German 128mm - any good?

[hartmann]

Hi to all ¡

Early PzIIIs had flimsy 10-speeders. Later models had more robust 6-speeders. Originally, I thought this was just borrowed from the PzIV - but it seems I was wrong: According to Bryan Perret (IIRC ) the PzIV Ausf J had its transmission downgraded to the one from the PzIII - which apparently wasn't able to cope. I think the PzIV J was a waste of time btw.

From what I've heard, Pz-IVJ was simplified version of the Ausf. H, with no issues worth mentioning

The only differences between the PzIV Ausf H and the Ausf J was that the Ausf J carried more fuel and more armour in the turret at the expense of the automatic turning mechanism of the turret (It had to be hand turned, which could be very exhausting), but It didn't changed (as far as I know) the transmission.

The Ferdinand w/ 17cm would've been well balanced weapon, but the weight would've gone too much up.
Length of 17cm barrel was perhaps some 9m (with chamber).
That is long! The weight though could be remedied by removing the appliqué armour (didn't need it?).

Germany was working on a Waffenträger (Geschützwagen Tiger) based on the Tiger IB using a 17 cm gun (probably the KwK already mentioned), called as "Grille 17". It used the 17 cm L50 gun (it only carried 5 pieces of ammo). The only prototype was captured in May of 1945 still unfinished in Haustenbeck (Padderborn); weighing 58 tonnes (It dispensed roof and back armour so It was lighter than the Tiger IB).
If we take the barrel length, It was some 8,70 metres. And we must add the chamber and muzzle brake. Probably it would be more than 9 metres, as Tomo said previously.
Nice true beast .

APFSDS was more a thing of 'Panzer 1946' (akin to Luft 46); the captured guns were available, reliable, and plenty.
That's true, but it was trialled in the earlier 37mm (dunno when - hartmann?).

Well, very heavy anti bunker APFSDS shots in limited quantities were ready as early as May or June 1940 (prepared to burst the Maginot and Eben Emael fortresses).
In late 1942 the 28 cm gun was modified as "Glattrohr" (smoothbore barrel) 31 cm gun to fire HEFSDS shells at very large ranges, and in 1944 Germany was playing with medium FlaK gun prototypes firing also HEFSDS shells. Taking in account that in the fights for Silesia in 1944 the 50 mm PaK 39 fired some quantities of uranium cored PzGr 40s, I would guess that If Germany had tried seriously; they would have obtained a smoothbore AT gun of medium size by late 1945.
Also, the only 128 mm FlaK 45 gun built (as prototype, with bigger chamber and extended barrel to 75 calibres) was allocated in firing trials with two barrels; one of them was rifled, and the other smoothbore gun (1500 m/s with APFSDS shots).
From the 37 mm PPS shot. I was said that it made trials in late 1943 and/or early 1944 given the early design of the ring shape sabot.

Steel cores may not have been considered at this time though - being only a desperate measure in '44, or just a crazy idea that wasn't to be taken seriously?

Hardened steel cored PzGr 40 shots were fired in 1943 and 1944 so it wouldn't have been very crazy providing the shots were impacting at less than 1250 m/s (as It was a limit to prevent the shot break upon impact determined in Germany tests in Meppen and other tests instalations).

I'd say that Germans have intended to have Panther as a new medium tank.

Quite true Tomo. Germany tried to make the "Panther" as the only medium tank, but the quantity of T-34 and "shermans" prevented the full switch from Pz IV to the "Panther".

Ah right, good idea. The Hetzer wasn't so good late-war IMO, though still performed well. Was a good ambush weapon. Was even used post-war! Early WW2 though, would've been great (but no gun available?).
Gun was always available

Yes, it always used the KwK/StuK 40 gun, which was in full production (although It never carried the PaK 40 gun as far as I know).


I hope this helps

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi hartmann,

Glad you like it! We've covered a lot of ground!

Thanks for the 50mm info.

Yes, it is complicated, it is very complicated! I keep hearing different things. I hear upto 3 types: PaK/KwK 39 (non-bottlenecked rounds), PaK 40 (bottlenecked rounds), KwK 40 (reduced PaK 40 cartridges) – easy to confuse.

BTW, I think I can see why the PPS APFSDS round was rejected – the fins don't seem suitable for a rifled barrel. I will have to study it further…


Hi tomo,

They have had 3 heavy tanks (T, Pa, T2) 3 heavy SP At guns (Ferd, JgdTgr, JgdPan); producing a superb medium tank in good numbers (instead of 2-3 of the heavy AFVs) was NOT what they have had.

DB's "Panther" was some 10 tons lighter IIRC, which would've yielded handsome dividends on suspension transmission reliability. Plus the speed wouldn't be governed down (perhaps),

The suspension was overcomplex – and had proven to be a bad design on the Tiger, but less weight may have helped. Also, I can kind of see the usage for it on an 'Exploitation Tank'. The transmission was also a bad design – but yes, again the lower weight may have helped (though the DB may have used a different trans to the MAN anyway?). I think top speed would be OK. The engine was also different - MUCH better than the crappy Maybach. A similar design was used for the later Maybach – the HL234.

also the consumption would've go down.

That's a good point.

It was also smaller, but with the same armor as 1st serial Panthers.

Perhaps even better – IIRC it was sloped more, also it may have been thicker at the sides?

Germans thought their gunners would've mixed it for T-34, yet Germans used captured T-34s without such problems.

I've heard accounts of captured T-34s being often targeted by their own sides PaK guns (despite the massive Swastikas crosses). Apparently, they fired on silhouette (fair enough), despite the cupola. I think the VK3002 would also have this problem – unless it could use some features from the MAN design (mid-mounted turret, rear plate etc).


