Heer, from january 1936 on?
Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules
- Thread starter
- #22
I agree that re-boring the foreign guns was a good thing.
The ammo for the Pak 40 and Kwk 40 differed considerably, not just by the priming. The tank ammo casing was considerably shorter and wider than of the Pak, see the picture. Stug-IIIF carried the Pak 40, the Pz-IVG was with the Kwk 40, so was the PzJgd 38(t).
Why they bothered with the new ammo type for the early Pz-IV (A-F) is a tough question, with already a half a dozen of available ammo types of similar power.
The ammo for the Pak 40 and Kwk 40 differed considerably, not just by the priming. The tank ammo casing was considerably shorter and wider than of the Pak, see the picture. Stug-IIIF carried the Pak 40, the Pz-IVG was with the Kwk 40, so was the PzJgd 38(t).
Why they bothered with the new ammo type for the early Pz-IV (A-F) is a tough question, with already a half a dozen of available ammo types of similar power.
Last edited:
Shortround6
Major General
Lets see, most of this turret has no roof. Which means no commanders cupola.
14.5mm armor is hardly what you want to go into battle with after about Sept of 1939.
can you please post a photo showing the co-axial machine gun as I am having a hard time finding it these photos.
Radio was receive only, no transmit.
What a great concept for a tank.
- Thread starter
- #24
If I've got this right, here are weights of propelling charges (maximum, with initial charge where present) for the 7,5cm guns used by the Germans in ww2:
- le. I.G./le. Geb.I.G. (light infanty gun/light mountain infantry gun) - 71,5 g
- Kw.K. 37 (for eg. Pz-IVA until -F) - 410 g
- le. F.K 18 - 589 g
- PaK. 97/38 (Polish French 75 at 5 cm Pak carriage) - 750 g (French ammo), 805 g (Polish ammo)
- le. F.K. 38 ('brazilian' gun, also in German service) - 1110 g
- Kw.K 40 (eg. for Pz-IVG) - 2450 g
- PaK. 40 (towed, also on StuG-IIIF/G*) - 2770 g (similar for the re-bored Soviet F-22 gun)
Didn't come across the data for the Panther's gun, though.
*my mistake, the Pak 40 was not used on Stug-III.
- le. I.G./le. Geb.I.G. (light infanty gun/light mountain infantry gun) - 71,5 g
- Kw.K. 37 (for eg. Pz-IVA until -F) - 410 g
- le. F.K 18 - 589 g
- PaK. 97/38 (Polish French 75 at 5 cm Pak carriage) - 750 g (French ammo), 805 g (Polish ammo)
- le. F.K. 38 ('brazilian' gun, also in German service) - 1110 g
- Kw.K 40 (eg. for Pz-IVG) - 2450 g
- PaK. 40 (towed, also on StuG-IIIF/G*) - 2770 g (similar for the re-bored Soviet F-22 gun)
Didn't come across the data for the Panther's gun, though.
*my mistake, the Pak 40 was not used on Stug-III.
Last edited:
- Thread starter
- #26
- Thread starter
- #28
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
Well if I had my druthers and we are only talking about the army, then I'd say only produce the Pz IV chassis with the L40,8 75mm gun. No Pz III except as an experimental model to test out torsion bar suspension. After that I'd avoid the Tiger and Panther and produce only the VK3001 with L70 main gun and work on increasing mobility and reliability like the Leopard 1. Perhaps the VK3601 could be produced eventually as an upgrade to the Vk3001 with the 88mm gun and greater upgradability. I'd place mobility over reliability and only start producing the VK series in 1942 when they are ready. I'm not going to mess around with much sloped armor, just something like the US T-20 series or the Pz III/IV:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T20_Medium_Tank
Honestly though armor protection should be the last thought in tank design for the Germans at this point, as combat experience demonstrated that mobility and hitting power were far more important:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1#Entstehungsgeschichte
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/T20_Medium_Tank
Honestly though armor protection should be the last thought in tank design for the Germans at this point, as combat experience demonstrated that mobility and hitting power were far more important:
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leopard_1#Entstehungsgeschichte
- Thread starter
- #30
Here is my take on the 5-10,5 cm cannons for tank/AFV and anti-tank usage, direct fire as a main task:
- 5cm gun, preferably using the more powerful cartridge from the two. The HE shell need to be longer, heavier. Need to be ready for 1939.
