Can you imagine if Germany instead of making super tanks...

[Azinfriit 663]

...they had just sloped the front of the Panzer 4????

 

 

 

 

 

[RohmMohc 11,494]

which would have lead to having to build a new tank anyway because the transmission would've been screwed... the Panther was more mobile and even more well armoured with more firepower anyway...

[Comrad-Kruschev@psn 822]

Turret would still be weakness on Pz IV. But how about this idea: What if Germany gave the panther a lengthened chassis, a rear mounted transmission with easy access, a gear box that was designed for the vehicles weight, and a better final drive?

 

Or how about if they didn't over complicate things by producing so many different types of tanks and their variants?

Edited July 1, 2017 by *Comrad-Kruschev

[theSoon 439]

Yes it seems odd that reich didn't sloped their early wwII tanks but they did not need that - at the time there were no allied cannons that could pierce PzIV reliably (at least not enough) and the turret was supposed to let thru shells that hit them similarly to T-50 or even T-34.

Point was not to have an army of untouchable tanks but an army of tanks difficult to destroy by enemy and that was achieved.

Even in WT we see that their guns were more important as blitzkrieg required very good firepower as a base, armor was supposed to boost crew morale mostly.

 

reich just had enough armor at given time to have advantage on the field with their superior cannons

Edited July 1, 2017 by theSoon

[Tantor57 10,318]

2 hours ago, *Comrad-Kruschev said:

Turret would still be weakness on Pz IV. But how about this idea: What if Germany gave the panther a lengthened chassis, a rear mounted transmission with easy access, a gear box that was designed for the vehicles weight, and a better final drive?

 

Or how about if they didn't over complicate things by producing so many different types of tanks and their variants?

You mean if the Panther had been produced like intended with planetary drives ? Well you solve 80 % of the Panther issue. You always can replace the welded lower front plate by a bolted one and the only remaining problem remain track and transmission maintenance which would have been solved by adopting the suspension type that was intended of the E serie.

 

In any case. You can build all the tanks you want, but if you do not have enough men to drive them, it's pointless... That's why Germany chose building expansive but very powerful tank instead of cheap ones like M4's and T34's when you are fighting two countries who's military mass in 20 times yours when combined, you need a tank able to pull out a very favorable ratio.

[Ulatersk 8,959]

For Starters:

 

 

This is rather inferior to the Panther turret, and it still can not mount KwK 42.

 

 

When the sloping project was nearing something, the vehicle was at 28 tons.

 

 

Panzer IV G was rather negatively affected in automotive department already at 24 tons something, and it was drastically worse than Panther. 

 

And I dont exactly understand how would the transmission maintenance be resolved now on supposed sloped Panzer IV.

 

 

 

Nevermind the rather meager production difference between Panther chassis and Panzer IV.

[Panzerzwerg 2,682]

Yet still Panther is way more expensive. In a great ear, easiness and numbers are key to victory. 

[Stahlvormund101 12,039]

5 minutes ago, Panzerzwerg said:

Yet still Panther is way more expensive. In a great ear, easiness and numbers are key to victory. 

Panzer IV: 100.000 Reichsmark without gun

Panzer V "Panther): 120.000 Reichsmark, without gun, optics and radio

 

You tell me what is "way" more expensive. Given that the Panther had far better mobility, gun and armor, thats not too much of a difference.

[RohmMohc 11,494]

15 minutes ago, Panzerzwerg said:

Yet still Panther is way more expensive. In a great ear, easiness and numbers are key to victory. 

amusingly, towards the end iirc germany had more tanks (and assault guns) than crews...

 

If you have only so many Tank Crews the numbersof built vehicles arenot necessarily that much of an indication...

 

also

9 minutes ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

Panzer IV: 100.000 Reichsmark without gun

Panzer V "Panther): 120.000 Reichsmark, without gun, optics and radio

 

You tell me what is "way" more expensive. Given that the Panther had far better mobility, gun and armor, thats not too much of a difference.

this

 

not even mentioning that Panthers, which were in production for a shorter time than the Panzer IV reached iirc~6000 built tanks vs 8.500 Panzer IV

 

so not that much of a difference if you think about that that the Panzer IV was built from 36 to 45 and the Panther from 43 to 45

[Josephs_Piano 7,044]

On 7/2/2017 at 4:17 AM, RohmMohc said:

which would have lead to having to build a new tank anyway because the transmission would've been screwed... the Panther was more mobile and even more well armoured with more firepower anyway...