As crazy as it sounds, I would have several designs:

Test the 2 Panther designs PROPERLY. End up having 3 (or more) Medium tank designs in simultaneous service:

1. Pz III/IV – whilst waiting for the new Panthers (though would the chassis' be better served for SPGs?).

2. Panther – Exploitation tank, maybe the DB3002, or similar. Armament would be KwK or (preferably) PaK 40.

3. Panther II – MBT. Design pretty much as actual Panther II – heavier more expensive, but more able to hold its own (Is this idea counter to Blitzkrieg thinking though?). Armament is 88mm.

I would also have 2-3 'Breakthrough' or Heavy designs, each with 2 sub-variants:

1. Tiger – old design, as PzIII/IV above. Battle Support variants.

2. SPG – like the Ferdinand or Jagdtiger, based on Tiger chassis, bigger gun. Again, with Battle Support variants.

3. Konigstiger – new design, pretty much as it was in WW2. Would start with a Tiger, only with sloping armour though 1st.

It seems this was done anyway - with the E-Series.

The decision to go with two very similar designs into production is one of bigger German mistakes IMO.

They had their points though: both tested several types of suspension, and torsion bars leafs both had their advantages in their respective roles.

Also, the turret designs were very different.

Having a single design migh have helped production, but not development. Which do you choose? By the time they were in prduction though, switching say, the PzIII chassis' production lines to the PzIV design would hurt, rather than help. Besides, those torsion bars were more useful to its intended application.

Why the PzIV Specials turret wasn't developed was a mystery to me though – but (so far as I can think of) all mass-produced German WW2 turret designs were terrible.

Still, who says you need turrets…

It needed on extra loader compared with Marders, so 5 crew members would've be enough IMO.

I don't know the Marders crew (?), but as I see it, it was the standard 5-man crew, add an extra loader, then subtract the radio operator ( give his job to the Commander /or one of the loaders). Why this was never done eludes me, anyone know? (German radios too big/complex? – or a 4-man crew too small for effective maintenance?).

Whatever makes a tank more reliable is good, if you can get that particular into production battlefield in numbers to make a difference.

Tiger II mechanicals were more costly, but still easy enough to mass-produce, I think? I think the Panther was too Schitzo – cheap transmission, but complex suspension. I can see the advantages of the overlapping wheels on a Medium design now though.

In short, I don't think KT mechanicals would hurt such an already expensive design? – infact, not having to make a few more (for spares) would probably save in the long run (about a week, at the Panthers breakdown rate! lol).

Not true - it was not T-34s turret...

Well, it was a turret…

The ordnance of 122mm howitzer weighted perhaps half of 152mm howitzer, with smaller dimensions to begin with.
What was the other SU-122, besides the one based on T-34?

Thanks. Here it is:

- the SU-122P. In searching for this, I found there was also an SU-122M SU-122-III. Here is a good link:

SOVIET SPs 1941-1945, Medium SPs, M.Svirin

Weight of sFH was in-between of 2 russian pieces; too bad for Germans not mounting the muzzle brake - that would've allowed for even lighter howitzer.

So I suppose it was a good compromise? Still, the range of the ML-20 wouldve been useful, the lightness of the D-1?…

If the Italians managed to put their big 149/40 cannon on their under-20ton chassis, I guess Pz-IV was good for ML-20. Perhaps the armor would've been deleted completely though.

Yes, a captured ML-20 on an old chassis would've been good. No armour necessary – getting enough of them for a whole battery might be though? The Italians also mounted their 90mm AA gun onto an M13/40 chassis – very similar to 'our' idea. Any more info on that Italian gun?

I suppose it would have been better if the Italians had just built ad crewed SPGs, leaving all the closer range fighting to the Germans?

I'll draw the 'project', IIRC such things never existed.

Yes, I've seen it. I will add comments later. Did you draw it from scratch?

Pz-35/38, 76,5mm and 100mm were all in Czech part of Czechoslovakia, therefor I'd say they were pretty near one from another

Good point, I thought you meant the 88mm Flak though? Using Czech guns is a good idea – but could they be trusted? Still, as they weren't intended for frontline use (well they were, but you know what I mean? – long-distance work), this would be OK?

Whatever make those two useful German guns more mobile was good

That's true, any which way you can eh?

No point in comparing 10,5cm with 15cm howitzers

Hate to do this, but could you? Was the 105mm pointless when the 150mm was available? (for indirect fire). I know the Wespe would be much cheaper than the Hummel, but… I can see the point in having it for the StuH though – and developing it further as a next-gen DP weapon, as discussed here previously.

Brummbar was assault gun - like StuH-42 on steroids.

Yes, a good design IMO. – but yet another one which required the PzIVs chassis…

Germans have captured 75mm guns before 5cm PaK was developed, so there is/was no 'gap to be stopped'

I meant using only what was available in Germany – new builds. Still, the 50mm would probably be best sent to NA – where it could cope (still in a Stug though?…). The captured 75mms weren't that good, I heard? Also, were there enough of them?

Russian 76,2 F-22 cannon would've fit in PzJg-38(t) just fine, but Marder-like installation was easier to design.

I meant put the best gun on the thinnest-armoured chassis (the Hetzer can afford to get a bit closer). Of course, you could use the one with the worst gun armour purely for HE fire? - the other as a Stug?

BTW, Yougoslav partisans have mounted PaK-40 20mm FlakVierling on hulls of their Stuart tanks in 1944/45

Excellent bit of info! Any pics?

