Panzer IV

[dy031101]

Slope the sides in so you've got enhanced protection, put the turret in the middle, but she'd still be rather rearward mounted.

Before the advent of the Merkava, has there been any Cold War era production or experimental MBT with the main turret assembly located nearer the rear?

Just thinking...... how a possible Post-war improved version might have looked like.

[Sauragnmon]

You're right, Apo, the Nashorn is rather mid-engined, but consider the fact that additionally all the drive mechanisms and such is also front-biased - we can see the drive sprocket on the front, as with most German tanks of the time, and if I recall, she did not have the Electric transmission of the Porsche Tigers and the Maus, though one might consider the electric transmission with a forward mounting to bias balance forward again.  You'd also have an increased forward balance with the additional armor plating that would come with the design as a tank.  You'd probably also want to close up the drop-hatch on the driver's side, so as to increase driver protection and not make it a liability.

I would imagine her suspension would be easier to maintain compared to the interlaced wheels of the Panther...

[dy031101]

Sauragnmon and apophenia, your discussions is not only informative but also, IMHO, helping making the Geschutzwagen III/IV tank asthetically pleasing. 

[PanzerWulff]

Geschutzwagen III/IV, the chassis of the Nashorn SPATG and Hummel SPH, combines the driving and steering mechanism of the Panzer III with the engine (which appears to be the same or derived from that of the Panzer III anyway) and suspension of the Panzer IV but is longer and supposedly has more room than both......

It looks like a perfect heavy mortar carrier to me
"Panzer"

[Sauragnmon]

Yeah, a transverse axle probably would help it, and at the same token if you re-shifted the engine, you could sit it up in a position so as to remove the extended distance that is the driver's section, presenting a smoothed solid front area.  From there you could also put in a bulkhead and the turret's systems in the gap beside the engine, or additional ammo.  The thought of using this as a tank destroyer almost leads me to think in terms of the Jagdtiger's design, and I can't help but shake my head at some of the design flaws to it, like the flat-faced upper works, around the gun.  I'd personally say it needs the mobility above else.

[raafif]

apophenia's Nashorn/Panther looks like a smaller version of the Porsche kingTiger prototype (Elephant with Porsche KT turret at back).

Wot !! no steel wheels here ??

[starship1]

Found a site called Henk of Holland at henk.fox3000.com that has a large gallery of real, prototype or project vehicles.  Since I'm kind of big on the Panzer IV, I thought I'd show some of the Krupp prototypes and projects.  The first is the IV ausf K, based on a ausf H.  I think the sloped armour would have been very effective.

[starship1]

The next is Krupp's prototype Jagdpanzer IVb E39.

[starship1]

The last one is a project for an 88 mm armed panzer IV tank destroyer.

[Sauragnmon]

Very interesting stuff - I have to admit, I like the Krupp designs.  I do question, though, if the 88 JPz4 would have had much effectiveness - it's not a big chassis, it might not hold many rounds for that elefant gun.  Additionally, as a tank hunter it loses one of the major benefits - low profile - due to the large height of the hull to enclose the 88.  Additionally, if I recall, the 75 off the Panther still had better hitting power against armored targets even compared to the monster 88/71 KwK from the Konigstiger.  One might consider the 88 for a Sturmgeschutz more than a Jagdpanzer.

[Logan Hartke]

Additionally, if I recall, the 75 off the Panther still had better hitting power against armored targets even compared to the monster 88/71 KwK from the Konigstiger.

Hmm, I don't think that's correct.  The 7.5cm KwK 42's got a smaller, lighter round made of the same material fired at a slightly lower velocity.  I really don't think it's possible.  I'm not saying the 7.5cm KwK 42 isn't the better choice, just that it's not the heavier hitter against armored targets.  If I've got to take out a Pershing, Centurion, or IS tank, then give me the 8.8cm KwK 43 over the 7.5cm KwK 42 any day.  Now was the 7.5cm KwK 42 better than the Tiger I's 8.8cm KwK 36?  That I can easily believe.  It had better penetration.  I think that as long as the round from the KwK 36 penetrated, however, it would do more damage than the round from the KwK 42, but only marginally so.  It likely wasn't worth the much greater weight of the 8.8cm gun and extra size of the rounds.

