panther prototype The Panther prototype VK 3002 (M)

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

Hello everyone, as we well know some old suggestions were archived, and among them the VK 3002 M was one of them.
Probably because they did not have enough data, and in fact that suggestion (which was not mine) bore little data.

A long time ago that the German tree has a tank gap between 5.0 and 5.3, and that suggestion would be perfect to solve that.

 

The VK 30.02 (M) is basically a Panther D with 20mm less armor.

The Muzzle brake is similar to that used in the PzIV F2, and the commander's cupola is docked differently in the tower. But operationally it's just a lighter and less armored Panther.

 

 

 

As you can see here, where ( Glacis ) the Panther D has 80mm, the VK 3002 M has 60mm, and where (turret front) the Panther has 100mm the VK has 80mm

Many historians say that it was Hitler himself who ordered these changes.
Making the engineers have to rework the whole prototype.

 

 

 

A Panther D weighs 44 tonnes, while a VK 30.02 (M) weighs 35 tonnes, meaning it has more mobility.

 

 

 

+ Data and Photos and source

Spoiler

 

 

But Maxim Kolomiets, in his book "Heavy Tank" Panther "(first complete encyclopedia) writes: 


The second prototype of the" Panther »Versuchs-Panther № 2 (V 2) Autumn 1942..
The machine already has" reynmetallovskuyu "tower with a 75- mm gun Special features of the machine -. a protrusion in the left side of the tower for the installation commander's turret and gun with a "pear-shaped" single-chamber muzzle brake Contrary to the claims of some authors, these details are specific to this sample "Panther" the V 2, and on production machines do not. occur.


The second prototype of the "Panther" Versuchs-Panther № 2 (V 2). Autumn 1942 year. The view from the starboard side.


Inside tower type second prototype "Panther» V 2. Clearly visible in the projection board under the commander's cupola opening mechanism and the hatch tower.


Inside tower type second pilot sample "Panther» V 2, view of the installation of the 75 mm gun KwK 42. left seen gunner and a binocular sight TZF 12.


A view of the engine-transmission compartment of the second prototype "Panther» Versuchs-Panther № 2 (V 2). At the heart of the engine is clearly visible (on the test samples, as in the first production stood Maybach HL 210), right and left - radiators and cooling fans.

The second prototype - Versuchs-Panther № 2 (V 2), to get a normal tower with weapons, gathered in October and November 2, 1942, this machine was shown to the members of the "Panzer Commission" members of the armed reyhsministerstva headed by Speer and the military on the training ground of the 2nd tank regiment in Burke.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Source

Spoiler

 

Encyclopedia of German Tanks of World War Two by Hilary Louis Doyle, Peter Chamberlain

Heavy Tank Panther But Maxim Kolomiets

and other books that I do not even remember the names, because I took a lot of time doing this research.

 

 

This suggestion is the result of a long and dedicated research, and I hope you like it .

Edited April 27, 2019 by _PabloSniper_

[leroyonly 4,311]

Open for discussion. 

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

7 minutes ago, leroyonly said:

Open for discussion. 

Thank you sir 

[Stuhlfleisch 3,762]

I supported this then and I am supporting this now. This would be an excellent 5.3 medium! +1

[Valcour 1,141]

+1   

 

[kamikazi21358 998]

+1,  I thought this was already suggested though?

 

 

Anyways though, I think this perfectly I illustrates BR compression 5.7+.

 

This tank is superior to anything 5.3, which would be the logical answer at first:

 

20 HP/t, 56 km/h top speed, while still having the 7.5cm L/70, while still having 60mm RHA at 55° (M4A3: 63mm at ~47-51°).

 

There is no way this could be 5.3.  It would drive faster than a T-34, with armour of a M4A3, with the penetration of the Challenger, and the HE filler with that penetration.  This tank cannot work at 5.3 by any stretch of the imagination.

 

 

However, at 5.7, you got the Panther D, the Panther A...

 

Basically 1 of 3 things can happen:

 

Add at 5.3 and break 5.3.

Add at 5.7 and it be irrelevant.

Decompress 5.7+ that we need, and add this with it being relevant.

[Milocat 4,857]

+1, I would love to see this to fill the German turreted vehicles hole.

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

3 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

This tank is superior to anything 5.3, which would be the logical answer at first:

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree. Russian tanks totally dominate the 5.3 battle rating for many years.