Nothing to choose between Pz-III -IV when we talk about protection

There was a lot of difference, not least:

See the great big hole? - that's on an Ausf J!! Also, because of this, armour could not rise above 50mm.

Even on the PzIII G, the mantlet covered the turret front (well, most of it) and was 37mm thick. The turret front was 30mm. (according to one source). So 37 + 30mm = 67mm – though the spacing would mean this is actually worth more. There is that shot-trap to consider though – which IIRC wasn't a problem on the PzIII design though. In addition to this, later spaced armour was added to the mantlet (not to be confused with Schurzen). Plus, the PzIII apparently had the best quality armour of any WW2 tank – as befitted a Battle Tank. The PzIV was nowhere near.

Hulls were similar though. (though the PzIV was probably slightly better here…). Most armour should be put on the turret front though, IMO (unlike with the IS-2).

Gun was always available;

The PaK 39? I thought it was only available in '41? (really '42) – but that's also true of the KwK 40, so I may be confused.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi tomo (Part 2),

'till something better is produced French/Polish/Czech 75 would do.

Good point, I think? Do you have any more info on the last 2?

It took Romanians to show their Maresal AFV in order that Germans take JgdPz-38(t) into development anyway.

Great bit of info! An interesting vehicle, but I assumed it to be a Hetzer ripoff – not its inspiration.

Here is a link to it:

WorldWar2.ro - Maresal

Destroyed by whom?

Whatever it was firing at (wafer thin armour). I don't know attrition rates. Were you meaning the Nashorn/Hornisse, Hummel, or both sorry? - against what targets?

The main area that would've used ticker armor is roof, so the planes artillery shells would've present no threat. Then you need to provide decent armor to the superstructure armor, to prevent 12.7mm, 20, 23 37 projectiles from piercing the awarding target.
By the time you do that, Hummel is perhaps 30 tons heavy. No way Pz-IV chassis would've been able to carry all of that. And then we add extra 30-50mm to protect that from T-34s Shermans...

I don't think the Hummel needed thick armour? – it was mainly used for indirect fire? If it had to attack a troublesome bunker, then maybe – but it could rely on out-ranging it? – or if no other vehicle was able, then it would be well protected against attack by these? It may still need heavy frontal armour though? This situation is a very good argument for a Durchbruchwagen with a Support gun?

Ferdinand was combination of the superfulous chassis that was finally armed with top-notch gun, and proved good when fast movement was not required.
Hetzer (JgdPz-38(t)) was last-ditch effort to turn the chassis of an obsolete tank into something useful, and it was that - useful.
Not such great designs, but decent ones at least.

Yes, good uses of 'bad' chassis' (though the Ferd was not used well @ Kursk IMO).

Indeed, second only to the US M-12 GMC.

Yes, an old French gun on an old tank (if you can call it that?) chassis – yet it was pretty good. Shows that SPGs can successfully use sub-standard pieces. I think it was < the Brummbar in some respects though.

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi hartmann,

Some more good info thanks, please keep it coming!

The PzIV Ausf J had more changes than that. To be fair, some were improvements - like the Nahvertidigungswaffe, and the Flammentoter exhausts. I can check, but I am certain that in Bryan Perrets book on the subject, it says the transmission was downgraded to that of the PzIIIs (implying that it was different) - IIRC he then goes on to say that it made it less reliable. PzIII producion was finished though (bombed out), so perhaps this was just making use of the spare transmissions kicking about?

You say it had more armour in the turret though?


Ah yes, the Grille 17. This would be another one to consider. What was the use though? - as I see it, it would be unable to hit bunkers 1st time? - so perhaps a better idea would be thicker armour, but a shorter gun? Still, if the gun itself was easily disabled, that would shoot down this idea right away? Wonder what the reload speed was?

Well, very heavy anti bunker APFSDS shots in limited quantities were ready as early as May or June 1940 (prepared to burst the Maginot and Eben Emael fortresses).

Thats some great info, thank you. Any more info on them?

In late 1942 the 28 cm gun was modified as "Glattrohr" (smoothbore barrel) 31 cm gun to fire HEFSDS shells at very large ranges,

Smoothbores?! Great, we add them into the mix too.

and in 1944 Germany was playing with medium FlaK gun prototypes firing also HEFSDS shells.

This apparently had nothing to do with AT APFSDS (it was argued) I must admit I agree with them (though Flak PaK development overlapped, I dont think the ammo ever did?).

Taking in account that in the fights for Silesia in 1944 the 50 mm PaK 39 fired some quantities of uranium cored PzGr 40s,

Thanks, great info again.

I would guess that If Germany had tried seriously; they would have obtained a smoothbore AT gun of medium size by late 1945.

What do you mean by medium size?

Also, the only 128 mm FlaK 45 gun built (as prototype, with bigger chamber and extended barrel to 75 calibres) was allocated in firing trials with two barrels; one of them was rifled, and the other smoothbore gun (1500 m/s with APFSDS shots).

Smoothbore guns may have had problems firing HE at long ranges though? Still, I suppose they should be supported by Support Vehicles? - but these would then be of around the same calibre as the Battle vehicles... I'm not so sure about smoothbores practicality.

From the 37 mm PPS shot. I was said that it made trials in late 1943 and/or early 1944 given the early design of the ring shape sabot.

Thanks. I wondered, because apparently the PzGr was only developed for the KwK 42 43 - which makes me wonder why bother with the 37mm. That draing seems to suggest that the penetrator was made of steel (unless theres a mistake, is there one available with a key?). Still, if you want to test the ammo - the obsolete easy to use 37mm is useful, and theres no point in using precious metals.