- 7,5 cm gun, using the cartridge from the F.K. 38 gun, as a tank gun, barrel lengths 30-40 caliber. Also for 1939
- 8,8cm, using the ammo historically used the Tiger tank and Flak guns, barrel L/56. Need to be ready for early 1941.
- 8,8 cm, casing narrower than the Tiger's round had, casing length circa 500 mm, propellant charge of 2.5-2.8 kg (comparing vs. the Pak 40 at ~2,8 and KwK 40 at ~2,5 kg), both as AFV and anti-tank gun, barrel L/40, MV at circa 700 m/s for full bore (9kg shell). Also for early 1941.
- gun for 10,5cm x 822mm R, the historical ammo for Tiger II necked out to accept bigger shell. For late 1942/early 1943.
Not sure whether is a good idea to have anything bigger than the small 8,8cm as a towed ATG. The bigger ones need a vehicle to be installed on, tracked preferably, to act as self propelled ATGs.
- 5cm gun, preferably using the more powerful cartridge from the two. The HE shell need to be longer, heavier. Need to be ready for 1939.
- 7,5 cm gun, using the cartridge from the F.K. 38 gun, as a tank gun, barrel lengths 30-40 caliber. Also for 1939
- 8,8cm, using the ammo historically used the Tiger tank and Flak guns, barrel L/56. Need to be ready for early 1941.
- 8,8 cm, casing narrower than the Tiger's round had, casing length circa 500 mm, propellant charge of 2.5-2.8 kg (comparing vs. the Pak 40 at ~2,8 and KwK 40 at ~2,5 kg), both as AFV and anti-tank gun, barrel L/40, MV at circa 700 m/s for full bore (9kg shell). Also for early 1941.
- gun for 10,5cm x 822mm R, the historical ammo for Tiger II necked out to accept bigger shell. For late 1942/early 1943.
Not sure whether is a good idea to have anything bigger than the small 8,8cm as a towed ATG. The bigger ones need a vehicle to be installed on, tracked preferably, to act as self propelled ATGs.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Original Panzer IV chassis was rated at 18 tons due to miserly steel allocation for German tank program. Upgraded to 23 tons during 1942 to meet emergency need for a medium tank. If we start serious planning during 1936 then we can do better.
Step 1.
Construction of three 300 vehicle per month armored vehicle plants begin immediately at Alkett, MIAG and MAN plus plants for component suppliers (engines, turrets, weapons etc.). Without these factory complexes any tanks we design are just artist renditions.
Step 2.
1936 Germany had no armored fighting vehicles worthy of the name (panzer I doesn't count). We need something immediately. I propose a light tank / full track weapons carrier made from existing components to largely eliminate development time.
.....Suspension and engine copied directly from Sd.Kfz.7 artillery tractor which is already in production.
.....Light tank variant identical in size to historical Panzer IIL. 4.63m long x 2.48m wide. 30mm frontal armor.
.....Weapons carrier variant gets same 220mm chassis extension as historical Wespe. SP 10.5cm howitzer and SP sIG33 15cm rifled mortar use this chassis.
.....Light StuG variant hull similar to historical Hetzer. However vehicle uses Wespe chassis (220mm extension, engine moved to center). 50mm well sloped frontal armor. 7.5cm/43 main gun.
.....SP Flakvierling can use light tank chassis but with 1,900mm turret ring. Vehicle is plenty wide.
These inexpensive (about RM 40,000 each) vehicles get produced like hot rolls. Light tank production ends when larger medium tank enters service. However SP artillery remain in production indefinitely.
Step 3. Design a proper 30 ton medium tank powered by 400 hp Daimler-Benz diesel engine.
Essentially a larger version of Panzer IIL.
Designing and testing a vehicle this large takes time. But we've got breathing room as Panzer II / light StuG can hold the line until 1941. When design is ready one of the 300 vehicle per month factory complexes will be devoted entirely to this tank. A second factory complex will be devoted entirely to a matching 30 ton StuG. Third factory complex will keep producing Panzer II based SP artillery.
Step 1.
Construction of three 300 vehicle per month armored vehicle plants begin immediately at Alkett, MIAG and MAN plus plants for component suppliers (engines, turrets, weapons etc.). Without these factory complexes any tanks we design are just artist renditions.
Step 2.
1936 Germany had no armored fighting vehicles worthy of the name (panzer I doesn't count). We need something immediately. I propose a light tank / full track weapons carrier made from existing components to largely eliminate development time.