The IS-1 for example, is a classic 5.7 lowtiered pure and simply by an error.

For it is a tank that fights of equal to equal to a Tiger H1. 

The T-34 85 DT, is an excellent tank 5.3, which when in good hands causes huge casualties in the enemy team.

And another detail, despite the good power weight ratio, the VK 3002 M suffers with the slow rotation of the turret.

Another detail, both the Soviet 85mm and the American 76mm will be able to pierce the glacis or turret of the VK 3002 M at great distances.

Will it be a strong 5.3? Yes!

But it will only serve to balance the nations.

Edited April 28, 2019 by _PabloSniper_

[jon_man1199 563]

A +1 from me, would definitely love to see this added at some point 

[Ghostmaxi 873]

looks Uglie as xxxx bit +1

[Stuhlfleisch 3,762]

12 minutes ago, Ghostmaxi said:

looks Uglie as xxxx bit +1

What are you talking about? I think it looks beautiful! 

[Pmanm 25]

Gaijin definitely need to bridge the gaps in the German line, this would be just one step in doing that +1

[Matt_82 1,096]

Does it have the crappy turret rotation of the Panther D?  Either way, +1.  Filling in some gaps would go a ways to spreading people out a bit.

[PrussianOwl 442]

I want to see more Tiger/Panther prototypes in the game anyway, so +1 from me

[PantherAl 4,883]

Like last time, the tank pictured isn't the VK30.02 as said by many with the specifications published in various places. 

 

It was already decided back on series of meetings between 13 to 15 May 42 that the frontal plate was to be upped to 80mm, and that both MAN and DB update the designs to that new standard.  Further, on 20 May 42, Speer announced that the MAN design was to be further developed and the DB design dropped, with one of the reasons being that MAN was more responsive to the changes being demanded, including armor changes.   There was another meeting on the 4th of July, where Hitler was present, that discussions was had on upping that front plate to 100mm, the various people there was able to override Hitlers desire to up the frontal armor and keep to the 80mm.  It was at this meeting decided what final design changes was to made, and incorporating what was said and the contract awarded to build the first two - and it was to this standard that those two was made.  

 

Therefor, the very first Panther prototypes was built in September to that specification, known as Fast.Nr. V1 and V2.  V1 was built without a turret, and V2 was completed with a turret.  Both of these was produced in the fall of 42, with first demo's being done from the 8th of November to the 14th at Berka.

 

The dates are very clear - as produced, the two prototype Panthers was built with the to agreed final armor specification.  

 

So, in short, this is naught more than a standard Panther D, with a slightly different turret and a ball muzzle break instead of a double baffle.  It does not have less armor - it is functionally the same.

 

That said, it would make for a neat premium none the less. 

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

11 hours ago, PantherAl said:

Like last time, the tank pictured isn't the VK30.02 as said by many with the specifications published in various places. 

 

So, in short, this is naught more than a standard Panther D, with a slightly different turret and a ball muzzle break instead of a double baffle.  It does not have less armor - it is functionally the same.

Your comment without a proof is just a comment.

I have brought numerous books on the subject.

[Bonavia210 4]

awesome research would love to the this in game! hopefully in 5.3

[kamikazi21358 998]

On 27/04/2019 at 22:02, _PabloSniper_ said:

I respect your opinion, but I do not agree. Russian tanks totally dominate the 5.3 battle rating for many years.

The IS-1 for example, is a classic 5.7 lowtiered pure and simply by an error.

For it is a tank that fights of equal to equal to a Tiger H1. 

The T-34 85 DT, is an excellent tank 5.3, which when in good hands causes huge casualties in the enemy team.

And another detail, despite the good power weight ratio, the VK 3002 M suffers with the slow rotation of the turret.

Another detail, both the Soviet 85mm and the American 76mm will be able to pierce the glacis or turret of the VK 3002 M at great distances.

Will it be a strong 5.3? Yes!

But it will only serve to balance the nations.

I respect your opinion, but allow me to provide a counter-argument.

 

Why it is too strong at 5.3

 

vs M4A3 (76) W:

 

The M4A3 features 63mm of RHA at 47°.

The VK features 60mm of RHA at 55°.

The M4A3 features 98mm CHA on the turret, while the VK has 80mm.

The M4A3 has 38mm side armour, the VK has 40.

 

Meaning the VK wins everywhere except for some turret frontal armour.