Hardened steel cored PzGr 40 shots were fired in 1943 and 1944 so it wouldn't have been very crazy providing the shots were impacting at less than 1250 m/s (as It was a limit to prevent the shot break upon impact determined in Germany tests in Meppen and other tests instalations).

I was thinking past the max range of the Pak 38, when vs the T-34 (likely above 1250 m/s?). What was the penetration figure @ 1250 m/s please? It may even have been useful on the PaK 40 KwK 40?


The Panther may have been intended as a Medium, but till that point, there were no mediums (PzIII was a Battle, PzIV was Support). I have heard the Panther called Battle Tank, it may have been Medium Battle Tank, I forget. It could probably have functioned in the support role too (75mm being enough - if using more complicated sights). So, I suppose it was Dual-Role. It was a confused design though IMO, when some call it a heavy tank, I can see why - not a true medium.

Yes, it always used the KwK/StuK 40 gun, which was in full production (although It never carried the PaK 40 gun as far as I know).

I thought it was the PaK 39? (< to the KwK/Stuk 40). I think it preceded it though ( IIRC was also made in Italy). I thought the Stuk/KwK 40 ( PaK) didnt really get into widespread service untill 1942?

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi tomo,

Perhaps even better – IIRC it was sloped more, also it may have been thicker at the sides?

Dunno; if it was, the difference would've been minimal IIRC.

I've heard accounts of captured T-34s being often targeted by their own sides PaK guns (despite the massive Swastikas crosses). Apparently, they fired on silhouette (fair enough), despite the cupola. I think the VK3002 would also have this problem – unless it could use some features from the MAN design (mid-mounted turret, rear plate etc).

Okay, then I'd add sheet metal around the turret (akin to what they did to Pz-IIIM, but there it was added to up the protection), so the turret would've looked as Tiger's, with sides back vertically aligned.

As crazy as it sounds, I would have several designs:

Test the 2 Panther designs PROPERLY. End up having 3 (or more) Medium tank designs in simultaneous service:

1. Pz III/IV – whilst waiting for the new Panthers (though would the chassis' be better served for SPGs?).

2. Panther – Exploitation tank, maybe the DB3002, or similar. Armament would be KwK or (preferably) PaK 40.

3. Panther II – MBT. Design pretty much as actual Panther II – heavier more expensive, but more able to hold its own (Is this idea counter to Blitzkrieg thinking though?). Armament is 88mm.

I would also have 2-3 'Breakthrough' or Heavy designs, each with 2 sub-variants:

1. Tiger – old design, as PzIII/IV above. Battle Support variants.

2. SPG – like the Ferdinand or Jagdtiger, based on Tiger chassis, bigger gun. Again, with Battle Support variants.

3. Konigstiger – new design, pretty much as it was in WW2. Would start with a Tiger, only with sloping armour though 1st.

It seems this was done anyway - with the E-Series.

Ahem, it was NOT done - E series are more in realm of paper panzers (Panzer '46). There is no much of a point to develop a bunch of new designs in 1944 - German army needs thousands of AFVs, pronto, not bunch of projects.

They had their points though: both tested several types of suspension, and torsion bars leafs both had their advantages in their respective roles.

In their respective roles? I respect you too much to say anything more about that...

Also, the turret designs were very different.

Having a single design migh have helped production, but not development. Which do you choose? By the time they were in prduction though, switching say, the PzIII chassis' production lines to the PzIV design would hurt, rather than help. Besides, those torsion bars were more useful to its intended application.

I'll admit that Germans were experimenting with different designs, but that's about it. If they went for turrets with different rings, each requiring a different hull, but with same weight, dimensions armor, they were not that savvy.

Why the PzIV Specials turret wasn't developed was a mystery to me though – but (so far as I can think of) all mass-produced German WW2 turret designs were terrible.

Care to elaborate the bolded part?

Still, who says you need turrets…

Pretty much everyone...

I don't know the Marders crew (?), but as I see it, it was the standard 5-man crew, add an extra loader, then subtract the radio operator ( give his job to the Commander /or one of the loaders). Why this was never done eludes me, anyone know? (German radios too big/complex? – or a 4-man crew too small for effective maintenance?).

No point to go to the reduction of crew of AFV produced in 2 copies...

Tiger II mechanicals were more costly, but still easy enough to mass-produce, I think?

I've read something similar.

I think the Panther was too Schitzo – cheap transmission, but complex suspension. I can see the advantages of the overlapping wheels on a Medium design now though.

I see (more times than not) the benefits of KISS - keep it simple, stupid (not aimed at anybody ) philosophy.

In short, I don't think KT mechanicals would hurt such an already expensive design? – infact, not having to make a few more (for spares) would probably save in the long run (about a week, at the Panthers breakdown rate! lol).

KISS is applicabe anywhere - if you have something in production, the mass usage makes that cheaper, more reliable, less maintenance intensive... than a new system that serves the same purpose.

Thanks. Here it is:

- the SU-122P. In searching for this, I found there was also an SU-122M SU-122-III. Here is a good link:

SOVIET SPs 1941-1945, Medium SPs, M.Svirin

And one thinks he's seen anything

So I suppose it was a good compromise? Still, the range of the ML-20 wouldve been useful, the lightness of the D-1?…

Only 1 km greater range vs. D-1, but 4 km less than ML-20, not to mention the Russian 76,2mm guns have had the same range, and it was over 100 000 (hundred thousand) of those produced from 1942-45 only. So not that good compromise...

