What if Germany built only Panthers, instead of Tigers also?

With proper tactics the allied tanks could somehow match the German Tiger and Panther, but I have a feeling this was only when the Germans attacked.

And the allied were meant to be on the offensive...

Anyways, I found that in the battles of Lorraine the allied did some interesting damage that Germans could not have at the time. ( Patton vs Manteuffel )


"...and the results of three tank destroyers and five M4s lost for forty-three new Panthers, spoke for themselves."



http://stonebooks.com/archives/010916.shtml

I´ll get more info on Lorraine battles later on.

 

Indeed, but I never stated that I was and never gave any indication that I would. Further this is nor required to debate about a tank.

I study math, and I am very familiar with abstract ideas, even though I indeed do not know what a "Leichester equation" is. Your link below did not work for me, I did not find anything else on the web.

And abstract idea is nice, but you have to evaluate whether it is a good conception to be applied on your problem. In this case, your model is worthless, if you do not include different range. Indeed it would be very easy. Just do not let all tanks fire at the same time, but after each other. If you let the Panthers have the first shot, they will win in your example with 6 survivors.

So you might lay in on the Germans that they did not manage to construct something strong and easy like the T-34/85. Ok, agreed. But accept the fact that they didn't. The choice was "Panther" or "No Panther". And if an average Panther destroyed 5 Shermans before killed himself, and the Sherman was superior to the Panzer IV, now what is the better choice?

Of course, don't you know this? It was given a new turret and the L48 gun, and this was the optimum it could bare. The chassis was not suitable for a better armed tank.

The Jagdpanzer IV did have a very similar gun as the Panther, but it was extremely top-heavy and a hardly maneuverable. The Nashorn/Hornisse was a self-propelled 8,8cm/L71 gun, but hardly armored.

Face the fact that it was impossible to upgrade the Panzer IV chassis to a turreted tank with a gun similar to the 7,5cm/L71, the 8,8cm, the 8,5cm gun of the T-34, or the Firefly gun. If it would have been possible, the Germans would have done so.

This is the reason they needed a better new chassis. There was no way around.

 

"You have unright, the Panther was unabthingbar."


This Tank is the best Tank from the World

 

Yes, the Pz IV was upgunned but, the original hull and turret remained. The Allies all (US with the Sherman first the T23 turret, then the 90mm M26 turret, Britain with the Valentine and Cromwell / Challenger and, the Soviets with the T34/85). The point is, with sloped armor and a larger capacity turret the Pz IV would have been capable of upgrading to nearly the equal of a Panther without having to put a new vehicle in production. It would have saved nearly a year in productivity. How much would that have been worth to the Germans?

 

Where does this your assumption come from? (I do not agree in it, but please state your sources first.)

 

See my posts earlier on this thread. But, to refresh things:

I suggested that the Pz IV could be upgraded by giving it sloped armor with the front thickness at 60 to 80mm with a 40 - 60 degree slope. This gives the equivalent of that on the Panther. The side is 30mm (the original thickness) with some slope making it effectively 40 - 50mm thick. Again, the Panther's side and rear armor equivalent.
With a new turret housing a 75L50 - 60 gun (vice the Panther's L70) with an 80mm face (say with a saukopf type mantle) the armor and gun are virtually the same as a Panther's.
To allow for the roughly 2 - 4 tons added weight (yes, I've actually thought this through to doing some rough weight calculations) the suspension gets an additional leaf spring and is spaced out from the hull an additional 10 cm (4") to allow a new track (or the orignial with grouser extensions on both sides) to be used making the track 60cm vice the original 40cm wide. The engine is bored out and the stroke changed (two common fixes to increase power) to provide 330 vice the original 300 Hp. This keeps the power to weight ratio about even. Top speed would remain about 40 kph.
Given a weight of about 28 to 30 tons this vehicle would be far cheaper to build, easier to maintain and, would not disrupt production nearly as badly as the change over to a totally new vehicle. Combined with the Tiger (as I originally suggested) as a support vehicle provided in small numbers it could have formed a homogenous panzer regiment in each division (two battalions of the same tank rather than of two different tanks).
As to sources, this is primarily an engineering exercise as the Germans did not originally try and do anything like this to any of their AFV (unlike the Soviets, US and, to some extent British). But, see:

von Senger u. Etterlin, German Tanks of World War II

Forty, German Tanks of World War II

Spielberger, The Panther (trans.)
Speilberger, Panzer IV (trans.)
Ellis and Chamberlain, PanzerKampfwager V Panther
For weights I used see:

Machinery's Handbook 24th edition
Jorgensen Steel's Steel and Aluminum Reference Book

The bottom line is, the Germans could have managed to do this. That they didn't doesn't make it any less relevant as a "what-if" but, more so.

[ 21. December 2003, 11:05 PM: Message edited by: T. A. Gardner ]

 

Christmas duties make me lack the time to assemble a good answer - to be continued towards the end of the week.

 

Don't want to be rude... but for me, the Tiger is the best tank of all times, and you may be right, the Tiger is harder to build and to opperate, but "hardness makes toughness"

 

They simply did not have the time to develop it. Panthers consumed too much time to fix all its flaws, and they never succeeded in fixing all of them.

The Pz IV reached its limits in armour, gun and speed in its latest versions, but having 80mm of armour, quality artillery optics, good speed and manœuvrability, a very good gun and a most reliable design for suspension, transmision and engine, could match anything the Allies had. Even IS-II monsters.

However, T.A.'s realistic posibilities of easily upgrading such a reliable tank are very good and it certainly would have helped the German war effort a lot.

 

GAG, with all due respect, the Tiger, for all its qualities, was never meant to be the main-strength tank of the German Army; the Panther was. Admittedly, the Panther wasn't perfect, but I'd sooner have a Panther than a Tiger.

Yours,
Paul

 

Just wondering if those who always wish to be in Panthers take into account the poor quality steel used in late war manufacture that would result in splinters flying around in the tank after a non penetrative hit. The Panther was an excellent tank but many German vets always come down on the side of the Tiger. So I would have to agree with them!!! They know best I guess!

 

Hmmmmmmmmm don't know about preference for a Tiger Red. Welcome back too by the way and hoping 2004 will be a better one for health and happiness......

would have to have some interviews with some of the crews to get their opinion and find out just whom was able to be a crew from one tank to another

 

Did not germany start producing more "assault guns/Stugs etc."towards the end as they were cheaper,less time consuming to build?I imagine everyone "preferred" to be in a Tiger but there were only so many to go around.And then "there's that gas problem again"!All that time to build one then blow it up when it ran out of gas or got stuck in the mud!Pity! FramerT.

 

Ok, back at home with my tank books and enough time...

From my point of view, you overrate a Panzer IV that could have been reached this way. The Panther had up to 110 mm armor, and this *does* make a difference to 80. Its L70 was a high-tech gun, and your fictionary L60 would have been at best in between the performances of the L48 and the L70. I can't imagine this gun to be a match for a 85mm/L55 of a T-34 or a 17-pr of a Firefly.

I agree that the Germans should have done this upgrade (as a parallel), but I do not agree that it was a mistake to produce the Panther. To set this aside would have been the same mistake that the Germans made in early 1918 in the air - to send numbers of (not enough) improved Albatros fighters against the Allies, which were inferior to their new counterparts.

 

Just another example on how a tank with medium quality correctly used and in sufficient numbers can make a great difference. There's of course, the Sherman.

But what about Panzers I, II, III, (38)t and (35)t? All of them were inferior to almost everything they had to face from 1940 onwards and still, they achieved fantastic victories.

The Panzer III hardly equaled many of the British tanks in North Africa and was absolutely inferior to the T-34/76. However, in 1941 and 1942, when it was the backbone of the Panzer divisions it helped achieving a large number of victories.

The Panzer III will never be mentioned in debates about best tanks, but has to be taken into account when discussing the most influential ones.

