Would Germany in WWII have been better off:
1) Focusing fully on the Tiger line of tanks
or
2)Focusing fully on the Panther line of tanks
I always hear it said that they made a mistake splitting resources between many projects, so when it comes to tanks, which should they have stuck with?
>>29822591
Honestly I think they should have focused more on a decent, cheap reliable tank like the T34s or the Sherman.
>>29822591
Give the Pz.IV slope armor and call it a fucking day.
>>29822596
so PzKpfw IV?
>>29822591
Shoulda have built a Pz. IV Ausf. J type tank and dedicated tank destroyers instead of the Panther and Tiger
Nothing would have saved Germany. They were fucked as soon as they picked a fight with the UK and all her colonies, America, and Russia.
The only thing that might have saved them was nuclear weapons.
>>29822591
Tiger Line
>Heavy shitty tanks with not much value to them
Panther line
>Heavy shitty tanks designed by cheap skates retards so they didn't work
After 1942 Germany would have needed to deploy a new tank all together in mass number that was none of the two pieces of shit mentioned above. They would have needed a Sloped Armor, Long 75mm, Good Mobility Medium that was easy to produce, which Panzer 4 Fanboys don't understand that it's not the Pz IV in it's inter war shitiness but a new tank.
>>29822614
aaand here come the slavaboos
>>29822591
Germany would have been better off with a leader that wasn't retarded in warfare
>>29822634
Germany after 1942 was basically fucked, even if Operation Citadel would have worked it would have bought the Germans time, not a victory.
>>29822615
>ruski detected
>>29822601
>>29822604
nah the pz iv was already outdated by then
it needed something that could hold thicker armor and bigger gun,but not as unreliable as the tiger or panther
>>29822655
>Muh Russian
The Tiger 1 was a maintenance queen and it's armor by the point of introduction was easily countered by TD's, Field AT and even tank mounted guns. It was also expensive and didn't bring much to the field besides a mobile 88 that was not vulnerable to Arty or Infantry.
The Panther was specifically designed with a shitty transmission and suspension by MAN, which it took 2 and a half years to fix. Couple said shitty transmission with weak armor on the sides and rear, so weak infantry can just use a 45mm gun or a 2 pounder to kill it and you have a way to fragile vehicle for a main combat vehicle.
The Panzer 4 was outdated by 1943, no matter how much side skirts you put on it. It's transmission and suspension where outdated and it's armor is useless by then, even with the extra thick plate introduced in 1943.
Germany needed a new tank, in large quantities in 1943 to push which they couldn't make, or lot's of TD's to have a long drawn out war that could result in a peace convention.
>>29822591
tiger 1 was actually a bit under armored, once sherman fireflys, t-34-85s, pershings etc were becoming more common its only winning point was the gun, which was hampered by the machines overall complexity and diffcultu of repair
the tiger2 was a joke, slow, no strategiv mobility, a gun that was simply not needed, the tigers could already knock out pretty much everything fielded by their opposition until the IS-3 was introduced after the war ended. its Armour was preposterously thick and the design was again rather complicated and a waste of time.
The panther though, if they had simplified it a bit and really focused on mass production and replacing the pzivs then the allies would have had a horrifically nasty surprise waiting for them in normandy.
the Germans would still have lost though, no amount of technical ingenuity or industrial might can stop the advance of 12 million buttflusterd slavs
>>29822604
No, the panzer IV was a dead end.
They should have done what some Germans wanted and straight up copy the T-34 then correct its failings.
>>29822615
>panther
>cheapskates
What even I don't what?
>>29822634
How is that a slav opinion? Notice he said the UK and US as well numnuts....
>>29822744
MAN Purposely designed a shittier and cheaper suspension and transmission for the Panther leading to all the problems Panther had.
>>29822778
>the expensive panther waanbuilt by cheapskates
>any attempt to reduce the cost of said expensive design is a cheapskate
K'bud
>>29822778
Uh, you do realize that the original design was 15 tonnes lighter right?