Yes, a captured ML-20 on an old chassis would've been good. No armour necessary – getting enough of them for a whole battery might be though? The Italians also mounted their 90mm AA gun onto an M13/40 chassis – very similar to 'our' idea. Any more info on that Italian gun?

The Italian 90mm (in AT guise) was about as good as german 8,8L56 = very useful, and shows that somewhat larger Pz-III would have no problems with 8,8.

I suppose it would have been better if the Italians had just built ad crewed SPGs, leaving all the closer range fighting to the Germans?

Their SPGs were pretty decent, tanks less so.

Yes, I've seen it. I will add comments later. Did you draw it from scratch?

No...

Good point, I thought you meant the 88mm Flak though? Using Czech guns is a good idea – but could they be trusted? Still, as they weren't intended for frontline use (well they were, but you know what I mean? – long-distance work), this would be OK?

Trusted - do you mean Czechs or their guns? Their guns were intended for all the purposes ordinary arty was required to do, and no one complained about quality.

Hate to do this, but could you? Was the 105mm pointless when the 150mm was available? (for indirect fire). I know the Wespe would be much cheaper than the Hummel, but… I can see the point in having it for the StuH though – and developing it further as a next-gen DP weapon, as discussed here previously.

I guess you could have 2 Wespes for each Hummel built, while 105mm is considered valuable asset even today. Since the SP solved the main issue of 105mm (motor transport requirement), that was one good AFV.

Yes, a good design IMO. – but yet another one which required the PzIVs chassis…

There is nothing great in Pz-IV chassis - not as good as M3/M4, or T-34...

I meant using only what was available in Germany – new builds. Still, the 50mm would probably be best sent to NA – where it could cope (still in a Stug though?…). The captured 75mms weren't that good, I heard? Also, were there enough of them?

There was nothing wrong with 75mm guns Germans captured, and were captured in thousands.

I meant put the best gun on the thinnest-armoured chassis (the Hetzer can afford to get a bit closer). Of course, you could use the one with the worst gun armour purely for HE fire? - the other as a Stug?

The best gun best chassis are ones which are available, that's what I think

Excellent bit of info! Any pics?

Attached...

The PaK 39? I thought it was only available in '41? (really '42) – but that's also true of the KwK 40, so I may be confused.

The captured 75-77mm guns, from early 1939....

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi tomo (Part 2),

Good point, I think? Do you have any more info on the last 2?

Polish field piece was same as French ( US), while Czech was 76,5mm IIRC - the same muzzle energy as 75mm of M3/M4 medium tanks. Plus there was a nice number of captured AAA pieces in such calibers, but with greater muzzle velocity - totally comparable with 7,5cm Pak.

Great bit of info! An interesting vehicle, but I assumed it to be a Hetzer ripoff – not its inspiration.

Here is a link to it:

WorldWar2.ro - Maresal

Development started in 1942, so Hetzer was ripoff.

Whatever it was firing at (wafer thin armour). I don't know attrition rates. Were you meaning the Nashorn/Hornisse, Hummel, or both sorry? - against what targets?

I don't think the Hummel needed thick armour? – it was mainly used for indirect fire? If it had to attack a troublesome bunker, then maybe – but it could rely on out-ranging it? – or if no other vehicle was able, then it would be well protected against attack by these? It may still need heavy frontal armour though? This situation is a very good argument for a Durchbruchwagen with a Support gun?

Okay, do you want or do you don't want Hummel with plenty of armor??

Yes, an old French gun on an old tank (if you can call it that?) chassis – yet it was pretty good. Shows that SPGs can successfully use sub-standard pieces.

What would be the 'sub-standard' pieces here?

I think it was < the Brummbar in some respects though.

What does that mean? Why would you want to compare Brummbar with M-12?

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi tomo,

Dunno; if it was, the difference would've been minimal IIRC.

If armour is sloped @ 60 degrees, ricocheting is apparently more likely to happen - it is a 'magic angle'. The Soviet designs had 60 degree angles, but this lesson seems to have passed MAN by - the Panthers armour is often referred to as 'angled' rather than 'soped' - to differentiate it from 'properly' sloped armour.

The Panthers side armour was just thin enogh to let in Soviet shells @ combat ranges - just a little more wouldve saved it IMO.

Okay, then I'd add sheet metal around the turret (akin to what they did to Pz-IIIM, but there it was added to up the protection), so the turret would've looked as Tiger's, with sides back vertically aligned.

Excellent idea!8) - but was Schurzen available then? I wouldve kept the sides as is though, the back could have been reverse-sloped, like the Panthers? Care to do a drawing of this vehicle?...8)

Ahem, it was NOT done - E series are more in realm of paper panzers (Panzer '46). There is no much of a point to develop a bunch of new designs in 1944 - German army needs thousands of AFVs, pronto, not bunch of projects.

I suppose for pure defense, Stugs Jagdpanzers wouldve done the job - but for attack, I think you would need a Myriad of designs. The E-Series was flawed, but about right IMO. I think the time would have been better spent making a reliable (DB) tank engine though, then an improved medium-heavy (E75) - NOT the E-100. Though the E-100 had certain advantages over the Maus, I think even the Maus was a better design! (actually had potential IMO).

Still, most of my ideas are easily-built SPGs...

In their respective roles? I respect you too much to say anything more about that...

Thanks. Admittedly the PzIV ended up as a Battle tank - but this role was forced on it, and it was never designed for that. Leaf springs were useful on a vehicle that recieved onstant damge though (like a Battle tank). Please feel free to say what you were going to, I'd be interested to hear it.

