Panther tank keeps original weight (1 Viewer)

Ad: This forum contains affiliate links to products on Amazon and eBay. More information in Terms and rules

:shock:
http://www.tank-net.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=36959
Al a meeting on 15 September 1939, Wa Pruef 6 and Krupp discussed the design of a new chassis, the VK 20.01 (IV), as a further development of the Pz.Kpfw.IV series. The engine compartment and the Maybach HL 116 engine were to be adopted from the VK 20.01 (III). Maximum speed was to be 42 kilometers per hour, the same as the Pz.Kpfw.IV Ausf.C. The suspension was selected to support a vehicle weight of 20 metric tons with a hull width of 1820 mm and an overall width of 2900 to 2950 mm. The Schachtellaufwerk (interleaved roadwheel suspension) from the VK 20.01 (III) couldn't be used, since it resulted in an overall width of about 3040 mm and exceeded the weight specification. Krupp proposed a six- wheel suspension with leaf springs which could use components from the normal eight-roadwheel suspension for the Pz.Kpfw.IV.

At a meeting on 28 October 1939 with Wa Pruef 6, a diameter of 630 mm was set for a six-roadwheel suspension for the VK 20.01 (IV). New Kgs 61/400/120 tracks were to be utilized. The designation for VK 20.01 (IV) evolved to VK 20.01 (BW) in November and then was changed to B.W.40 in December 1939.

On 13 December 1939, the frontal armor for the B.W.40 was increased from 30 mm to 50 mm thick. The basic hull shape for the B.W.40 was the same as the Pz.Kpfw .IV Ausf.D. On 4 January 1940, Wa Pruef 6 notified Krupp that two armor hulls and one soft steel hull were to be produced for the three B.W.40 experimental chassis. Three superstructures and rear decks were to be made from soft steel.

On 16 May 1940, Wa Pruef 6 informed Krupp that in consideration of the wartime situation, the B.W.40 project was to be shelved.
Also in May 1940, Krupp initiated a new design in coordination with Wa Pruef 6, the VK 20.01 (K) with either the Maybach HL 116 or HL 115 motors. As recorded in Krupp's 1939/1940 fiscal year report, preliminary proposals had been completed for the VK 20.01 (K) with 5 cm armament and heavier armor. A full-scale wooden model was being completed, and a detailed design had been started. The experimental turret for the VK 20.01 was being designed by Krupp with 5 cm Kw.K. L/42 armament. Frontal armor was to be 50 mm thick, side and rear armor 30 mm thick.

By 24 October 1940, Krupp had received contracts for three VK 20.01 (K) developmental chassis and by 12 November 1940 a contract for production of a 0-Serie of 12 VK 20.01 (K) complete with 5 cm gun turrets. Wa Pruef 6 had awarded contracts to M.A.N, and Daimler-Benz for the design of new tanks with 7.5 cm gun turrets in the 20 ton class.

In March 1941, Krupp proposed to complete three developmental VK 23.01 (K) chassis and six experimental VK 23.01 (K) with torsion bars. The VK 23.01 (K) was to have the power train components designed by Kniepkamp and developed by M.A.N.

On 18 April 1941, Wa Pruef 6 informed Krupp that they were to concentrate on development of a new submersible turret with a 5 cm Kw.K. L/60 gun for the VK 20.01 (K). The experimental turret for the new VK 20.01 (K) was to be completed by 1 February 1942 directly followed by production of 12 turrets for the 0-Serie.

By July 1941, an additional contract had been awarded to Krupp for three developmental VK 23.01 (K) chassis in soft steel without turrets. The previous contract for a 0-Serie of 12 was revised to specify two redesigned variants: six VK 20.02 (K) and six VK 23.01 (K). The six armored VK 20.02 (K) were to have 5 cm Kw.K. L/60 guns in their turrets.

Both the VK 20.01 (K) and VK 20.02 (K), designed for a maximum speed of 56 km/hr, had the same leaf spring suspension with six roadwheels (700 mm diameter) running on 450 mm wide Kgs 62/450/120 track. The total weight of a complete VK 20.01 (K) including a turret was calculated to be 21.5 metric tons, compared to the VK 20.02 (K) at 23 metric tons.