 

As for firepower, the M4A3 has a 76mm M1 while the VK has a 7.5cm L/70, frankly I don’t think I have to elaborate there — we know who wins there.

 

The VK also has in excess of a 50km/h top speed, with 20 HP/t.  I may bring this up a lot, but I think it is important to emphasise: that’s Leopard 1 levels.

The M4A3 has 14.97 HP/t with a 41km/h top speed.

 

I don’t think the M4A3’s short stop stabiliser, which the Panther’s heavy gun is actually pretty stable in my experience (heavy barrel isn’t too influenced by movement), will save it compared to the significantly faster, just as armoured, and significantly more powerful with firepower VK.

 

I don’t think it’s slow turret traverse rate, assuming that is the case with the turret, will save it.

 

 

vs T-34-85 (DT):

 

45mm RHA at 60° vs 60mm RHA at 55°

45mm angled side armour vs 40mm side

90mm turret front vs 80mm turret front

The T-34 wins slightly with turret and side, however significantly loses with frontal hull armour.

 

16.18 HP/t with 55km/h top speed vs 20 HP/t with 55/56 km/h top speed.

 

85mm DT with high 130mm penetration and a 10+ second reload stock vs a 7.5cm L/70.

 

More mobile, slightly better armour (side and turret worse by small margin, hull much better), and what is a gun that has essentially Panzer IV penetration + longer reload vs the L/70...  yeah no, the thing would have to have a 0.1° turret traverse to balance this.

 

 

At 5.7

 

Why this is more equal to the Panther Ausf. D:

 

Overall, as the prototype, this tank is relatively similar.  Same gun, same layout, etc.

 

However, the main difference is -20mm armour on both turret front and hull front.

 

However, this doesn’t make it inferior necessarily: it has 20HP/t.

 

As mentioned, this tank is just as mobile as a Leopard 1 main battle tank — compared to the mere low 14hp/t of the D, this thing will be one of the most mobile medium tanks at that tier.  It is faster than a T-34, Sherman, Panther, Panzer IV, T-44, T-54, T-55, T-62, M26, M46/47/48, etc. — you don’t see this being beat until you get to the Main Battle Tank era, with the Leopard 1.

 

If this is exactly what the profile says, this version will be worthy of the title “Panther.”  This tank will have 20 HP/t with a 56 km/h top speed, only light tanks — actually fast light tanks because even the PT-76B, M41, and more here won’t beat this — will actually out perform it speed wise with this kind of HP/t, and it will have the 7.5cm L/70.  This will be an absolutely amazing ratio of firepower and mobility, AND, 60mm at 55° still isn’t to be laughed at facing uptiered vehicles, tanks with stock ammunition, etc.

 

This won’t be just too strong for 5.3, this will be an excellent 5.7 tank to play.

 

 

If this was just like 14 HP/t like the other mediums, I would be worried as well — it still would statistically be extremely strong to 5.7, but it wouldn’t be a great 5.7 either.  (Though I still think it should go 5.7, and hope for BR compression — that is the real killer here).  But this is 56km/h with a 20 HP/t ratio, this should theoretically be an extremely agile tank for this tier, not to be countered by a vehicle of this weight until Rank V.

 

This is why I think this is a 5.7 tank.

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

2 hours ago, kamikazi21358 said:

I respect your opinion, but allow me to provide a counter-argument.

 

Why it is too strong at 5.3

 

vs M4A3 (76) W:..............

 

This is why I think this is a 5.7 tank.

I have read and fully respected his arguments.
Yet there is one fact, only one that refutes this whole theory.
And it's called slow turret speed.
No need for a fast tank, which takes a lot to move your turret.
Within cities, it becomes an easy target.

Edited June 18, 2019 by _PabloSniper_

[kamikazi21358 998]

11 hours ago, _PabloSniper_ said:

I have read and fully respected his arguments.
Yet there is one fact, only one that refutes this whole theory.
And it's called slow turret speed.
No need for a fast tank, which takes a lot to move your turret.
Within cities, it becomes an easy target.

I did mention the turret, but not in detail. I pointed out that I honestly don’t think the turret is “bad enough” to make up for just how superior it is in almost every other aspect to tanks like the M4A3, it is a terrible turret traverse, but with a long barreled 7.5cm, 60mm heavily angled RHA, and 20 HP/t, again if it had 14 HP/t or if it had a gun with ~145mm penetration, I would be for 5.3, but it just has too many advantages, with the extremely mobile power to weight with top speed and 189mm AP(HE)CBC penetration.