I'll admit that Germans were experimenting with different designs, but that's about it. If they went for turrets with different rings, each requiring a different hull, but with same weight, dimensions armor, they were not that savvy.

True, perhaps the designs should have been melded more (but please, not like the Geschutzwagen III/IV!). It makes sense to have 2 designs IMO (the M60 is infact apparently still serving as a Support tank to the Abrams Battle Tank):

The M60 series' L68A1 105mm main gun fires a much wider variety of ammunition than the currently used 120 mm smoothbore on the M1 series, including a dedicated HE (High Explosive) round, and a White Phosphorus smoke round, among others.
The M60 series includes instrumentation enabling indirect fire as ad-hoc artillery if needed.

- from Wikipedia, unsourced, I'm afraid.

Ironically, the PzIV was probably always a better Battle tank than the PzIII, but still had limitations - due to being designed as a Support tank. Apparently in the Battle of France this was also a problem. Im tempted to think that the PzII was better than the PzIII too! (seriously!).

Yes, a merge of both features in a single vehicle might have been good - but maybe still having differing suspensions?

Care to elaborate the bolded part?

Sure!

Pz IV turret:

1. Delete the side hatches, have 3 single-piece round hatches on the top.

2. Have 2 'Rommelkisten' on either side of the turrets - and have the rear plate have an emergency/reloading hatch (or left bare). - this would also act as Schurzen.

3. Have a giant fume extractor on the turret roof (like the T-54) - allowing the deletion of the gaping hole in the turret front and allow thickening of the turret front armour.

4. While you're there, might as well upgrade the cupola!

German Turrets:

PzIII - vulnerable side hatches, possible shot-trap @ certain traverse angles.
PzIV - holey thin front, side hatches.
PzV: Shot-trap, heavy mantlet (schmallturm doesn't count? - but that was vulnerable to 2-3 o'clock attacks). Tiger: Almost vertical sides (though probably the best of the bunch). - but sloow traverse.
KT: Very long, so a massive target ( mounted on a tall base!), poor quality, poorly sloped armour very vulnerable to Soviet 85mm US 76mm.

Pretty much everyone...

SPGs rule! (IMO). I don't think turrets are all that necessary, infact, I think they're like the T-34s 'tracks wheels' - ditching them will add benefits. Some will use them wrongly though (as happened to Stugs Jagdtigers) - but I think the situation would have been no different with tanks here. The question I ask is, why are turrets so necessary??

TDs seem to have bit the dust - though admittedly the Centurion T-54 changed everytthing (they can go hull-down well). The question I give above should therefore only really be for WW2 designs.

No point to go to the reduction of crew of AFV produced in 2 copies...

I meant for the Jagtiger onwards, sorry - not the Sturer Emil (which I've still to research!).

I've read something similar.

The Panther was too mass-produced in some areas (read: scrimped on), whereas it was never really going to fool anyone into thinking it was an easily mass-produced vehicle, was it? I think that KT mechanicals might not have hurt production at all, maybe even improved it (less going back to factories for repairs).

The later German designs copied a British one - but they over-complicated it /9needlessly, apparently). Still, if the KTs was OK...(could be re-simplified for the Panther?).

I see (more times than not) the benefits of KISS - keep it simple, stupid (not aimed at anybody ) philosophy.

True, but that too can be taken too far. I can see how overlapping wheels could help a fast-moving gun platform... Funny enough, I dont think theyre that vital for a heavy tank (our KV-based idea probably being better - though hurting initial following shot times...). Maybe better transmissions may have solved this?

KISS is applicabe anywhere - if you have something in production, the mass usage makes that cheaper, more reliable, less maintenance intensive... than a new system that serves the same purpose.

I suppose its similar to the Flak 36 vs PaK 40 debate - I can see both sides of the arguement. Which is right, I dont know. KT mechanicals were dearer, more labour ( IIRC) maintenance intensive - but worth it for the added reliability (anti-KISS I know, sorry!). Hollow spur gears do sound more labour-intensive 'fancy' to me though...

Only 1 km greater range vs. D-1, but 4 km less than ML-20, not to mention the Russian 76,2mm guns have had the same range, and it was over 100 000 (hundred thousand) of those produced from 1942-45 only. So not that good compromise...

Dare I say it - bad design?

The Italian 90mm (in AT guise) was about as good as german 8,8L56 = very useful, and shows that somewhat larger Pz-III would have no problems with 8,8.

That it does! Any info on my questions?

Their SPGs were pretty decent, tanks less so.

True, thats one WW2 'myth' that I dont think I'll be able to bust!

No...

Ah well, still impressive!8)

Trusted - do you mean Czechs or their guns? Their guns were intended for all the purposes ordinary arty was required to do, and no one complained about quality.

I mean, built without sabotage? (so both). AT arty needs to be top-notch IMO.

I guess you could have 2 Wespes for each Hummel built, while 105mm is considered valuable asset even today. Since the SP solved the main issue of 105mm (motor transport requirement), that was one good AFV.

Yes, I suppose for light support - but on the Steppes?... Still, I researched the SU-76 'myth' - actually found it could be quite useful! (very mobile for one).

There is nothing great in Pz-IV chassis - not as good as M3/M4, or T-34...

I meant it was needed for allsorts of vehicles (Flakpanzers, Stugs, Jagdpanzers, Schleppers etc, etc). Not a great chassis though, true. Perhaps the Germans should have just copied a T-34 alike chassis - for making Stugs etc with? (still with the PzIII/IV HL120 engine).