This could have been the same with many, many more Panzer IVs instead of lousy Panthers, which by the way, annoys me when are considered Medium Tanks...

 

Just a couple of points on this. When I suggested 60 - 80 I meant the actual plate thickness. With the suggested slope this would give 90 to 160 mm of armor depending on the exact slope and thickness chosen.
The L48 has a maximum penetration of just shy of 150mm. The L70 is just over 170mm. An L55 - 60 could be expected to penetrate right around 160mm (spliting the difference). This is better than the Russian 85 which had about 150mm max (it wasn't all that good a gun penetration wise) and about equal to the 17pdr. This should have been more than adequite to deal with all but the heaviest Allied tanks. By having a small number of Tigers to support them, this gap is covered too.

 

Three words:
Stuka
8-8
radio units

And these victories were achieved against tactical inferior opponents. This was impossible later, as all Allies improved in tank warfare. Further, I don't think that there were many engagements of Panzer III against enemy tanks without Panzer IV support. And if so, even with Panzer IV, they could be defeated when fighting on their own... see the Arras incident.

Not having the Panther (you're the first one ever to call it 'lousy' ) would have meant to stand almost defenseless against masses of T-34 and Shermans.

 

Just a couple of points on this. When I suggested 60 - 80 I meant the actual plate thickness. With the suggested slope this would give 90 to 160 mm of armor depending on the exact slope and thickness chosen.
The L48 has a maximum penetration of just shy of 150mm. The L70 is just over 170mm. An L55 - 60 could be expected to penetrate right around 160mm (spliting the difference). This is better than the Russian 85 which had about 150mm max (it wasn't all that good a gun penetration wise) and about equal to the 17pdr. This should have been more than adequite to deal with all but the heaviest Allied tanks. By having a small number of Tigers to support them, this gap is covered too. </font>[/QUOTE]Question in between: How would you rate this improved Panzer IV in comparison to a Sherman?

 

A fair question. Given the caviat of larger production numbers (a fair assumption) a remodeled Pz IV like this would have been actually more useful than the Pz V for several reasons.
First, it would have had increased reliability. Pz V's were about 20% less reliable than the Pz IV based on servicability rates and operational strength returns. This would not have changed due simply to a rearrangement of the armor and a new turret / gun.
Next, the armor would have been almost as good as the Panther's. Let's assume the frontal armor is slightly less thick while the side is about the same as on a Panther. This means the vulnerability of both vehicles is very similar. The Panther was highly vulnerable to Allied tank rounds from the side and rear (unlike the Tiger). Our Pz IV variant would have a similar vulnerability.
In gun terms slicing 10 to 15 calibers off the L70 really doesn't make that much of a performance change. At longer ranges (2000m +) the weight of the round fired is the primary determinant of penetration. Below this it is the combination of mass and velocity. A slight decrease in velocity (as pointed out) really only amounts to a decrease of 10 - 15 mm of penetration. As a added bonus, the gun would improve in accuracy and barrel life (remember, a worn barrel decreases velocity and accuracy). These are not minor considerations in themselves.
Improved maintenance would also be a benefit. With less repairs, a lighter vehicle being easer to recover and, fewer different types in service a big savings in supply effort and maintenance are accrued. There is also the fuel savings to consider. This is a very important issue for the Germans.
Overall, there are alot of good reasons to improve the Pz IV as a lighter version of the Panther rather than go with what is essentially an undergunned heavy tank with very vulnerable flanks.

 

When germans made Tiger they want a heavy tank to be in the front of medium tanks and to breakthrough fortified points. But Tiger is a wonderfull tank but not cheap. Panther is a cheap one.
Germans develop Panther (medium tank) do destroy T34.
I don not think you can take a PIV and make a heavy tank from him. It is possible but not reliable. You can not patch it.
Germans need for propaganda and to raise moral of troops big tanks.
Tiger and Panther were concepted mainly to fight in eastern front. In western front they needed a lots of PIV and hetzer.