Cheers,

Logan

[Sauragnmon]

hmm, I could have sworn the 75 had better velocity on it, or had something that gave it better penetration against hard targets.  Might have had APDS rounds?  I forget now.  And really, I dunno, I might choose a Hummel or a Wespe with Hollow Charge rounds if I'm going after a Pershing or an IS - whole lot of explosive, and an early HEAT round.

[Logan Hartke]

They both had the same types of rounds available to them, Pzgr. 39 and Pzgr. 40.  The 7.5cm KwK 42's Pzgr. 40 had a slightly higher muzzle velocity, but much lower weight, so it had a considerably lower penetration value that only got worse as the range increased (heavier rounds keep their kinetic energy better at range - nearly 50% greater at 2000m).

HEAT rounds are good, but I wouldn't make them my primary killer at any sort of range before about 1970.  Their accuracy was kind of erratic (as were the effects, sometimes) and got worse and worse as the range got further.  Their penetration was good enough that the US made them their main AT round throughout the 50s, but they had to develop complex fire control equipment to be able to accurately hit tank-size targets beyond 500m.  It worked and worked pretty well, but was somewhat sensitive and wasn't easy to figure out.  The inability of the Pakistanis to master it was probably one of the greatest reasons for their defeat at the hands of Indian Centurions and Shermans.  The HEAT round is also best used in a smoothbore gun and most guns of the time were rifled.  The problem is that HEAT rounds only have a good chance of accurately hitting the target at close range, but their performance in WWII was typically only better than a comparable AP round at long range when the AP round's kinetic energy had dropped off.  Quite the Catch-22!  Again, until the 120mm Rheinmetall smoothbore era, I'd take the AP/APC/APCR/APCBC/APDS/APFSDS school of AT rounds in most scenarios.

Logan

[Sauragnmon]

I dunno, Logan - 15cm HC vs 88mm AP?  Wespe HC rounds could be pretty damn scary, so I would be inclined to use that gun to design something akin to the StuH 42, really.  Take out tanks or buildings with equal ability, and in the battlefield purposes, you could use it for short range fire support with the right mounting.

[Logan Hartke]

As long as you can be sure you're not going to be engaging anything beyond 500m, sure.  Urban combat, yeah.  Anything else and I'll take the far greater accuracy and ammunition count of the 8.8cm KwK 43 (and I'm not even a huge fan of that gun!).  The StuH 42 had a 10.5cm gun, not 15cm.  That's a bigger monster.  Think Brummbar.  You're essentially saying that you'd more readily take a group of Sturmpanthers against IS-2s than Panther Ausf Gs, and I think that's folly.  I think you're putting too much faith in WWII HEAT rounds.  They were good, but pretty inaccurate by comparison.

I think a PzKpfw III chassis (like a StuH 42) with the StuH 43 15cm gun would be a very useful vehicle...for infantry support.  It would be useful against tanks in a pinch, but not very many of them.

One thing you have to remember with a vehicle carrying that caliber of gun is that the recoil and gun weight alone are going to be substantial.  More important, however, are the ammunition concerns.  Even the giant box that was the Brummbär could only carry a measly 38 rounds.  The Hetzer could at least bring 41 rounds to the battlefield!  The considerably smaller Panzer IV/70 armed with the 7.5cm KwK 42 could carry 55 rounds, half again as many as the Brummbär in a smaller package.  Furthermore, your reload time is going to be murderously long by comparison.  You're going to be using two-piece rounds that take longer to load than an 8.8cm KwK 43.  You can engage twice as many tanks in the same time.

The Russians had the same issue with the HEAT-powerful 122mm D-25T compared to the D-10T.  They used them both, took all factors into consideration and (rightly) chose the D-10T for the T-54 as the mainstay of their tank armament for the next decade.

Logan