels.
The Panzer III was equipped as immediate action to the arrival of the T34 (August 1941) with the long 5cm L60 barrel.
The claim the Panzer III could be equipped with a long barrel 7,5cm through lengthening the chassis is a lie. The problem wasn't the chassis, the problem was the turret, because the original turret was to small and the bore diameter for a bigger turret wasn't existing.

The biggest lie of Mr. Bender are the numbers and descriptions of the Panzer IV.
The production of the Panzer IV was 1941 481, 1942 994, 1943 3014. As you can see the production of the Panzer IV increased from 1941 to 1942 at 100%. But this are not the decisive numbers, because next to the immediate action of the Panzer III 5cm L60 barrel, an advertisement of a long barreld PanzerIV was given Oktober/November 1941 and the first production was March 1942 of a long barrel Panzer IV F2. The production numbers of the Panzer IV F2 and G from March 1942 to March 1943 were 1700 tanks.
So everybody can see as the long barrel Panzer IV was in production the numbers were immediately increased. At March 1942 the Panzer IV was the MBT of the Wehrmacht and the most produced tank.

Also the claim about the VK 3001H and the VK 3601 is a lie!
The VK 3001H had no single advantage to a long barrel Panzer IV and wasn't at any time 1941 production ready!
The VK 3601H was the dirct forerunner of the Tiger I, but with a conical 7,5 cm gun, this gun couldn't be produced through tungsten shortness.
So the chassis of the 3601H must be enlarged to have the bore diameter for the larger Tiger I turret with the 8,8 cm gun.

The development of the Tiger I had nothing to do with the T 34 because the final advertisement of the Tiger I was may 1941, long before the T 34 was ever seen.

Edit:

The T-34 and KV-1 were the reasons the 3601 morphed into the 4501 which after the start of Barbarossa morphed to accommodate even heavier armor and the 88 - the only gun at the time of Barbarossa the German had which could reliably take out a KV-1, and also the reason the 3601 never went into production. Thus a 30-ton pre-war design morphed into a 45-ton wartime design (May '41) and then finally ended up a 56-ton wartime production model.

Click to expand...

This claim is incorrect!

DonL said:

The development of the Tiger I had nothing to do with the T 34 because the final advertisement of the Tiger I was may 1941, long before the T 34 was ever seen.

Edit:



This claim is incorrect!

Click to expand...

May '41 is when design submissions for a 45-ton tank were requested from Henschel and Porsche. Henschel provided two prototypes, both being improved 3601s. These became the VK 4501(H) H1 (88L56) and H2 (75L70). The actual ordering of the 45 ton was done after the start of Barbarossa and as a result of first encounters with the T-34 and KV-1. Henschel continued development, decided to focus on the H1, and the final result - the Tiger prototype - was approved for production in July '42.

The original designs for the 4501 were scheduled to be completed by June '42. The encounters with the Russian tanks resulted in a sudden ordering for the functional prototypes - not just the design work - to be ready by April '42. The T-34 and KV-1 drastically increased the design, development, and deployment of the Tiger. Without these two tanks, DD&D would have continued at a much more leisurely pace and the end result may well have been a lighter (45-ton) Tiger with a 75L70. The Russian tanks drove the DD&D of the Tiger.

So while Barbarossa was not the direct impetus for the 4501, it was the impetus for the 4501 becoming the Tiger and - more importantly - for it being deployed perhaps a year ahead of the original schedule of May 26 '41.

And "lie" is a harsh word to use. Please just note that the information is incorrect and provide your corrections and leave it at that.

