Panzer IV

[starship1]

Welcome indeed for another panzer IV admirer.  Love the X7 armed IV.

[dy031101]

Curiosity: if new chassis and suspension were to be stipulated, would it still have been logistically meaningful to try using Panzer III and IV components in building a new tank (knowing that the resulting tank might risk being underpowered due to perhaps the same reason as the American M26)?

[nev]

would it still have been logistically meaningful...?

Since when did that matter to the nazis?

[dy031101]

would it still have been logistically meaningful...?

Since when did that matter to the nazis?

It's what-if, so I'm assuming someone saw the potential.

[rickshaw]

Curiosity: if new chassis and suspension were to be stipulated, would it still have been logistically meaningful to try using Panzer III and IV components in building a new tank (knowing that the resulting tank might risk being underpowered due to perhaps the same reason as the American M26)?

The problem wouldn't one of power.  You could put what ever sized engine you liked in it, if it would fit.  The problem with both the Mk III and the Mk IV was that their suspensions were at the end of their limits.  They couldn't carry more weight.  Look at the problems the JgPz.IV had with the L/70 and its nose-heaviness as a consequence.  Similarly, they couldn't put a bigger gun in the Mk III's turret.   Both the Mk.III and the Mk.IV were mechanically reliable and excellent chassis otherwise.

[dy031101]

The problem with both the Mk III and the Mk IV was that their suspensions were at the end of their limits.  They couldn't carry more weight.  Look at the problems the JgPz.IV had with the L/70 and its nose-heaviness as a consequence.

I've already tried to say that their suspensions weren't to be utilized for the purpose of the question (I would otherwise, perhaps invariably, have arrived at Panzerkampfwagen III/IV Einheitsfahrgestell like Logan suggested).  

[rickshaw]

The problem with both the Mk III and the Mk IV was that their suspensions were at the end of their limits.  They couldn't carry more weight.  Look at the problems the JgPz.IV had with the L/70 and its nose-heaviness as a consequence.

I've already tried to say that their suspensions weren't to be utilized for the purpose of the question (I would otherwise, perhaps invariably, have arrived at Panzerkampfwagen III/IV Einheitsfahrgestell like Logan suggested).  

So, what "components" are you left with?   Hull?  Thats just fabricated steel plating.  Engine?  There were better and more powerful engines available.  Turret?  Again, thats just fabricated steel plating and there were significantly better shaped designs available.   Gun?  Which one?  The Mk. III carried four different guns in its tank form.  The Mk. IV carried three different guns in its tank form. So I'm not sure what the purpose of the exercise is!

[dy031101]

So, what "components" are you left with?   Hull?  Thats just fabricated steel plating.  Engine?  There were better and more powerful engines available.  Turret?  Again, thats just fabricated steel plating and there were significantly better shaped designs available.   Gun?  Which one?  The Mk. III carried four different guns in its tank form.  The Mk. IV carried three different guns in its tank form. So I'm not sure what the purpose of the exercise is!

That's the answer I'm looking for (it's curiosity about logistical meaningfulness without inheriting the chassis and the suspensions).  Thanks.  

So Panzerkampfwagen III/IV Einheitsfahrgestell it'd still be as the final answer then.  

[ChernayaAkula]

would it still have been logistically meaningful...?

Since when did that matter to the nazis?

Actually, the very existence of both the Pz. III and Pz. IV underlines nev's point.  The Pz. IV was not a follow-up to the Pz. III, but a parallel development. The Pz. III was supposed to fight it out with other tanks with a smaller calibre/longer barrelled main gun, while the Pz. IV was supposed to support infantry with a bigger calibre/shorter barrel cannon. Apparently the designers didn't factor in that the 5 cm cannon would be outdated soon and went with a smaller turret ring, which seriously limited its growth potential.
Why they went with two different designs is anyone's guess. The savings by the slightly smaller Pz. III must have been minimal when weighed against the costs of designing, building and operating two designs.

[rickshaw]

would it still have been logistically meaningful...?

Since when did that matter to the nazis?

