You are in charge of armored vehicle doctrine and design in 1939...

[Buba]

No, IMO the best possible summary of problems with German tank/vehicle engineering (and procurement) is this:

That is a single track linked of a fucking tracked motorcycle.
A tracked motorcycle which had double steering, i.e. could run without the wheel in front as it could steer with in its tracks ... where is the bangs-head-against-wall emoticon when you need it ...

 

[BlackDragon98]

Nazi Germany:
Scrap both Panzer III and Panzer IV designs and merge them into the Panzer III/IV

With this standardized chassis, I can make a
-Jagdpanzer (tank destroyer with 7.5cm long gun)
-StuG (assault gun with a 15cm arty gun like the Brummbar)
-open top Panzerjager (8.8cm gun, similar in appearance to the Nashorn)
-Flakpanzer (3.7cm Flak 43 or quad 2cm Flak 38 AA guns)
-open topped SPG (with a 15cm arty gun)
-armored recovery vehicle that can drag broken tanks back to be repaired

And because they all use the same chassis, there will be a high degree of part interchangeability and extreme ease of production

Anyone who disagrees with me will be forcibly retired. I don't like the idea of sending people to the camps.



Jagdpanzer III/IV

Panzer III/IV internal cutout

Panzer II will be converted into Sturmpanzer IIs, Wespes, or Flakpanzer IIs

Panzer 38(t) will be produced but only as Marders. No mention of Hetzer allowed, on the threat of being forcibly retired. Existing Panzer 38(t) will be used as recon instead. w

Panzer Is will be scrapped or sold to Germany's allies, along with the Panzer 35(t).

Weird shit like the Neubaufahrzeug will be sent to the shooting range and never discussed again, on the threat of being forcibly retired.

Half-tracks will have their suspension replaced with the RSO's suspension, as well the RSO will enter production immediately with a diesel engine.

Production of all trucks except the diesel engined Mercedes Benz L3000 will cease.

Crazy massive AFVs like the Karl Gerat, Ratte and Maus will never be mentioned again, on the threat of being forcibly retired.

All other AFV projects are to be ceased immediately and never mentioned again, on the threat of being forcibly retired.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Scrap both Panzer III and Panzer IV designs and merge them into the Panzer III/IV

You win points with me for adopting my favorite all-around AFV in World of Tanks.

 

[BlackDragon98]

You win points with me for adopting my favorite all-around AFV in World of Tanks.

The Panzer III/IV is basically the German T-34-85.
Sloped armor, good gun, easy to build and maintain.

 

[sillygoose]

The Panzer III/IV is basically the German T-34-85.
Sloped armor, good gun, easy to build and maintain.

Only problem is they couldn't get the mechanics of it working that well given that they combined different parts from the Pz III and IV.

Mehrzweckpanzer for the win:

Please wait...

forum.worldoftanks.com

 

[BlackDragon98]

Only problem is they couldn't get the mechanics of it working that well given that they combined different parts from the Pz III and IV.

Nashorn and Hummel would like to diagree.

 

[Buba]

Only problem is they couldn't get the mechanics of it working that well given that they combined different parts from the Pz III and IV.

The StuG IV has joined the chat ...

Nashorn and Hummel would like to diagree.

IMO the Panzer III/IV is too late to bother with. Something like it should had been done in the '40-42 timeframe, not '44.

 

[LordSunhawk]

Yes, but here you are doing it in 1939, so have at it!

Of course, those who know me know one thing... I love the T28/T95 and TOG.

So, I would, of course, fast track development of T28 in 1939, perhaps making use of a tank gun conversion of the 155mm Long Tom. DOOM TURTLE!

Would need a dedicated landing craft for it, which would irritate the Navy, but oh well.

One thing I'd also want... the Thunderbolt! Use it on my SPAAG vehicles...

NH 96506 Elco

Of the type carried by some motor torpedo boats (PT) during World War II.

www.history.navy.mil

 

[sillygoose]

Nashorn and Hummel would like to diagree.

Those weren't Pz III/IVs.

The StuG IV has joined the chat ...

How so? It was based on the Pz IV chassis.

IMO the Panzer III/IV is too late to bother with. Something like it should had been done in the '40-42 timeframe, not '44.

Yup. Just adopt the Pz IV by itself in 1938.

 

[Buba]

How so? It was based on the Pz IV chassis.

It was the Pz.IV chassis mated with StuG casematte which had been designed to be plopped on top of the Pz.III chassis

Yup. Just adopt the Pz IV by itself in 1938.

Preach on Brother, I have your back!

On another tangent - Schurzen in '39/40 - good idea? Protects sides against AT rifles and cannon at lower cost in weight and money than adding e.g. 2cm of armour?

 

[BlackDragon98]

Those weren't Pz III/IVs.

This design was rejected in favour of mounting the more powerful 15 cm sFH 18 L/30 howitzer on the specially designed Geschützwagen III/IV, which combined elements of both the Panzer III (driving and steering system) and Panzer IV chassis (suspension and engine).[1] The same chassis was also used for the Nashorn tank destroyer.