>>29822893
>You see you are not a cheapskate if you compromise tactical value, combat endurance, mobility, maintenance for cost
>>29822904
>Uh, you do realize that the original design was 15 tonnes lighter right?
You do realize MAN worked on the suspension and transmission of all Panther Variants and purposely fucked it.
>>29822608
>>Pz. IV Ausf. J
Litteraly worse p4 version...
>>29822591
you are now aware that a js1 weighs less than a panther
>>29822689
>pershings
>becoming more common
they served in the last week or so of the yurp theater
could've said jumbos instead
>>29822601
It would still have shitty leaf spring suspension.
The Panzer 3 could take the same amount of weight better than the 4.
Though the 3s turret ring was too small for a long 75.
Both the 3 and 4 were originally designed as light tanks. (18 tons or so)
>>29822741
Christie suspension is not very good though.
They should have made a simplified Panzer 3 that's slightly bigger.
Simplified as in a sloped front that has just 1 angle at most to reduce complexity of production.
>>29822591
Focusing on the Tiger would've been retarded. Tiger wasn't suitable to use in the primary tank role of exploitation.
Germans did focus on the Panther as their primary tank. They did continue building the Pz IV but it made no sense to stop doing that since completely switching over would have severely lowered their overall tank production.
>>29822591
Focusing fully on heavy tanks is completely silly. It's an assumption by naziboos who play with toys.
If you're a legitimate well trained military like the Nazis were who outnumbered on a massed front, just producing costly heavy tanks is a sure way to make sure you have NO tanks left. Heavy tanks are mostly used as the spear head for break throughs or defensive measures on the homefront (but you want to make sure it doesn't come that). While concentrating on using resources to make the Tiger would have been better than expanding them on the Panther which broke down alot, you need different armor.
German heavies were fat, that means more to transport them, more effort to transport them by railroad, more risk taking them over bridges, more break downs, and more difficulty retrieving them.
One wise thing Germany did was making so many StugIII. It was a cheap cost effective armor that used an out of date Panzer 3 chassis to mount an effective 75mm gun. While it did poorly as an infantry support vehicle on the assault, on the defense it was extremely effective. Michael Whittman scored an extremely impressive victory over several T-34s in his solitary Stug3.
To say concentrating solely on making Tigers or Panthers is like saying the US military should only make Abrams as their only fighting vehicles.
panther was the cheap mass producaboe tank they needed. too bad they didnt have the materials and parts to make it work. and they didnt have time to redesign it to work with their shitty materials and parts
also german engineering and industry was retarded. old school analytical thinking doesnt work too well on complex systems
>>29822591
None,they would have been better off and well now if they concentrated on 2 fronts not 10.
>>29823113
>Though the 3s turret ring was too small for a long 75.
Why couldn't the turret ring be enlarged, like on the T-34/85?
>>29822778
No. MAN designed a suspension and transmission system for a tank 15 tonnes lighter than the Germans made. They were expecting something smaller like the Panzer 3-4 but instead got the fatty fat of the Panther line.
Tiger 2 had similar problems.
Tiger 1 = 2500,800RM
1347 Tiger 1's = 337,827,600RM
They could have had an extra 2,884 Panthers for that much, not including the cost of manpower and factory floor space.
That number of Panthers would have made them more common and Cromwells and M3 Lee's
>>29822601
They needed entire new tank to be fair. Pz4 was the less modern one from the 4-3 pair, it was just bigger so it could use better gun.
The basic requirement would have to be similar too:
>torsion bar suspension
>sloped armour
>turret ring big enough to house a new turret housing 75mm L70 gun and Pz4 F2 and further turrets(with minor modifications)
>weight up to 35 tonnes
>side armour able to withstand AT-rifles at short distances(so you don't have to mount schurzen)
>use Pz3 and Pz4 parts if possible(doubtful since we're increasing weight quite a lot)
Neither, all they needed was Albert Speer in 1935 not 1942
>>29823226
No space for it.
