Tiger, Panther, and King Tiger

[dy031101]

Interesting claim on this Panther II page......

That Panther II actually had a limit attached on its turret ring size, making it ultimately incapable of taking in the KwK-43 gun many have stated that it would.

I know that a number of the Panther Ausf. G were equipped with a simpler, overlapped but non-interleaved roadwheel set; is it the same one as used by the King Tiger or different items just built on the same idea?

Both tanks were nose-heavy and couldn't be upgraded as much as the users would have liked.

While both tanks are certainly deserving of a degree of high regard, their alleged "unstoppable awesomeness" has been grossly exaggerated and really beaten to death.

To me the awesomeness of a WWII tank largely comes from its ability to take a main gun one level beyond what it was first built to take.  I'm not saying the other two can't, but the Sherman did beat them to it (Panther with upgunned Schmalturm- which was prevented from being realised altogether by the VE Day; and T-34-100 with LB-1 gun in a big new turret, also beaten to the punch by the T-54).

[rickshaw]

To me the awesomeness of a WWII tank largely comes from its ability to take a main gun one level beyond what it was first built to take.  I'm not saying the other two can't, but the Sherman did beat them to it (Panther with upgunned Schmalturm- which was prevented from being realised altogether by the VE Day; and T-34-100 with LB-1 gun in a big new turret).

Using that premise then the Australian Sentinel was the best tank of WWII.  It went from 2 Pdr to 25 Pdr, twin 25 Pdr to 17 Pdr. 

[dy031101]

ChernayaAkula's mention of Codename Panzers: Cold War got me thinking...... how many Tiger Is survived the War only to be scrapped?

What if Germany was allowed to keep its army and, as part of their effort to develop a new tank, decided to combine the turret from the development project with the Tiger I hull to fill an urgent operational need?

Granted, that is if a good number of Tiger I hulls survived or were found in recoverable condition......

(Why Tiger I?  Well Tiger II is heavier and, judging from subsequent conversation with several military buffs, seems to possess several "manufacture and logistical complications" that late-model Tiger I actually did away with......)

[rickshaw]

ChernayaAkula's mention of Codename Panzers: Cold War got me thinking...... how many Tiger Is survived the War only to be scrapped?

What if Germany was allowed to keep its army and, as part of their effort to develop a new tank, decided to combine the turret from the development project with the Tiger I hull to fill an urgent operational need?

Granted, that is if a good number of Tiger I hulls survived or were found in recoverable condition......

(Why Tiger I?  Well Tiger II is heavier and, judging from subsequent conversation with several military buffs, seems to possess several "manufacture and logistical complications" that late-model Tiger I actually did away with......)

The Tiger I was not much better.  Now, Panthers on the otherhand were much better.  The British Army put them back into production after the war ended and built about 20 for use as test subjects, utilising the parts that were on hand.  The French had several regiments for quite a few years after the war, until the spare parts problem prevented their continued use (and no, despite all the myths and rumours, none were sent out to Indochina).  The Panzer IV continued in use in Spain for over a decade while in Jugoslavia, Romania and Bulgaria they were used for many years.  Syria actually bought quite a few from all four of those countries and used them in various skirmishes and wars with the Israelis.

[dy031101]

Just to jot down some stuff found on the internet...... could be useful for future brainstorming.  

According to this and this, the turret ring diametre of:

Panther I- 1650mm (claimed here to be with the potential for expansion to 1750mm whereas the Panther II would ultimately have just 1565mm)

Tiger I- 1830mm

Tiger II- 1850mm.


======================================================================


I don't know if I'm giving the KwK-42 enough credit, but is it serviceable against the likes of T-54/55?

And, if reconstituted earlier than real-life with Western Allies' blessings, might the German Army have been able afford the luxury of going about refitting their Panthers with Tiger II components (IIRC, proposed to correct overall serviceability problem of the Panther tank)?