To meet the requirement for standardization demanded by Kniepkamp, the VK 23.01 (K) was to have a Schachtellaufwerk designed by M.A.N, with six 880 mm diameter roadwheels, a torsion bar suspension, and 474 mm wide Kgs 63/474/110 tracks. The first VK 23.01 (K) developmental chassis with torsion bar suspension, outfitted for total submersion, etc., could be delivered, at the earliest, about 1 October 1942.

In designing their VK 23.01 (K), Krupp contacted Zahnradfabrik Friedrichshafen and Maybach on 19 September 1941 in order to obtain the latest installation drawings of transmissions for the Dreiradien-Lenkgetriebe (triple radius steering gear) designed by M.A.N.

In a report written in January 1942, Woelfert related how the design and completion of the VK 20.02 (K) had frequently been delayed due to the following reasons: Initially a 5 cm turret was specified with an inner turret ring diameter of 1350 mm without a traversing floor. Then, on 10 October 1941, a 5 cm turret with an inner turret ring diameter of 1400 mm was required, to allow the option of mounting a 7.5 cm gun turret. Finally, the 7.5 cm Einheitsturm (standard turret) with 7.5 cm Kw.K.44 was specified, at first with an inner turret ring diameter of 1560 mm, later increased to 1600. As a result of continuously increasing the turret ring diameter, the hull width was expanded from 1600 to 1650 mm and the hull (originally 400 mm shorter) had to be repeatedly lengthened. Also, the ammunition storage was fundamentally changed. Along with this came the requirement to slope the superstructure walls, especially the driver's front plate.

In a meeting on 17 December 1941 with Krupp, Oberst Fichtner (head of Wa Pruef 6) expressed his position on tank development as follows: Against the advice of Wa Pruef 6, higher authority had decided that the weight class for the future tank should be 30 tons and not the 24 ton tank proposed by Wa Pruef 6. Fichtner was opposed to this decision. In his opinion, time would be lost since the 30 ton tank had yet to be developed, whereas development of the 24 ton tank was almost completed.
 
But the Panther was VK30.02 implimented by Guderian's Panzerkommision results of fall 1941 after examining captured T-34 tanks on the eastern front. As it happens, the VK30.02 was to be 30 - 35 tons at the onset of the design.
 
Sorry, it doesn't pass the "smell" test.

Somehow, despite being made longer, wider, mounting bigger turrets, using wider tracks, bigger road wheels, etc this thing not only didn't gain weight it actually went down?.

Keeping the same engine and yet gaining 14kph in speed seems like a good trick too, a 33% increase in speed using the same engine?

Lots of contracts placed, were are the results? Like even a few photographs of test chassis or even mock ups?

BTW extending the hull 400mm for a hull 4 ft tall requires about 500lbs for 30mm side armor, not counting top and bottom armor. Top and bottom armor if 15mm thick is another 375lbs or so. I really do like they can drop a 75mm KwK L70 gun into a chassis originally designed for a 50mm/L42 gun with just a little stretching. The Panther gun weighing just about double what the 7.5cm L48 gun in the MK IV (roughly 1/2 a ton more) did let alone the 5cm L42 gun. (closer to 4 times the weight) and it is not just the weight but the bulk of the gun. ALL the weight is not the result of a longer barrel but a bigger breech area, a bigger breech block and larger recoil cylinders, which have to housed in a bigger turret (assuming, of course that the same amount of room to work the gun is desired and circus contortionists are not used for loaders).
 
Fine post. People tend to forget that Panther was a big tank, being long, wide and high (higher?) as KV-85. It was not offering a thicker armor.

BTW, an even easier solution, Dave - build the JgdPz-IV/70 :)

As I recall, dimensionally it was bigger than a Tiger I: longer and taller, but maybe a bit narrower. It always seemed strange to me that it would be so. There must be a lot of wasted volume.
 
Last edited:
Prototype:
tank_pantera_3_full.jpg


Production model:
PzV_1.gif
 
T-44-122 (!!) with Panther. The Soviets were always capable to find the way for huge cannons to be installed in modestly sized tanks.]