.....Suspension and engine copied directly from Sd.Kfz.7 artillery tractor which is already in production.
.....Light tank variant identical in size to historical Panzer IIL. 4.63m long x 2.48m wide. 30mm frontal armor.
.....Weapons carrier variant gets same 220mm chassis extension as historical Wespe. SP 10.5cm howitzer and SP sIG33 15cm rifled mortar use this chassis.
.....Light StuG variant hull similar to historical Hetzer. However vehicle uses Wespe chassis (220mm extension, engine moved to center). 50mm well sloped frontal armor. 7.5cm/43 main gun.
.....SP Flakvierling can use light tank chassis but with 1,900mm turret ring. Vehicle is plenty wide.
These inexpensive (about RM 40,000 each) vehicles get produced like hot rolls. Light tank production ends when larger medium tank enters service. However SP artillery remain in production indefinitely.
Step 3. Design a proper 30 ton medium tank powered by 400 hp Daimler-Benz diesel engine.
Essentially a larger version of Panzer IIL.
Designing and testing a vehicle this large takes time. But we've got breathing room as Panzer II / light StuG can hold the line until 1941. When design is ready one of the 300 vehicle per month factory complexes will be devoted entirely to this tank. A second factory complex will be devoted entirely to a matching 30 ton StuG. Third factory complex will keep producing Panzer II based SP artillery.
- Thread starter
- #32
More German manuals, including the ones for ammo:
Germany old
Some interesting articles about (not just German) AFVs:
History | For the Record
BTW, seems like Tiger's ammo propellant was at 2,9 kg max, the Panthers at 4 kg, going by those manuals.
Germany old
Some interesting articles about (not just German) AFVs:
History | For the Record
BTW, seems like Tiger's ammo propellant was at 2,9 kg max, the Panthers at 4 kg, going by those manuals.
Shortround6
Major General
Let me see if I have this right. Do away with ALL the tanks that did the majority of the effective fighting in 1939-40 and replace them with SP guns?
The MK IIs were NOT particularly effective in combat without back-up/support from the Czech tanks or Pz IIIs IVs. and NO SP guns built on a MK II like chassis are NOT a substituent for real tanks in offensive operations however well they might perform on defense or from ambush.
And by the way, the MK IV hit 22.3 tons in April of 1941 with introduction of the F model with the short gun. The MK IV hand't weighed 18 tons since the first 35 built in late 1937 and early 38. The weight limit had as much to do with the capacity of the European bridges and the German army's portable bridges as it did steel allocation.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
Czech tanks have nothing to do with German planning during 1936.
Bear in mind we are building the 2.5m wide Panzer IIL, not 2.28m wide Panzer IIC. In a pinch vehicle can be armed with 5cm/60 main gun just as was planned for historical Panzer IIL. I suspect 7.5cm/24 cannon would also work.
Bear in mind we are building the 2.5m wide Panzer IIL, not 2.28m wide Panzer IIC. In a pinch vehicle can be armed with 5cm/60 main gun just as was planned for historical Panzer IIL. I suspect 7.5cm/24 cannon would also work.
Shortround6
Major General
They didn't have anything to do with German planning in 1936 but they sure filled the gap with the lack of MK III tanks didn't they?
Their contribution to the fighting was out of proportion to their numbers. The MK IIs performed a bit poorly.
As for the SUPER MK IIL, Great idea as long as the ammo holds out. Bang!, oops, have to go back and reload.
Ammo for the MK IIL 330 rounds of 20mm and 2250 rounds of 7.9mm. Ammo for the Big diesel powered 8 wheel armored cars, 480 rounds of 20mm and 2400 rounds of 7.9mm. Ammo for the big diesel powered 8 wheel armored cars with 50mm guns??? 55 rounds of 50mm and 1050 rounds of 7.9mm. 30-37 rounds of 50mm ammo for the super MK II? MK IIIs could carry 84-92 rounds and a lot more MG ammo.
Small chassis with big gun may not always be the best choice.
BTW the MK III was under design in 1935 and the first 5 were completed by early May 1937. Now maybe the Germans could have pushed harder but they went through several suspension designs (and not all the eight wheel MK IIIs used the same spring set-ups), two engines, a couple of transmissions (changed again on the "H") and the steering system.
Of course with your planning the SUPER MK II will have a perfect engine, suspension, transmission and steering gear from day one?