 

You don't have to slope the whole thing - just the bit from the top of the vertical driver/mg plate to the top of the (almost vertical) transmission cover - no need to change the transmission at all....  unless that makes it too heavy.....  but you can always thin the armour to save that weight.

 

However as others have pointed out - the turret is the problem.

 

 

[Nope 10,634]

could have germany have done anything more than eventually being forced to retreat

[Josephs_Piano 7,044]

not really - the only scenarios for Germany "winning" WW2 (essentially forcing a draw where they get to keep lots of land) require considerable alterations to reality.

 

The are some reasonable scenarios where the war might have lasted longer...  mostly involving the timing of Barbarossa and not splitting Case Blue.....  but Germany still loses in the end 'cos industry - the USA outproduces them all on its own let alone with the other allies added in.

[Ulatersk 8,959]

While Panther requires around 80 tons of ferrous and non-ferrous materials to make compared to 40 tons for Panzer IV, price wasnt much different.

 

Its a phony comparison with reichmarks, but it still has some value, since its two items from the same system.

 

 

What really shows that "Panther is expensive and hard to make" is a complete fabrication , is production numbers.

 

 

 

Lets take 1943, Pz IV vs Panther.

 

Krupp - 821 Pz IVs   (producing since 1937)

Vomag- 817 Pz IVs  (weakest link, production only since 1941)

Nibelung-Werke - 1376 Pz IVs (Basically a rather huge, dedicated tank factory from the start)

 

 

Remember that economies of scale, production experience, Panzer programme and few other minor factors are kicking in, and Pz IV should be peaking or close to peaking production.

 

 

 

MAN - 549  Panthers

Daimler-Benz - 614 Panthers

Henschel - 130 Panthers

MNH - 445 Panthers

 

New vehicle.

 

 

3014 vs 1621.

 

Forgetting that some factories were splitting production between types (really doubting something was worse than Tigers/locomotives/Panthers in Henchel),  we can see quite a few problems here.

 

Panzer IV, that should be flying through that production line after 5 years, can only achieve barely two 25 ton tanks with 2x 40 tons of material for one 45 ton tank needing 80. A 45 ton tank with double torsion bar suspension, bore evacuator, automatic extinguisher system, and water proofing.

 

 

Its basic math. Yet people seem to still mistake which one of the two is "expensive and hard to make".

 

Quote

could have germany have done anything more than eventually being forced to retreat

 

 

Other than not being in one of the most resource-poor regions of the world?

 

Not much.

 

If you would magic a sizable deposits of tungsten, aluminum, molybdenium, chrome, vanadium and tungsten inside Reich borders, few things would happen.

 

More widespread use of sPzB 41 and Pak 41 - making things like KVs, Matildas and T-34s irrelevant as far as german infantry would be involved.

 

FW190C - P-51D in late 1942 - early 1943.

 

Aero-engine development and industry - overall boost to the whole airforce, and jet engines, which while design-wise still xxxx, would have far longer lifespan with proper metal additives.

 

And more.

 

 

 

 

Edited July 10, 2017 by Ulatersk

[Doktor_Junkers 8,441]

This is the thread I've been saving this meme for.

 

[Stahlvormund101 12,039]

1 hour ago, Ulatersk said:

While Panther requires around 80 tons of ferrous and non-ferrous materials to make compared to 40 tons for Panzer IV, price wasnt much different.

 

Its a phony comparison with reichmarks, but it still has some value, since its two items from the same system.

 

 

What really shows that "Panther is expensive and hard to make" is a complete fabrication , is production numbers.

 

 

 

Lets take 1943, Pz IV vs Panther.

 

Krupp - 821 Pz IVs   (producing since 1937)

Vomag- 817 Pz IVs  (weakest link, production only since 1941)

Nibelung-Werke - 1376 Pz IVs (Basically a rather huge, dedicated tank factory from the start)

 

 

Remember that economies of scale, production experience, Panzer programme and few other minor factors are kicking in, and Pz IV should be peaking or close to peaking production.