Yep, DonL is right, the tiger was being finalised as a design well before the t-34 was even known about. That is not to say however that the new Soviet tank did not have a profound effect on German thinking and procurement, after it was encountered. Guderian set up a special commission in November 1941, which led to the accelarated introduction of the tiger, and the development of the panther as the main battle type. The germans did toy with making a straight copy of the t-34, but for reasons relating mostly to national pride, decided against such abject copying

Contrary to the popular histories, T-34s were concentrated into a few formarions at the beginning of the war. Among the 22 or so mechanized corps deployed in western russia in June 1941, four formations were well equipped with the new Tank; on the day of German invasion, about 70% of the total T-34 and KV tanks produced at that time were deployed in the 6th, 4th, 8th, and 15th MC. The 6th MC operated in Białystok area, and all of the others in the Soviet Ukraine. All of their engagements with German tanks happened during or just before the Battle of Brody (1941). At the beginning of the war, there were 1590 T-34s on strength whilst the Germans had 1190 tanks with 50mm armamanet ofr larger.

In the opening days of the campaign, the 15th MC destroyed 43 German tanks for the loss of 13 KV, 6 T-34, and 32 BT tanks from 22 to 26 June 1941. The 8th MC lost up to 95% of tanks fiercely fighting in Dubno area between 26 June and 1 July 1941

Tank-to-tank battles were rare at the beginning of operation Barbarossa as Germans did not seek them; they preferred to bypass the Soviet armor when possible. The two stand-out formations, 4th and 6th MC, lost almost all of T-34 and KV tanks during movement, not coming under any German effective direct attack. Both corps tried to assemble counterattacks against German infantry (not against panzers), but the counterattacks had no impact and were barely noticeable. Same pertained to the 15th MC after 26 June.

In the first two weeks of invasion, the Soviet Union suffered the loss of most of its T-34 and KV tanks, as well as the loss of most of the older tanks (over 80% of losses were not combat related):

By 12 July 1941, the 4th MC had 45 new tanks out of the original 414.
By 27 June 1941, the 6th MC had ceased to exist having lost all 450 new tanks.
By 7 July 1941, the 8th MC had 43 tanks (both old and new) out of original 899.
By 7 July 1941, the 15th MC had 66 tanks (both old and new) out of original 749.

On one hand, these corps had within weeks lost most of their T-34 and KV tanks, but on the other hand, German reports did not note such a massive elimination in combat. Quite the contrary, Wehrmacht after action repports noted their high battlefield effectiveness. The number of non-combat losses was unprecedented (and a repeat of what happened to the tigers 2 years later).

In the first weeks of the invasion, the main German anti-tank weapon was the 3.7 cm Pak 36 gun. The new 5 cm Pak 38 gun had just begun to enter service in small numbers, with a maximum of two guns per infantry regiment. Both types were practically useless against the T-34.

German tanks of the time used similar types of guns, ineffective against the armor of new Soviet tanks. Generally the T-34 clearly outclassed the existing Panzer III and Panzer IV medium tanks.

Attempts to destroy the T-34 and KV tanks concentrated on first immobilising them by firing at their tracks and then by tackling them with field artillery, anti-aircraft guns, or by blowing them up at close range by shaped charge grenades.

At the insistence of General Heinz Guderian, a special Panzerkommision arrived on 20 November 1941 on the Eastern Front to assess the T-34. To respond to the Soviet tanks, the Germans were forced to accelarate the intorduction of new, heavier designs such as the Panther and Tiger, which in turn forced upgrades to the Soviet, United States and British tank fleets. The T-34 was awatershed design that fundamentally altered many facets of tank design forever. Saying it was rubbish is really laughable, except that people believe as a serious argument.

And "lie" is a harsh word to use. Please just note that the information is incorrect and provide your corrections and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

At normal circumstances I fully agree, but we have discussed this issue with Mr. Bender several times.
He is fully aware that from primary sources and the work from Mr. Walter Spielberger (something like bibels about the tanks of the Wehrmacht in german language), the Panzer III had problems with his turrets and the bore diameter of the turrets for a long barrel. 7,5cm gun.
Also after Mr. Bender's claims the VK 3001H was 1941 production ready and killed from Albert Speer, both claims are totaly incorrect and also this was discussed several times.
Also Mr. Bender claimed that the Panzer IV was designed from the beginning as a weapon carrier and not a tank.