In T-34 you've had enough width to accommodate new turret(even if it had to use that characteristic "bubble" shape), Pz3 didn't.
It was overall better tank(than Pz4) outside of this single issue.
>>29823113
over all the pz3 seems like the most expensive for what you get
>>29823185
did the Germans learn nothing from France ?
seems they forgot about flanking tactics rather quickly when it comes to the eastern front
>>29823302
>side armour able to withstand AT-rifles at short distances(so you don't have to mount schurzen)
40mm is vulnerable to 14.5mm AT rifles from 100 meter.
So you would need either 45mm or have shurzen like the panther.
Bah, all they needed was an Sd.Kfz with an 88 ontop
>>29823359
That actually makes sense, 45mm side armour will be too heavy. So maybe design it with schurzen in mind(rather as an afterthought) and use it on the eastern front only).
Thanks for insight anon.
>>29823113
Hence why I said to copy the T-34 and fix its mistakes, learn to read.
No, they shouldn't have made another Panzer III, they were obsolete very early in the war. Like I said, they should have taken the T-34 and corrected its shortcomings whilst simultaneous not going over the top and over engineering it.
>>29823358
No, they didn't. It's just it doesn't work so well when you're flanking tactic traps a pocket with tens of thousands of troops with Christ knows how many square kilometres of wilderness to hide in.
>>29822591
>]
>>29822596
>>29822604
>>29822608
Panther was supposed to be a german copy of a t34 that German soldiers asked for but since germans were germans they managed to fuck it up by making it complicated.
>Pic related is what panther was supposed to be.
Good copy of a t34 that was supposed to fix all the issues russians had with it. But we all know what the reality was.
>>29823512
>Good copy of a t34 that was supposed to fix all the issues russians had with it.
>interleaved wheels
>fix all the issues
>>29823556
It was just a prototype, germans had a fetish for interleaved wheels. They could have made some changes along the way as they'd deploy the tanks just like they did with Panthers and Tigers.
>>29822591
Panthers
>>29823576
>It was just a prototype, germans had a fetish for interleaved wheels.
Which doesn't mean they were good.
Interleaved wheels are used when you have tons of mass and can't produce materials to carry it. Which means the prototype was either designed to survive the whims of Hitler wanting to put thicker armour or something on it, or in the same weight range as Panther. The latter is kinda fucking-up.
The problem with them is that they clog down with mood and make maintenance a chore, there's very good reason why the only countries that used tanks with interleaved wheels after the war were France and Belgium both of which used total 1 type of tank with this feature - Panther.
>>29823615
>mood
mud*
>>29823512
I think it was a matter of pride
sort of embarrassing having to carbon copy your enemy's concepts
>>29823619
i dunno, sometimes the Panther was kinda moody
Reminder that the turning point of the war was the Winter of 42. Neither the Tiger nor the Panther had any impact on the outcome of the war.
>>29826517
But there are websites which say the tiger was so good and if there were more then they could turn the war.
>>29826538
If every tank was a Tiger and Germany could have matched every plane in the air, there would be a lot more dead allies and zero fuel in Europe by 1942. War ends early 1944, probably negotiated but same outcome: geopolitics and natural resources overrule any amount of training and technology.
>>29823615
In cross-terrain tests the Panther's suspension was utterly superior to, say, the Sherman's. It being a maintenance nightmare is another story.
I don't know where the meme about >le bad Panther comes from that gets parroted in these threads, but well, someone came up with the >Ronson stuff too.
>>29823512
>build same tank as enemy
>still get outproduced like 5 to 1, but have tank only able to match enemy's tanks.
Germans could improve in many areas, but in the end going quality or quantity was like chosing between aids and cancer.
>>29822634
aaand here come the werhaboos
>>29823773
Make the turret bigger so three men can work in it and move the turret to center of the chassis, and tell everyone that its original Teutonic design donut steel.
Done.