 

 

 

MAN - 549  Panthers

Daimler-Benz - 614 Panthers

Henschel - 130 Panthers

MNH - 445 Panthers

 

New vehicle.

 

 

3014 vs 1621.

 

Forgetting that some factories were splitting production between types (really doubting something was worse than Tigers/locomotives/Panthers in Henchel),  we can see quite a few problems here.

 

Panzer IV, that should be flying through that production line after 5 years, can only achieve barely two 25 ton tanks with 2x 40 tons of material for one 45 ton tank needing 80. A 45 ton tank with double torsion bar suspension, bore evacuator, automatic extinguisher system, and water proofing.

 

 

Its basic math. Yet people seem to still mistake which one of the two is "expensive and hard to make".

 

 

 

Other than not being in one of the most resource-poor regions of the world?

 

Not much.

 

If you would magic a sizable deposits of tungsten, aluminum, molybdenium, chrome, vanadium and tungsten inside Reich borders, few things would happen.

 

More widespread use of sPzB 41 and Pak 41 - making things like KVs, Matildas and T-34s irrelevant as far as german infantry would be involved.

 

FW190C - P-51D in late 1942 - early 1943.

 

Aero-engine development and industry - overall boost to the whole airforce, and jet engines, which while design-wise still xxxx, would have far longer lifespan with proper metal additives.

 

And more.

Also drop some neat oil ressources in the german northern flatlands, the richness of those in Saudi-Arabia so you dont have to hold some remote oilfields in Romania.

Shoot Willy Messerschmidt and Ferdinand Porsche on sight, along with Göring, Hitler and some other incompetent leaders.

Drop the ****ing stupid inhumane antisemitic genocide policy and employ their genius and work labor of these actually german patriotic people for your military purpose.

Drop the other ****ing stupid inhumane antislavic genocide policy and employ their help in driving the bolshevic communism back they have been suffering from and endangered by, against Soviet Russia.

 

It's so ****ing dumb, countries like Ukrainia virtually laid down the red carpet for the Wehrmacht to help against Soviet suppression and the Nazi blockheads are too dumb to use that.

[Josephs_Piano 7,044]

11 hours ago, Stahlvormund101 said:

Also drop some neat oil ressources in the german northern flatlands, the richness of those in Saudi-Arabia so you dont have to hold some remote oilfields in Romania.

Shoot Willy Messerschmidt and Ferdinand Porsche on sight, along with Göring, Hitler and some other incompetent leaders.

Drop the ****ing stupid inhumane antisemitic genocide policy and employ their genius and work labor of these actually german patriotic people for your military purpose.

Drop the other ****ing stupid inhumane antislavic genocide policy and employ their help in driving the bolshevic communism back they have been suffering from and endangered by, against Soviet Russia.

 

It's so ****ing dumb, countries like Ukrainia virtually laid down the red carpet for the Wehrmacht to help against Soviet suppression and the Nazi blockheads are too dumb to use that.

 

Like I said - "not really - the only scenarios for Germany "winning" WW2 (essentially forcing a draw where they get to keep lots of land) require considerable alterations to reality."

 

[hapieman 590]

Hey, hold ma boi Porsche out of this!

 

He was just doing orders, or ofcourse buildings tanks out of his own pocket

[Tantor57 10,318]

22 hours ago, Josephs_Piano said:

not really - the only scenarios for Germany "winning" WW2 (essentially forcing a draw where they get to keep lots of land) require considerable alterations to reality.

 

The are some reasonable scenarios where the war might have lasted longer...  mostly involving the timing of Barbarossa and not splitting Case Blue.....  but Germany still loses in the end 'cos industry - the USA outproduces them all on its own let alone with the other allies added in.

All it'd have taken would have been a better tactic during the battle of Britain. If Germany had indeed broken the spine of the RAF like they almost managed to do. Air Supremacy over Atantic would have been obtained and U boots would probably have caused much more damages than they actually did this bringing England to his knees. Wouldnt also have taken very long time for Germany to actually invade GB which was not prepared at all to face a land war on it's own land and versing the Blitzkrieg. Then ivading Russia still is utopist but I think germany could have taken Moscow and managed a quo-status with USSR allowing Germany to keep all the conquered land.