Hummel (vehicle) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

The Hummel and Nashorn were as close as they got to a Panzer III/IV.
Important thing to note about the Panzer III/IV is that it's mainly a chassis that can be adapted into a wide array of AFVs like the ones I listed in the above post.
Changing 8 small roadwheels to 6 big ones is also really easy, because the suspension remains the same (leaf spring). And it also makes it easier to make, as it takes less time to make 6 roadwheels vs 8 roadwheels.

 

[BlackDragon98]

One thing I'd also want... the Thunderbolt! Use it on my SPAAG vehicles...

NH 96506 Elco

Of the type carried by some motor torpedo boats (PT) during World War II.

www.history.navy.mil

Is the Thunderbolt reliable?
I recall there being a saying about the 1.1" quad AA mount needing a mechanic sitting right next to it to clear the jams that would happen every couple minutes.
Just wondering, is all.

 

[BlackDragon98]

The StuG IV has joined the chat ...




IMO the Panzer III/IV is too late to bother with. Something like it should had been done in the '40-42 timeframe, not '44.

I agree.
By the time the design was finalize it was already far too late.
And '40-42 is also too late.
The change needs to happen in 1937.
Fritz Todt has a chat with Heinz Guderian and tells him that Germany's resources will be overstretched with both the Panzer III and IV, urging him to find a way to merge the design into a "Universal Panzer". Also, the teething troubles with the Panzer III's torsion bar suspension will be another factor in abandoning the design.
And thus the Panzer III/IV is born.

 

[ShadowArxxy]

Is the Thunderbolt reliable?
I recall there being a saying about the 1.1" quad AA mount needing a mechanic sitting right next to it to clear the jams that would happen every couple minutes.
Just wondering, is all.

The quad 1.1" was an early war design that was prematurely rushed into service and then was quickly replaced with the 40mm Bofors instead of debugged. This was a wise decision overall since the Bofors was available, but had the Bofors not been available, a properly refined quad 1.1" would have been a solid heavy automatic AA weapon.

The Elco "Thunderbolt" mount was a mid-to-late war compact power mounting for a modular mix of 20mm Oerlikon and .50-cal MGs, both of which were highly reliable off-the-shelf guns.

 

[sillygoose]

This design was rejected in favour of mounting the more powerful 15 cm sFH 18 L/30 howitzer on the specially designed Geschützwagen III/IV, which combined elements of both the Panzer III (driving and steering system) and Panzer IV chassis (suspension and engine).[1] The same chassis was also used for the Nashorn tank destroyer.

Hummel (vehicle) - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

Yes, I'm aware. Those chassis were also less heavy than the Pz III/IV and longer, so it was easier to get the mechanics to work in the design.

The Hummel and Nashorn were as close as they got to a Panzer III/IV.
Important thing to note about the Panzer III/IV is that it's mainly a chassis that can be adapted into a wide array of AFVs like the ones I listed in the above post.
Changing 8 small roadwheels to 6 big ones is also really easy, because the suspension remains the same (leaf spring). And it also makes it easier to make, as it takes less time to make 6 roadwheels vs 8 roadwheels.

As close as, but not the same thing. Why not just adopt the Pz IV chassis back in 1938 instead? No need to try and mesh the designs. The Pz III wasn't even in production until late 1939 and was more complicated to manufacture thanks to the suspension system.

 

[BlackDragon98]

Yes, I'm aware. Those chassis were also less heavy than the Pz III/IV and longer, so it was easier to get the mechanics to work in the design.


As close as, but not the same thing. Why not just adopt the Pz IV chassis back in 1938 instead? No need to try and mesh the designs. The Pz III wasn't even in production until late 1939 and was more complicated to manufacture thanks to the suspension system.

This is the most likely POD for the Panzer III/IV

Between 1937 and 1940, attempts were made to standardize parts between Krupp's Panzer IV and Daimler-Benz's Panzer III.

Panzer III - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

 

[ATP]

Since german must started from 1939 with new stuff,they should:
1.produce as much as possible Pz4,and as fast as possible with long 75mm gun.
2.Produce czech medium tanks,as fast as possible with long 75mm guns,too.
3.When they could made enough,change entire Pz3 production for Stug 3.
4.Pz 2 chasis for Marder 2 and Wespe.
5.Produce french Char 1G and Sau 40 in France.
6.Produce Pz38 till enough medium tank are made ,later made Marder 3 and Hetzer on its chasis.
7.Do not made any heavy tanks.
8.Design from 1939 E 50 and E25,should be ready in 1943.do not waste time on E75 and E100.
9.When Skoda propose T25, made as much as possible.

Of course,with Hitler as leader they would lost anyway.

 

[SpicyJuan]

I'm surprised how no one is suggesting that Germany start developing heavier chassis. It would have allowed the Germans to come up with a true counterpart to the T-34 much earlier.

 

[sillygoose]

I'm surprised how no one is suggesting that Germany start developing heavier chassis. It would have allowed the Germans to come up with a true counterpart to the T-34 much earlier.

They did try that historically and ultimately dumped those chassis for a new, heavier, easier to mass produce design based on experience with Soviet designs.

 

[SpicyJuan]

They did try that historically and ultimately dumped those chassis for a new, heavier, easier to mass produce design based on experience with Soviet designs.

By then it would have been too late though. I get the feeling that the German designers sometimes lacked imagination when compared to the Soviets.