>>29822992
They were around long enough to clear out Cologne and score kills on most of the German vehicles still in service, to include both types of tiger, panthers, and several lesser tanks.
>>29827644
When you're up against an enemy with more industrial power than you and who suddenly has the industrial backing of another nation with more economic output than all the other major nations combined, there is no winning.
H E T Z E R
E
T
Z
E
R
>>29822591
The Germans, from the options provided, should have focused fully on the Panther line of tanks.The Panther tanks and tanks similar to it cost less money and more could be produced more because they require less resources.If I'm correct, the Germans stole the sloped armour design for the Panther tank.So, the Panther was relatively well protected.The only problem is, the Germans were outnumbered.
>>29823188
>they didn't have the materials
The basic design of the final drives was so bad that you could make them out of modern-day top-quality steel allyos and they'd still have an abysmally bad average lifetime.
Using a straight-gear final drive arrangement designed for a 30-35-ton tank on a 45-ton one is going to give you issues no matter how good materials and how much parts you have.
>>29822591
What they needed to do was realize the shit they were in and tell all the tank manufacturers to suck it up and only make Stug-III's, or a similar standardized design.
The Germans lost tons of battles because they didn't have an armored fighting vehicle when they needed one.
>Pump out as many StuGs as possible
>Copy the T34 or fix the Panther
>Get rid of special snowflake models (Jagdtiger, Sturmtiger, Elefant, etc)
>>29823304
>utilizing slave labor that didn't yet exist.
I kinda get what you meant though.
>>29831871
Getting rid of them isn't necessary, but they should have been designed from the beginning to have at least some shared parts.
Think back on how the US did their tanks, both in WWII and even on to the M-103. All of our tanks shared parts with others they usually served with.
Shermans all shared parts with other Shermans and most other vehicles that used that chassis and the M-103 used many of the same parts as the MBTs it served with.
Compare that to Germany's lineup. Panzer III, Panzer IV, Panther, Tiger, Elephant, Panzer 38(t). None of these had anything interchangeable besides fuel and there were few serious attempts to change this at all until the Tiger II was made with some parts interchangeability with the Panther.
You could take the turret off of a Sherman with a shot-up hull and slap it on one whose turret took a 7.5cm shell and it would work just fine, but you'd be pushing it to find a bolt on a Panzer III that would work for fixing a Panzer IV.
>>29831768
Straight gear is typically stronger than a helical or double helical gear, only difference is straight teeth make more noise
>>29827498
Probably due to the fact that the Panther being good tactically, was utterly useless in terms of strategic movement.
The Sherman can break through where at the right place at the right time, the Panther limited by railroads and its final drive can't manage the same.
You could say that while the Panther won the battle, the Sherman won the war.
>>29832110
This is what happens when vertically integrated companies has too much power in the procurement process.
Look at the makers of the German Tanks
Panzer 3 - Daimler-Benz
Panzer 4 - Krupp
Tiger - Henschel
Ferdinand/Elefant - Porsche
Panther - MAN
Tiger 2 - Henschel
Each company used it's own supply chain and facilities, because these companies had those same suppliers and facilities during peacetime. Companies refused to accept each other's standards out of ego.
In the Soviet Union, tanks were made by design bureaus. The externals and design of the tanks were widely different, but all design teams designed tanks with the same components. Kotin's bureaus and Morozov's bureaus designed vastly different tanks, but parts which had the same function on each tank were identical.
The US had army multiple design committees which would design tanks for a requirement. Then the blueprints of the winner would be given to all major producers. Multiple factories were making the same basic design, and of course there were differences due to manufacturer preference. However, the important parts have very strict specifications set by the army, which guaranteed a high degree of standardization.
So Germans were like woodworkers while the USSR were playing with lego?
>>29832110
>Think back on how the US did their tanks, both in WWII and even on to the M-103
M103 is poor example because it was too heavy for its drivetrain which caused it to be very slow and very unreliable(it was overall backwards design meant to counter threat the enemy was getting rid of).