Actually, the very existence of both the Pz. III and Pz. IV underlines nev's point.  The Pz. IV was not a follow-up to the Pz. III, but a parallel development. The Pz. III was supposed to fight it out with other tanks with a smaller calibre/longer barrelled main gun, while the Pz. IV was supposed to support infantry with a bigger calibre/shorter barrel cannon. Apparently the designers didn't factor in that the 5 cm cannon would be outdated soon and went with a smaller turret ring, which seriously limited its growth potential.
Why they went with two different designs is anyone's guess. The savings by the slightly smaller Pz. III must have been minimal when weighed against the costs of designing, building and operating two designs.

True but that was a problem not just limited to the Nazis.  All nationalities made specialised vehicles for different roles - UK - Infantry, Cruiser and Heavy tanks.  fUSSR - Medium, Heavy and "Breakthrough tanks".  USA - Cavalry, Tank Destroyers and Medium and Heavy.    Only perhaps the Italians didn't.   The UK was only one to really wake up to the potential of a "Universal Tank" as Montgomery called it with the result that they got the Centurion which could fulfil the role of infantry and cruiser together.

[ChernayaAkula]

True but that was a problem not just limited to the Nazis.  All nationalities made specialised vehicles for different roles <...>

Fair enough. The designs of other nations were different enough to warrant different designs, though. British Infantry vs. Crusier tanks, for example. In case of the Pz. III and IV, their capabilities were so similar that it seems pointless to go for two different designs with two different logistics trains for a preciously small gain in diversity  Especially when one of the designs has much bigger growth potential.

[tahsin]

All I might say is IV was spesifically designed to support the III , and not infantry . That Americans could afford using tanks for infantry support in the scale they did was always envied by the Germans who had to develop Stugs for infantry .

[rickshaw]

True but that was a problem not just limited to the Nazis.  All nationalities made specialised vehicles for different roles <...>

Fair enough. The designs of other nations were different enough to warrant different designs, though. British Infantry vs. Crusier tanks, for example. In case of the Pz. III and IV, their capabilities were so similar that it seems pointless to go for two different designs with two different logistics trains for a preciously small gain in diversity  Especially when one of the designs has much bigger growth potential.

Actually they weren't (similar) in roles.  The Panzer IV was designed to fulfil a similar role to the British Infantry Tank or the Soviet "breakthrough tank" - support the infantry onto the objective and destroy obstacles while protecting them from enemy tanks.  The Panzer III was always intended to be employed as an exploitation vehicle, rather as the US and UK meant their cavalry/cruiser tanks to be utilised.

What most people forget is that the Germans actually built their own doctrine on British practice.  Guderian's first manual on Panzer warfare was in fact a direct translation of the British Army's "Purple Primer" - the training pamphlet that was written after the first experiments with the Mechanized Force in the late 1920s (named after the colour of its cover).

[ChernayaAkula]

Actually they weren't (similar) in roles.  The Panzer IV was designed to fulfil a similar role to the British Infantry Tank or the Soviet "breakthrough tank" - support the infantry onto the objective and destroy obstacles while protecting them from enemy tanks.  The Panzer III was always intended to be employed as an exploitation vehicle, rather as the US and UK meant their cavalry/cruiser tanks to be utilised. <...>

If you look back a couple of posts you will find that that's precisely what I wrote. I said they were similar in capabilities, not in roles. Or at least so similar that going for two designs seems pointless.

[Logan Hartke]

What most people forget is that the Germans actually built their own doctrine on British practice.  Guderian's first manual on Panzer warfare was in fact a direct translation of the British Army's "Purple Primer" - the training pamphlet that was written after the first experiments with the Mechanized Force in the late 1920s (named after the colour of its cover).

It's true, but whereas the British went off the deep end with their "tanks as ship fleets on land" due to the influences of Fuller, Liddell Hart, and Hobart, the Germans kept a very good notion of "combined arms" in their thinking.  Blitzkrieg was just proven tactics with added mobility and new equipment.  The British concept of armored warfare (and subsequent rewriting of Blitzkrieg) looked more like naval warfare on land or a totally new kind of fighting.

Paddy Griffith does a very good job of dispelling this myth in very short order in his recent Osprey title on Desert Tactics.

See a preview of that here.

Blitzkrieg wasn't British ideas with a German spin.  It was a different route altogether.  They may have started in the same place, but one went right and the other went left when they came to a fork in the road.  They were not parallel concepts and that is clearly shown by the way the competing theories played out completely differently on the battlefield.

Cheers,

Logan