First MK IIs used a 5.7 liter 130hp engine, most of the rest used a 6.2 liter 150hp engine, the "L" used a 6.75 liter 180hp engine (and 200 more rpm) . The Pz 38(t) used a 7.75 liter engine that went though 125, 140 and 160hp versions by increasing the rpm among other things.
Their contribution to the fighting was out of proportion to their numbers. The MK IIs performed a bit poorly.
As for the SUPER MK IIL, Great idea as long as the ammo holds out. Bang!, oops, have to go back and reload.
Ammo for the MK IIL 330 rounds of 20mm and 2250 rounds of 7.9mm. Ammo for the Big diesel powered 8 wheel armored cars, 480 rounds of 20mm and 2400 rounds of 7.9mm. Ammo for the big diesel powered 8 wheel armored cars with 50mm guns??? 55 rounds of 50mm and 1050 rounds of 7.9mm. 30-37 rounds of 50mm ammo for the super MK II? MK IIIs could carry 84-92 rounds and a lot more MG ammo.
Small chassis with big gun may not always be the best choice.
BTW the MK III was under design in 1935 and the first 5 were completed by early May 1937. Now maybe the Germans could have pushed harder but they went through several suspension designs (and not all the eight wheel MK IIIs used the same spring set-ups), two engines, a couple of transmissions (changed again on the "H") and the steering system.
Of course with your planning the SUPER MK II will have a perfect engine, suspension, transmission and steering gear from day one?
First MK IIs used a 5.7 liter 130hp engine, most of the rest used a 6.2 liter 150hp engine, the "L" used a 6.75 liter 180hp engine (and 200 more rpm) . The Pz 38(t) used a 7.75 liter engine that went though 125, 140 and 160hp versions by increasing the rpm among other things.
davebender
1st Lieutenant
m. Zgkw. 8t KM m 8
If it uses same suspension and drive train as Sd.Kfz.7 artillery tractor it will have an adequate engine, suspension, transmission and steering gear from 1934 onward just like vehicle in above picture. And it will automatically benefit from ongoing Sd.Kfz.7 improvements in those components.
If it uses same suspension and drive train as Sd.Kfz.7 artillery tractor it will have an adequate engine, suspension, transmission and steering gear from 1934 onward just like vehicle in above picture. And it will automatically benefit from ongoing Sd.Kfz.7 improvements in those components.
Shortround6
Major General
Do you even read your own sources? That half-track used the same engines as the regular Panzer II. It just started with a bit smaller version and stopped before it got to the 180hp version used in the L.
Your perfect engine might be a bit under powered for an up armored, up gunned, stretched chassis tank.
BTW, still waiting for picture of MK IV turret with 105mms gun, co-ax mg, closed top and commanders cupola.
Your perfect engine might be a bit under powered for an up armored, up gunned, stretched chassis tank.
BTW, still waiting for picture of MK IV turret with 105mms gun, co-ax mg, closed top and commanders cupola.
- Thread starter
- #38
Although the development of the Flak artillery was the domain of the Luftwaffe, we might discuss it here. Any suggestions for the development of the light and heavy Flak? How realistic is the proximity fuse, and/or guided missile for, say, early 1940s Germany? Unguided rockets? I've already suggested an earlier introduction of 30mm.
Shortround6
Major General
I think you can pretty much forget anything electronic. Germans were working at a pretty fast pace there to begin with and the problem wasn't the idea but the hardware.
It also took the allies a number of years after the war to turn some of the German prototypes into weapons suitable for service.
You might look to the British for their success, or lack of it, with AA rockets in the early part of the war. You also hit the problem with rockets that each rocket is cheap but you need a lot of them and they use a lot more propellant per round than the expensive gun. Figuring where the crossover point is, is the trick.
Early introduction of the 30mms might be best bet.
It also took the allies a number of years after the war to turn some of the German prototypes into weapons suitable for service.
You might look to the British for their success, or lack of it, with AA rockets in the early part of the war. You also hit the problem with rockets that each rocket is cheap but you need a lot of them and they use a lot more propellant per round than the expensive gun. Figuring where the crossover point is, is the trick.
Early introduction of the 30mms might be best bet.
wiking85
Staff Sergeant
German Research in World War II by Leslie E. Simon, Major General, Ordnance Department, U.S. Army, Retired, former Director, the Ballistic Research Laboratories. Merriam Press Military Digital Library L99
This 1947 survey indicates that like other fields the German electronics industry was under utilized in terms of research.