There was nothing wrong with 75mm guns Germans captured, and were captured in thousands.

True, though I would still be looking to replace them (with the PaK 40).

The best gun best chassis are ones which are available, that's what I think

I think the best are possibly those on the drawing board - which could end in tears! You know what I mean? - I have no probs with stop-gaps (they're often the best anyway).

Attached...

Brilliant!8) Thank you! - That is one teeny Tank-destroyer!8) Any on the AA version? How thick was the armour - it looks well-sloped!8) (though not 60 degrees).

The captured 75-77mm guns, from early 1939....

Sorry, thanks. What was the 77mm? - or are you just meaning 76.2mm?

 

[schwarzpanzer]

Hi tomo (Part 2),

Polish field piece was same as French ( US), while Czech was 76,5mm IIRC - the same muzzle energy as 75mm of M3/M4 medium tanks. Plus there was a nice number of captured AAA pieces in such calibers, but with greater muzzle velocity - totally comparable with 7,5cm Pak.

I dont think the M2 75mm was capable of dealing with the T-34 KV? - the M1897 too for that matter (used by both Germans Americans). The AA sounds good - but would they have been nicked by Luftwaffe crews? I heard the Soviet 85mms were (now that was n awesome ATG, come to think...8)). Thanks for jogging the old memory again!

Development started in 1942, so Hetzer was ripoff.

Thats true. German designers seemed to copy 'inferiors' a lot - but they did invent the whole Stug thing (though Brits invented the SPG in WW1).

Okay, do you want or do you don't want Hummel with plenty of armor??

Not sure! Maybe a little more on front - but rely on its long range. I'm thinking that bunkers are a lot easier to 'snipe' than tanks? (limited arcs of fire, cant move!).

The Nashorn/Hornisse is a dfifferent story (more armour, please!).

What would be the 'sub-standard' pieces here?

Now you make me think about it, the 155mm was an 'oldie, but a goodie'? The M3 tank chassis was poor though - even when introduced (but the M4s was not much different!).

What does that mean? Why would you want to compare Brummbar with M-12?

I suppose they were meant for similar jobs? (demolition) - only approached it from different angles. I suppose they were in different classes though - but IIRC the M12 was used in the role the Brummbar was intended for (though admittedly not by design). Dont forget - I'm prone to getting confused with non-TD SPGs! ( the guns they carried).

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi tomo,

If armour is sloped @ 60 degrees, ricocheting is apparently more likely to happen - it is a 'magic angle'. The Soviet designs had 60 degree angles, but this lesson seems to have passed MAN by - the Panthers armour is often referred to as 'angled' rather than 'soped' - to differentiate it from 'properly' sloped armour.

If those 60 deg are from vertical, then I agree that richochet was likely to happen. Even more likely if the
AFV is hit from angles different from 12, 3, 6 9 o'clock.

The Panthers side armour was just thin enogh to let in Soviet shells @ combat ranges - just a little more wouldve saved it IMO.

Agree

Excellent idea!8) - but was Schurzen available then? I wouldve kept the sides as is though, the back could have been reverse-sloped, like the Panthers? Care to do a drawing of this vehicle?...8)

Nothing that special about mounting sheet metal to tank...
I'll draw it, hopefully

I suppose for pure defense, Stugs Jagdpanzers wouldve done the job - but for attack, I think you would need a Myriad of designs. The E-Series was flawed, but about right IMO. I think the time would have been better spent making a reliable (DB) tank engine though, then an improved medium-heavy (E75) - NOT the E-100. Though the E-100 had certain advantages over the Maus, I think even the Maus was a better design! (actually had potential IMO).

I'm not that well versed about E-series, though the bolded part is killing me...

Still, most of my ideas are easily-built SPGs...

Mine too

Thanks. Admittedly the PzIV ended up as a Battle tank - but this role was forced on it, and it was never designed for that. Leaf springs were useful on a vehicle that recieved onstant damge though (like a Battle tank). Please feel free to say what you were going to, I'd be interested to hear it.

I don't think your reason about usefulness of leaf spring suspension is valid, and torsion bar suspension proved any bit as good in battle conditions.

True, perhaps the designs should have been melded more (but please, not like the Geschutzwagen III/IV!). It makes sense to have 2 designs IMO (the M60 is infact apparently still serving as a Support tank to the Abrams Battle Tank):

The main quality of M-60 is that it costs Uncle sam zero dolars to buy it, so they make a good use of it. Sure enough, in M-60 you're more likely to get killed in battle zone...

Ironically, the PzIV was probably always a better Battle tank than the PzIII, but still had limitations - due to being designed as a Support tank. Apparently in the Battle of France this was also a problem. Im tempted to think that the PzII was better than the PzIII too! (seriously!).

Yes, a merge of both features in a single vehicle might have been good - but maybe still having differing suspensions?

The division between Battle tank Support tank is pretty curious in my eyes, so I won't go into that. Pz-IV benefited from being slightly larger, and that's about that. Pz-III was good, but too small for substantial upgrade.

Sure!

Pz IV turret:

1. Delete the side hatches, have 3 single-piece round hatches on the top.

2. Have 2 'Rommelkisten' on either side of the turrets - and have the rear plate have an emergency/reloading hatch (or left bare). - this would also act as Schurzen.

3. Have a giant fume extractor on the turret roof (like the T-54) - allowing the deletion of the gaping hole in the turret front and allow thickening of the turret front armour.