[rickshaw]

The gun is only half the equation in considering armour penetration.  The other half is the ammunition.  The French 75mm, used in the later versions of the AMX13 and the early Israeli Sherman conversions was based on the KwK42/L70.  If the ammunition had been improved, it would have been OK against T44s and T54s.  T55s OTOH might have been a bit of a handful for it.

Speaking of T44s, that was one tank that never really got the chance it should perhaps, being overshadowed by the T54/55.  You might like to consider it as a cheaper alternative.  The Soviets liked it enough to keep it in use until well into the 1980s in reserve units.

[dy031101]

If the ammunition had been improved, it would have been OK against T44s and T54s.  T55s OTOH might have been a bit of a handful for it.

Hum...... I don't know if the T-55 had much of a difference in terms of armour (if applique armour is to be factored in, can't the T-54 be outfitted the same way?) from the T-54......

T-44 could have benefitted from the work done on T-34-100 (namely the LB-1 gun with muzzle brake; since many Eastern-Bloc militaries actually preferred 100mm weapons with improved ammunitions over the plain-vanilla 115mm, that gun perhaps could have lasted the T-44 a long time, too) although I wouldn't know how much cheaper or simplier to build it'd be in that case than the T-54.

Granted, should the KwK-42 become ineffective, the Panther still has KwK-43 to choose from...... or the British 20-pounder.

The Tiger I might even be able to take a new turret armed with the 105mm L7......


=======================================================================


Curiosity- did the late-war Panzers (and their successor paper designs) somehow have influences on their tank development during the Cold War?  Or did the West Germans start from scratch when their army was reconstituted?

[rickshaw]

T55 had a slightly thicker turret over the T54, whilst earlier T54s were slightly thinner in their turret armour over that of the later T54.

I would still recommend ditching WWII armour.  It was invariably underpowered and the gearboxes difficult to maintain.  Upgrading them would be difficult and expensive.   Much easier to get and maintain late war or post-war equipment from either the US, UK or the fUSSR.  Unless you wish to embark on rolling your own and then you may as well design what you want rather than trying to rationalise upgraded WWII German tanks.

[dy031101]

I've heard that Italy was granted license to produce the Panther tank right before the armistice; was there any attempt by foreign countries to license-produce the Tiger I & II?

[Arc3371]

Never heard that Italy was granted a licence just that some were being delivered to the Italian army at the time of armistice. Hungary requested a license but the licence fee that was demanded was higher than the production price leading to the Hungarians instead starting the 43M & 44M projects.

[dy031101]

Fun with MS Paint (as both components are allegedly at the same scale).

[RotorheadTX]

Working on this; ESCI 1/72...

[rickshaw]

Now, that would ruin someone's day rather seriously.   

[dy031101]

I realized a while ago that Porsche also drew up designs for requirement that eventually led to the Tiger II: one has a conventionally-mounted turret and the other has a rear-mounted turret.

Did Porsche investigate further to find out for themselves which one is the better choice for submission?

The placement of the conventionally-mounted turret seem awfully close to that of the Russian T-34...... which reminds me of Logan Harkte's observation on T-34's poor weight distribution (nose heavy) preventing any reinforcement of forward hull armours.  Granted, since it's the Tiger II specs we're talking about, upgrade potential is likely to be of no consideration to begin with in terms of forward protection anyway...... but what about the weight distribution as is for either designs?

[rickshaw]

Of the three hull positions you can place a turret, the central one is the best for reasons of stability and ease of manufacture.  The front mounted turret invariably makes the vehicle nose heavy but does have the advantage in that the fighting compartment and driver's compartment are combined, easing communication between the commander and the driver.   There is no reason why the front armour cannot be increased except that it will exacerbate the nose heaviness even further.  Rear mounted turrets confer advantages in that they place the engine in front of the fighting compartment and thereby increase protection.   They also have the advantage of allowing the tank's easy adaptation to other roles, such as an SPG.  So, as always in every design, its all about compromises.   Ferdinand Porsche preferred rear mounted turrets because he preferred rear mounted turrets. I doubt he made any comprehensive studies as to their advantages or disadvantages.  It was just one design feature he preferred.