 

Really the fate of Europe was decided in a matter of seconds where some decisions were taken rather than others. Truth is nobody was ready to face Germany up till mid 1942.

[Josephs_Piano 7,044]

2 hours ago, Tantor57 said:

All it'd have taken would have been a better tactic during the battle of Britain. If Germany had indeed broken the spine of the RAF like they almost managed to do.

 

They didn't come close, and they couldn't ever have done so.

 

If the RAF got pressed they just had to withdraw to airfields "behind" London.

 

some basic comparisons:

 

• the RAf thought they were doing it hard when they got down to 1.5 pilots per spitfire & hurricane - the LW never got ABOVE 1.1 pilots per 109
• The UK was producing twice as many Spitfires and hurricanse/month as germany was making 109's - 450 vs 220 - adding in 110's brings it close, to about 1.8:1
• Even without air superiority the RN could base destroyers in ports outside 109 range overnight that could reach the landing beaches and return in darkness....  
• the German plan was for their ships to anchor off the British coast for 3 days - the RN had about 100 destroyers and light cruisers, the Kriegsmarine had about 30...... many of them small and/or obsolete.  
• the RN even had about 65 submarines available - the KM about 40, including training boats.....

 

the main myth of the BoB is that Germany could possibly have "won" it - they couldn't, and in many respects it's a shame they didn't try harder - the losses would have been staggering (350,000 troops, most of the navy, huge portion of Rhine barges thus disrupting internal commmerce) and Hitler likely asssasinated in 1941.

Edited July 10, 2017 by Josephs_Piano

[Nope 10,634]

2 hours ago, hapieman said:

Hey, hold ma boi Porsche out of this!

 

He was just doing orders, or ofcourse buildings tanks out of his own pocket

 

Though nobody asked for his drivetrain and engine layout. Sure, it's highly advanced for the time, but it doesn't really fit a certain battle need nor would it sit well with the logistics guys already being under serious pressure. Least the Tiger tanks came from a need for a breakthrough tank and the Panther came from a need to replace the aging Pz IV. Don't know where Porsche's magic layout would fit other than giving history buffs something to gawk at.

[Alfury 178]

I believe that Germany had only ONE real chance to win and this was in Dunkirk. They had a chance to capture the english forces but Hitler decided to stop the panzers (for 2 days I believe).

 

His reasons are only supposed.

 

But if England would have lost over 300K soldiers in june 1940 I am not so sure that their politicians could have survived...

 

And about the "what if": instead of a Bismark and a Tirpitz what about 300 more U-boot VIIC in 1939?

[RohmMohc 11,494]

2 hours ago, Alfury said:

And about the "what if": instead of a Bismark and a Tirpitz what about 300 more U-boot VIIC in 1939?

faster developed Anti-Submarine measurements... that's what...

[Alfury 178]

"Faster" in research ain't that easy.

With 40 U-boot Doenitz has been very close to stop the merchant fleet. With 300 maybe a K.O. would have been possible. I have some doubts that UK would have been able to build more cargos than germany was able to sink with 300 more U-boot.

 

The combo of the destruction of the british expeditionnary forces and the blokade of UK.... Would the british government have resisted? (France OUT, UK on his knees, USA not willing to take part and Hitler proposing peace...)

 

Remember that in june 1940 the allies had only sufferd losses and no success. Civilian moral od the democraties was very low and none had forgotten the casulties of 1914-1918. I amnot sure the the will of the pitbull (aka Churchill) would have been enough.

[RohmMohc 11,494]

this discussions had been there already

 

[hapieman 590]

13 hours ago, Nope said:

 

Though nobody asked for his drivetrain and engine layout. Sure, it's highly advanced for the time, but it doesn't really fit a certain battle need nor would it sit well with the logistics guys already being under serious pressure. Least the Tiger tanks came from a need for a breakthrough tank and the Panther came from a need to replace the aging Pz IV. Don't know where Porsche's magic layout would fit other than giving history buffs something to gawk at.

but I mean that he didn't really have a negative inpact.

 

Willy however...