He has his very own world of the development of german tanks.

http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/tanks-europe-1944-45-a-33460.html#post922855
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/tanks-europe-1944-45-a-33460.html#post923357
http://www.ww2aircraft.net/forum/ww2-general/german-afv-pictures-1181-10.html#post974605

As you can see the issue was more then one time discussed and to repeat over and over claims that are incorrect, how will you name this?

Edit to parsifal

The germans did toy with making a straight copy of the t-34, but for reasons relating mostly to national pride, decided against such abject copying

Click to expand...

To Mr. Spielberger this is incorrect.
There are two main reasons against this project

1. The germans had not the ability to produce the T34 engine through the lack of aluminium. There was not enough aluminium for the LW and a mass produced tank engine. And a german grey iron block and cylinder head would have weight about 1300-1400kg.
Also there was a big question if such a german engine will match to the original T34 engine room and the logistic problem of the mixed supply of petrol and diesel for tank divisions..
2. The second reason was clearly the silhouette of such a german copy and the danger on the battlefield through mistaken identities and the confusion of the own troops.

DonL said:

2. The second reason was clearly the silhouette of such a german copy and the danger of the battlefield through mistaken identities and the confusion of the own troops.

Click to expand...

I've read several stories how later German armor was mistaken for a T-34 by Russian solders during the winters on the eastern front...

The germans did toy with making a straight copy of the t-34, but for reasons relating mostly to national pride, decided against such abject copying

To Mr. Spielberger this is incorrect.
There are two main reasons against this project

1. The germans had not the ability to produce the T34 engine through the lack of aluminium. There was not enough aluminium for the LW and a mass produced tank engine. And a german grey iron block and cylinder head would have weight about 1300-1400kg.
Also there was a big question if such a german engine will match to the original T34 engine room and the logistic problem of the mixed supply of petrol and diesel for tank divisions..
2. The second reason was clearly the silhouette of such a german copy and the danger on the battlefield through mistaken identities and the confusion of the own troops.

Click to expand...

I dont have a copy of Spielberger, so ill have to accept what you say. However, the germans could have reverse engineereed the T-34 and exchanged the aluminium engine blocks with something more suited to the Germans, im sure. There definately was talk of a straight copy of the T-34, but it was dropped pretty quickly

Parsifal,

it wasn't all that easy, the engine was a real problem and the germans weren't also happy with the T 34/76 turret, which was in reality a major flaw.
They wanted their 7,5cm L70 gun.
So the reeingineering wasn't small more a big one.

The sloping armor of the T-34 was not a lesson lost on the Germans, it was taken very seriously.

The Germans also used captured T-34s, designated PzKfw T-34(r), mostly the T-34/76 though there were much fewer T-34/85 captured and used from 1943 onwards.

DonL said:

Mr. Bender is making claims which are truly lies!

As Juha posted the Marder series was a conversion of different chassis with captured 7,62cm barrels.
The Panzer III was equipped as immediate action to the arrival of the T34 (August 1941) with the long 5cm L60 barrel.
The claim the Panzer III could be equipped with a long barrel 7,5cm through lengthening the chassis is a lie. The problem wasn't the chassis, the problem was the turret, because the original turret was to small and the bore diameter for a bigger turret wasn't existing.

The biggest lie of Mr. Bender are the numbers and descriptions of the Panzer IV.
The production of the Panzer IV was 1941 481, 1942 994, 1943 3014. As you can see the production of the Panzer IV increased from 1941 to 1942 at 100%. But this are not the decisive numbers, because next to the immediate action of the Panzer III 5cm L60 barrel, an advertisement of a long barreld PanzerIV was given Oktober/November 1941 and the first production was March 1942 of a long barrel Panzer IV F2. The production numbers of the Panzer IV F2 and G from March 1942 to March 1943 were 1700 tanks.
So everybody can see as the long barrel Panzer IV was in production the numbers were immediately increased. At March 1942 the Panzer IV was the MBT of the Wehrmacht and the most produced tank.

