why did germany intend to replace their Pz IV? What was wrong with it? Plenty of things to be changed and upgraded. Sloped armor maybe? Would fit into the front, even though it may change the balance of weight to the front too much.
What do you think?
Other urls found in this thread:
horseformer.blogspot.com
horseformer.blogspot.com
forum.worldoftanks.com
i.imgur.com
en.m.wikipedia.org
en.m.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
They were obsessed with idealistic new designs, to destroy their enemy with new but ultimately unreliable technology and concepts, rather than a tried and tested sturdy design you can mass produce.
To me the Panzer 3/4 was one of their better prototypes.
> Pz IV? What was wrong with it?
Out-gunned. They tried to fit a 75 mm, but the chassis was too old for it.
Panther was the best.
Germans have a fetish for overengineered machinery and they believe that complicated mechanics is superior enhineeting in every field.
t.german
>They tried to fit a 75 mm, but the chassis was too old for it.
What
>why did germany intend to replace their Pz IV? What was wrong with it?
By Ausf. H, the Panzer IV' suspension just couldn't take any more weight, with a 75mm L/43 and 80mm frontal armor at 15 degrees.
>Sloped armor maybe?
That would involve either cutting into the crew compartment and engine space (inadvisable) or extending the armor protection, thus increasing the weight (impossible). It would also exacerbate significant swaying and stability problems that were already a big problem for the Ausf. H thanks to the 75mm L/43.
Also don't forget about retarded nazi infighting like
>rheinmetall makes a gun that wins a contract
>krupp gets angry and designs a tank that it can't be upgraded with the gun
or the whole He 219 debacle.
horseformer.blogspot.com
horseformer.blogspot.com
The Panzer V/Panther was was needed if German tanks were going to compete against the next generation of allied tanks. The German high command knew that the Americans and soviets were going to make more new and better tank which the Panzer IV just couldn't compete against in its old age. The soviets for example already had the T34-85 which is mostly superior to the Panzer IV. Just Imagine Panzer IV's going up against stuff like Pershings, T44's or centurions. The panther was more or less equal to these tanks which it would've eventually faced if the war carried on.
Then why did the Panther get spanked so hard in combat when it went up against "lowly" Shermans?
I think he's referring to the 75 kwk42 L/70 which is the gun mounted on Panthers. Panzer IV's couldn't carry the gun because the turret needed to mount such a weapon was too much for the Panzer IV's almost decade old chassis
What are you talking about? The Panther for all intensive purposes was superior to the Sherman in combat.
forum.worldoftanks.com
Plus American TD's could pierce panther turret mantle armor.
Inexperienced crews and shoddy/rushed worksmanship, plus even in optimal conditions the Panther had a fraction of the engine life of a Sherman, meant that a lot of them simply had to be abandoned or couldn't be recovered in the space of a retreat.
Except for the combat records. I would refer to you to "Data on World War II Tank Engagements: Involving the U.S. Third and Fourth Armored Divisions", by David Hardison.
Specifically this table
See those firing first stats? That's what really wins tank fights. And shooting first 95% of the time on tactical defense, and over 50% of the time on tactical offense is pretty compelling.
And U.S. crews were experienced? I mean hell, how many of the Normandy troops saw any action prior to 1944?
And I'm not talking operational life, I'm talking pure, tactical kill you before you kill me stuff.
>And U.S. crews were experienced?
They were trained, and increasingly more experienced. Most of Germany's best crews fought on the Eastern Front, and while there were experienced crews in France, as the war wore on most of these died. Unlike the American individual replacement system, the Germans would throw divisions into combat until they died or were so understrength that they had to be reconsolidated with equally depleted divisions. This meant that often you could have a division full of experienced, highly competent tank aces operating next to increasingly numerous divisions of barely-trained crews rushed to the front in shitty tanks. You can see this in the diverse performance of the SS Panzer Divisions--sure, there were aces like Wittman that were kicking ass, but you'd also have divisions that fell apart or splintered within one or two battles.
>I mean hell, how many of the Normandy troops saw any action prior to 1944?
Well it's almost as if American tank crews had been fighting in North Africa and Italy for some time before the Normandy landings.
>I think he's referring to the 75 kwk42 L/70
But that's the long 75mm. That's not even the standard 75mm gun.
>And U.S. crews were experienced?
They weren't children with a week of training.
Except very few troops that fought in North Africa or Italy transferred over to the French Front, they tended to stay in the Med. Offhand, the only armored division I can think of that was actually shipped out was the 2nd; the rest were green.
en.m.wikipedia.org
>Wittman
>inflate kill claims on the eastern front
>shoot up a traveling convoy unprepared for combat
>yolo through open terrain into a bunch of anti-tank guns and die
>"BEST PANZER ACE OF THE WAR"
Replace it with Carius if you like, my point was that there were a few effective and experienced German tank divisions on the Western Front and a lot of ineffective and inexperienced ones.
>why did germany intend to replace their Pz IV? What was wrong with it?
It was over weight for its suspension after upgrading it, and its turret ring was just to small. By the time the Ausf. F2/Ausf. G was on the drawing boards it was clear that it was nearing the end of its effective limit on upgrades.It had started at 16 t and was now at 23.6 t for a 47.6 percent gain in weight. To much further it would just be easier to make a new tank. Truth is that Germany knew that both the Pz III and Pz IV had design issue that would cause long term issues with upgraded them in 1938 when they started the VK 20 series.
The issue is that it started as have 20 t as the weight goal. The Pz. III was by that point in time clearly not going to keep to 15 t or less by that time. There was talk that its main production version would end up being as much as 25 t. As it happened the F model was 21.8 t. The Pz .IV was at 18.14 t in 1938 and growing fast. They should of know that 20 t was not a realistic place to start by then. They should of started the project at 25 t or higher. They ended up increasing the weight a number of times, leading to the 44.8t Panther that we all know about.