It was often done by limiting elevation and depression of the main gun. Elevation affects max range ( not important unless you are using tanks for artillery) and teh ability to shoot onto hill sides/upper floors of buildings. Depression affects the ability to fire into valleys and More importantly, the ability to use hull down positions. Being able to shoot while exposing only the turret may be a big advantage compared to exposing the upper half of the hull.

For Stugs and tank destroyers with fixed guns, fitting larger guns sometimes means a bit less traverse in addition to less elevation and depression. Large gun Soviet tanks were also rather notorious for limited ammo supply.

The trade-offs were known and accepted by the Soviets, wither the Germans would accept the same trade-offs?

A T-34/85 carried 55 rounds of main gun ammo (?). A Panther carried 79 ( or more) of larger/bulkier rounds. A Panther lite might carry 1/2 the ammo of the big Panther. This means you need more tanks to get the same combat effect. Many tanks carried more HE than AP ammo and could run out of one type or the other in a matter of minutes in a hot action, requiring the tanks (AFV) to pull out of action for resupply. Gone from the battlefield when needed is almost as good as knocked out.
 
The T-44-122 was too much of a cannon for too small tank even for the Soviets, I guess. They continued with such a big cannon only for heavy tank line, ending with the T-10. The T-44 was trialed also with 100 mm, certainly a better match. The ammo count for the T-44-122 was probably even smaller than 28 rounds carried by IS-2.

A T-34/85 carried 55 rounds of main gun ammo (?).A Panther carried 79 ( or more) of larger/bulkier rounds.

Onwar.com states 56-60 for the T-34-85. The Panther was a bigger tank, the similarly sized KV-85 carried 71 round, per onwar.com. Curiously enough, the same source states for the IS-1 carrying only 59 rounds for the 85mm.

A Panther lite might carry 1/2 the ammo of the big Panther. This means you need more tanks to get the same combat effect. Many tanks carried more HE than AP ammo and could run out of one type or the other in a matter of minutes in a hot action, requiring the tanks (AFV) to pull out of action for resupply. Gone from the battlefield when needed is almost as good as knocked out.

The need to carry more HE than AP also points out that a 75mm L/70 was a worse choice for a 45-ton tank than 88mm? The size of ammo was about the same, yet the 88mm HE shell was 50% heavier; the AP performance of both was well suited for needs of Eastern front warfare.
A Panther lite with 40 rounds of 75mm? More of lower value tanks means more engines, cannons, sights, radios, crews... Indeed it does not sound like a good investment of limited resources.
 
I am very doubtful it would be possible to mount the L70, and also provide it with reasonable mobility and protection in a turreted AFV.

By comparison the Stug III mounted the L-48 in an SPG configuration, with a lot less protection, but still weighed 25 tons. Not that i thik that to be a problem. i think the Stug was a far better investment prospect for the Germans than the over lavish Panther or worse the profligate tiger designs. They could have had at least twice as many Stugs as Panthers to fight their defensive battles 1943-5.

I am not aware of any design attempt for a turretted version of the Stug III...essentially a Mk III with a turretted L48. The problem was the turret ring...it was simply too small, but Im not convinced this was not possible. A simplified design, devoid of all the frills and froth and were the hallmark of all the other designs. Basic, cheap, easy to produce, based on a proven design. The MkIV almost fitted that bill, but needed simplification as well. Thats what they needed (ie a simple, basic, easy to produce, reliable tank that could be mass produced cheaply and quickly).
 
You would need to redesign the upper superstructure for a larger ring, as the Panzer III is 40 cm shorter than the IV you'd have to move the turret a bit forward which, together with the long and heavy gun, would lead to an enourmous weight shift to the forward suspension. This would require further work to balance this out, in short: not worth the hassly if you already have the Pz IV capable of holding the gun.
StuG III was 24 tonnes.
 
Last edited:
"Simply" lengthen and widen the hull = throw away all the machinery tools for hull production and build them anew = high cost and major drops in production. Useless investment because you had the long-gunned Pz IV and could use most of the tool for StuG III with long gun, the latter for far less investments.
 
I am very doubtful it would be possible to mount the L70, and also provide it with reasonable mobility and protection in a turreted AFV.