4. While you're there, might as well upgrade the cupola!

German Turrets:

PzIII - vulnerable side hatches, possible shot-trap @ certain traverse angles.
PzIV - holey thin front, side hatches.
PzV: Shot-trap, heavy mantlet (schmallturm doesn't count? - but that was vulnerable to 2-3 o'clock attacks). Tiger: Almost vertical sides (though probably the best of the bunch). - but sloow traverse.
KT: Very long, so a massive target ( mounted on a tall base!), poor quality, poorly sloped armour very vulnerable to Soviet 85mm US 76mm.

Good overviev

SPGs rule! (IMO). I don't think turrets are all that necessary, infact, I think they're like the T-34s 'tracks wheels' - ditching them will add benefits. Some will use them wrongly though (as happened to Stugs Jagdtigers) - but I think the situation would have been no different with tanks here. The question I ask is, why are turrets so necessary??

TDs seem to have bit the dust - though admittedly the Centurion T-54 changed everytthing (they can go hull-down well). The question I give above should therefore only really be for WW2 designs.

Turret adds flexibility, to begin with. The US tanks (M5, M4) have had stabilization - not very applicable for StuGs co. Yo can move along a ditch, while pointing your gun broadside.

True, but that too can be taken too far. I can see how overlapping wheels could help a fast-moving gun platform... Funny enough, I dont think theyre that vital for a heavy tank (our KV-based idea probably being better - though hurting initial following shot times...). Maybe better transmissions may have solved this?

The simpler suspensions allowed for non-problematic ride, too. The better transmission the better, but without going to extremis.

I suppose its similar to the Flak 36 vs PaK 40 debate - I can see both sides of the arguement. Which is right, I dont know. KT mechanicals were dearer, more labour ( IIRC) maintenance intensive - but worth it for the added reliability (anti-KISS I know, sorry!). Hollow spur gears do sound more labour-intensive 'fancy' to me though...

For each Flak 36 it was possible to build perhaps 3 Pak 40, each being a very effective in At role, so that was good decision IMO.

Dare I say it - bad design?

It would be fair to say field artillery was never regarded as priority from top brass - we can read many times about Hitler himself interfering into planes tanks, but rarely into artillery design usage. So the sFH soldiered on, without any straightforward upgrade.
Check out about Russian artillery - they hardly regarded any design as definitive, while being determined to really produce thousands of it...

That it does! Any info on my questions?

Sorry, I've got lost in this quotes
Please, repeat the question(s).

I mean, built without sabotage? (so both). AT arty needs to be top-notch IMO.

No sabotage by Czechs...

Yes, I suppose for light support - but on the Steppes?... Still, I researched the SU-76 'myth' - actually found it could be quite useful! (very mobile for one).

For light support? Back in Croatian war of independence we (my unit) were shelled by 76mm mountain cannon (6 kg HE shell) among other stuff, and never regarded that as too light.
What myth about SU-76 was that?

I meant it was needed for allsorts of vehicles (Flakpanzers, Stugs, Jagdpanzers, Schleppers etc, etc). Not a great chassis though, true. Perhaps the Germans should have just copied a T-34 alike chassis - for making Stugs etc with? (still with the PzIII/IV HL120 engine).

We agree about suitability of Pz-IV chassis
Something like SU-88 would've been nice...

True, though I would still be looking to replace them (with the PaK 40).

War attrition would've took care that thousands of guns captured prior Op Barbarossa would've been destroyed prior 1942, so the Pak 40 would've arrived just in the nick of time

Brilliant!8) Thank you! - That is one teeny Tank-destroyer!8) Any on the AA version? How thick was the armour - it looks well-sloped!8) (though not 60 degrees).

Something like Marder, with better hull armor (perhaps up to 50mm @ 45deg?.
I've attached the Stuart Flak (20mm Flakvierling) model.

Sorry, thanks. What was the 77mm? - or are you just meaning 76.2mm?

Whatever fits between 75-77mm, being captured

 

[tomo pauk]

Hi tomo (Part 2),

I dont think the M2 75mm was capable of dealing with the T-34 KV? - the M1897 too for that matter (used by both Germans Americans). The AA sounds good - but would they have been nicked by Luftwaffe crews? I heard the Soviet 85mms were (now that was n awesome ATG, come to think...8)). Thanks for jogging the old memory again!

95% of Russian tanks prior 1942 were NOT T-34s KVs - 'we' have 8,8s at Pz-III chassis for those...
AAA weaponry of 3in class would've been much better used as AT weapons than in AA role - perhaps to convert them into proper AFV weaponry? Stug-IIIF Pz-IVG a full year before they historically appeared...

Not sure! Maybe a little more on front - but rely on its long range. I'm thinking that bunkers are a lot easier to 'snipe' than tanks? (limited arcs of fire, cant move!).

Still vulnerable to planes with MGs, not to say proper stuff. We disagree here

The Nashorn/Hornisse is a dfifferent story (more armour, please!).

Not untill we have proper AFV version of 8,8L71

Now you make me think about it, the 155mm was an 'oldie, but a goodie'? The M3 tank chassis was poor though - even when introduced (but the M4s was not much different!).

If anything was good about M3, it was chassis. Ditto for M4.

I suppose they were meant for similar jobs? (demolition) - only approached it from different angles. I suppose they were in different classes though - but IIRC the M12 was used in the role the Brummbar was intended for (though admittedly not by design). Dont forget - I'm prone to getting confused with non-TD SPGs! ( the guns they carried).

They were ment for different tasks - perhaps we could picture M-12 as an field gun that happened to receive lavette with engine, transmission, tracks etc, while Brummbar was StuG on steroids; one firing indirectly, other for direct fire.