 

As for the Panther D comparison, assuming that the Panther D’s traverse will be equal to the VK, it was automatically assumed when I made the comparison.  The VK is equal to the Panther D I believe, as the Panther D has +20mm armour frontally, while the VK has Leopard 1 levels of mobility.  Thus making it a 5.7 candidate with the Panther D, if this was the case.

[_PabloSniper_ 2,142]

59 minutes ago, kamikazi21358 said:

I did mention the turret,...

 Thus making it a 5.7 candidate with the Panther D, if this was the case.

There is one more important detail that you are disregarding.
Panther D is immune to T-34/85 and M4a3 76w ammunition in the glacis.
The VK 3002 M does not ....

[kamikazi21358 998]

2 hours ago, _PabloSniper_ said:

There is one more important detail that you are disregarding.
Panther D is immune to T-34/85 and M4a3 76w ammunition in the glacis.
The VK 3002 M does not ....

It is not a detail I disregard, consider the following:

 

Vs Panther D

 

I mean, it is a sacrifice of armour for mobility.  A playstyle difference, one is to choose between having the armour, of well, a Panther — vs having the mobility in excess of many light tanks.  A 700 HP engine for a 35 tonne vehicle is some serious power behind it, it’s over 7 tonnes lighter than the Panther D with 50 more HP, and compared to the Panther G, it is 11 tonnes lighter with the same engine.  So, for the Panther D vs the VK 3002 M, do you want to be a heavier tank (which the Panther D plays kind of like a heavy tank / tank destroyer hybrid to me, with the slow turret traverse (like an American TD) and a frontal plate that stops pretty much everything short of a 90mm, 100mm, 122mm?  Or do you want that same gun and turret traverse, but be more M18* like with a high HP/t?  As now you have slightly less armour, but you have the same firepower and can speed around the map.

 

Which,

vs 5.3s

 

I think the M18 is actually a good comparison.  It has a higher top speed (which it never reaches), but is only 5 HP/t more than the VK.  Meanwhile, the VK has 60mm RHA, not 12.7mm — a massive difference.  That right there is enough to convince me, -5 HP/t is worth going from the armour of a halftrack to the armour of the Sherman, right there.  That’s before factoring in the gun, the 7.5cm L/70, with 189mm penetration at 10m.

 

Which I keep pointing out the mobility of this tank being comparable to the Leopard, but now let me emphasis the gun now.  7.5cm KwK 42 L/70, compared to the Sherman 76, this gun has more penetration at 2km than the M1 has at 1km, and more penetration with the KwK 42 at 1km than the M1 has at point blank range.

 

It is brought up that the 76mm M1 and 85mm DT and ZiS can penetrate the VK 4005 while the Panther’s UFP is immune.  This is true, but consider the fact that the M1 can only penetrate the VK theoretically around, 600m?  800m?  The VK should be immune over 1,000m.

Meanwhile, the VK 4005 M’s 7.5cm L/70 can penetrate the M4A3 in return over 2,000m, at at combat range that one most likely would encounter in game.  So both have similar armour, however the gun allows the VK to penetrate the Sherman at double the range or more, while although lacking some turret traverse, it has this advantage AND to get into position quickly with it’s 700 HP engine.

 

I respect your opinion and understand the want for a 5.3 medium tank, as Germany lacks one, but I just cannot personally see this tank being 5.3 and not being overpowered.  If it had say a 7.5cm L/48 for compensation, if it had a less powerful engine, or what, yeah, but losing 20mm of armour and getting, what is even a more powerful engine than the Panther D (Ausf. D in game even has a 650hp engine), this tank has the armour of a 5.3 tank, but with the firepower of the 5.7/6.0 Panthers, and the mobility comparable with the 7.7 Panther, so the battle rating of this tank from my perspective would be logically higher than 5.3.

[NoodleCup31 8,824]

Absolute support.

Because of the easily penetrable UFP maybe 5.3.

BUT a 20 HP/ton is amazing and it would be a pretty fast tank.

From me, a BIG +1 for this interesting vehicle

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by NoodleCup31

[Flak_Dancer 9,733]

+1 Gib!!!!!

[player62514 607]

Seaport!