By comparison the Stug III mounted the L-48 in an SPG configuration, with a lot less protection, but still weighed 25 tons. Not that i thik that to be a problem. i think the Stug was a far better investment prospect for the Germans than the over lavish Panther or worse the profligate tiger designs. They could have had at least twice as many Stugs as Panthers to fight their defensive battles 1943-5.

As much as I like the Panther I gotta agree, although I'd switch over to the JPz IV/70 and develop the Jagdpanther as soon as possible. Naturally this means they're going to have to be introduced much earlier than historically: they're gonna be needed for the IS-IIs and the heavier Soviet TDs like the (I)SU-152 series. The StuGs are fine for the West unless the Pershing and Centurion get introduced, and the East until the end of '43.
 
The trouble is that these limited traverse tank destroyers are NOT tanks and while they can substitute to some extent the Germans still needed real tanks even for limited offensives (local counter attacks) even if the general tone of combat was defensive.

Please note that the tank destroyers/tank hunters had a some what limited anti-personnel ability. While they could and did carry HE ammo they were limited (mostly) to a single machine gun with around 600 rounds for most of them.
Tiger I and Panthers carried (if full?) 4800-5100 rounds of machine gun ammo and one gun aimed with the main gun sight. A tank platoon can supply a rather formidable amount of fire support for an infantry unit that a TD platoon cannot.

Now perhaps they could have cut the ammo to 2500-3000 rounds and cut the main gun ammo a bit and wound up with a smaller volume of space that had to be armored ( assistant driver/hull gunner is generally figured to consume 35 cubic feet) but getting rid of ALL the tanks with rotating guns turrets might not have been smart.

Something to consider on the effectiveness of a tank is it's rate of engagement, how many targets can it engage in a given period of time. This includes rate/s of fire (practical, ie getting spare ammo from some were besides a ready rack), turret or vehicle traverse, how easy or quickly the gun can be swung from one target to another and how much situational awareness the commander can keep and thus keep directing the gunner onto new targets while having the driver maneuver the vehicle (either to bring gun onto target or gain new firing position or avoid a threat).
Obviously training and experience play a big part but cramped fighting compartments with limited outward visibility and slow traverse ( or limited traverse) also play a part.
 
Last edited:
I am very doubtful it would be possible to mount the L70, and also provide it with reasonable mobility and protection in a turreted AFV.

Apparently the 35 ton version was built, it just had less armor than the historical final production version of the Panther, 60mm instead of 80mm for the hull. The extra weight from the armor required heavier running gear, which when coupled upped the weight to 44 tons from the 35 tons of the prototype.
mt72017-800x500.jpg

man.jpg

Y6wsZRB.png

Guerra abierta: Daimler Benz VK3002
 
Last edited:
That is the common excuse but it doesn't stand up very well.

Steel weighs 40lbs per square ft for a 1 in thickness. As a rough measure 20mm is 80% of 1in (25.4mm) or 32lbs per square ft. A chunk of armor 6.435 ft wide (distance between the tracks) and 10 ft high (roughly figuring 5 feet from hull floor to hull roof, I can't read the numbers in drawing and doubling the height for a 60 degree angle (not 55) gives a weight of armor of 2059lbs. Doesn't count the wings/triangles over the tracks counts the lower front plate.

A little over 1 ton of armor caused an increase of 9 tons in the running gear?????

Somebody wants to do a more accurate number on the frontal armor area be my guest.
 
That is the common excuse but it doesn't stand up very well.

Steel weighs 40lbs per square ft for a 1 in thickness. As a rough measure 20mm is 80% of 1in (25.4mm) or 32lbs per square ft. A chunk of armor 6.435 ft wide (distance between the tracks) and 10 ft high (roughly figuring 5 feet from hull floor to hull roof, I can't read the numbers in drawing and doubling the height for a 60 degree angle (not 55) gives a weight of armor of 2059lbs. Doesn't count the wings/triangles over the tracks counts the lower front plate.

A little over 1 ton of armor caused an increase of 9 tons in the running gear?????

Somebody wants to do a more accurate number on the frontal armor area be my guest.

Entirely new mechanics and IIRC a new more powerful engine, while also having to upgrade the front suspension due to the weight increase and imbalance at the front caused by twice as much armor to the front as the rear. There might have been something to balance the weight toward the back. It wasn't just a simple armor adjustment.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Back