Also the claim about the VK 3001H and the VK 3601 is a lie!
The VK 3001H had no single advantage to a long barrel Panzer IV and wasn't at any time 1941 production ready!
The VK 3601H was the dirct forerunner of the Tiger I, but with a conical 7,5 cm gun, this gun couldn't be produced through tungsten shortness.
So the chassis of the 3601H must be enlarged to have the bore diameter for the larger Tiger I turret with the 8,8 cm gun.

The development of the Tiger I had nothing to do with the T 34 because the final advertisement of the Tiger I was may 1941, long before the T 34 was ever seen.

Edit:



This claim is incorrect!

Click to expand...

How about we stop using the word Lies and change it to "information is not correct" or "Inaccurate". You can get your point across without being an ass...

silence said:

And "lie" is a harsh word to use. Please just note that the information is incorrect and provide your corrections and leave it at that.

Click to expand...

Smart. Listen to this man DonL.

DonL said:

Parsifal,

it wasn't all that easy, the engine was a real problem and the germans weren't also happy with the T 34/76 turret, which was in reality a major flaw.

Click to expand...

Yep. The 34/76 had a two man turret with commander doubling as gunner (I think). The Germans wanted to keep their three-man turret design so that the commander could focus on commanding and the gunner on gunning. And the early "MickeyMouse" turret hatch design - which was hinged towards the front - was just horrid. It looks kinda like the commander almost had to climb out to get a good view of what was ahead.

With all its flaws, though, it was perhaps the most revolutionary tank every produced.

The Germans actually referred to the Soviet turret as the "Mickey Mouse" because the hatches resembled Mickey Mouse's ears when they were open.

Most were sent to Riga for reworking to upgrade to Wehrmacht specs

GrauGeist said:

The sloping armor of the T-34 was not a lesson lost on the Germans, it was taken very seriously.

The Germans also used captured T-34s, designated PzKfw T-34(r), mostly the T-34/76 though there were much fewer T-34/85 captured and used from 1943 onwards.

Click to expand...

What's interesting about this is that many ships in both the Kaiser's fleet and the RN of WWI had internal scarps as backups to the main armor belt (although these scarps were nothing like what went on the Scharnhorst and Bismarck class). If the T-34 was indeed the first major tank to use sloped armor (and I have no idea if it was or was not), you have to wonder why this naval feature was not incorporated on tanks earlier.

If you want to get right down to it, the first instance of sloped armor plating used in warfare would have been the Confederate States Navy's CSS Virginia (referred to sometimes by the original name: USS Merrimack)

The German school of thought was similiar to other circles where a fortified Glacis and mobility would keep the tank out of harm's way...even though there were examples of how this theory was outdated from lessons learned over the years. Though in all fairness, the French were the first to use it during the first World War.

You can clearly see the line of influence the T-34 had on the Panzer school of thought by looking at the pre-1941 designs: PzKfw I, II, III, IV - Tiger, StuG, etc. and post 1941: Panther, Tiger, Jagdpanzer and Hetzer.

And other countries were quick to adapt, too...so the credit for this "modern" revolution goes to Mikhail Koshkin of the Kharkov Locomotive factory that designed and built the T-34.

Some corrections to some statements:
Both Marder II and III started as vonversions of existing chassis but were later produced using new chassis (actually more new than conversions).
Panzer IV F2/G production was actually 1927 until June 43, plus ~2930 H and ~3150 J
Panzer III problem was indeed the diameter of the turret ring, adapting it for a larger diameter was like a complete redesign.
StuG III production in 42 was 792 of which ~700 had long guns.
Experience in France 1940 helped the Wehrmacht to speed-up the 5cm-equipped Panzer III production as the 3.7cm was clearly ineffective.

BTW first use of sloped armor in Germany was on the 221/231 armored cars and the 250/251 half tracks