Couldn't the MkIV, in its Best Armored and Most Powerful iteration, equal the Sherman or the T-34.? Am i wrong in thinking that the MkIV could be fitted with a gun that was similar to what the Panther used.? I guess what i am getting at is......if The Germans had manufactured just The MkIV, they could have had (in theory) "A Lot" of tanks that would have been able to fight it out with the majority of allied tanks. Just producing the #4 would have been much simpler than having to have parts and mechanics for not only the MkIV, but also the Panther and Tiger-1 and Tiger-2. In addition, those bigger tanks were much slower and more costly to produce. Would The Wehrmacht have been better off if they did not produce those bigger tanks.? Thanks
I'm pretty sure the best 75mm on the Mark IV *was* just as good as the 75mm on the Sherman - I don't know about 17 pounders or 76mm US guns though. There's a definitely an argument to be made that they wasted a lot of effort on their larger vehicles. However as I understand it they'd also pretty much taken the Mk IV as far as they could - the long 75mm (L48?) was heavy enough that it put additional strain on the suspension.
Old old hobby horse of mine, I'm afraid; but the often-stated suggestion of Germany solely producing the IV doesn't really stand. While cancelling a single Tiger might theoretically free enough base steel to make two IVs, it does absolutely nothing to provide two guns, two sets of sights, two radios, twice the tyres etc. Nor does it free up industrial capacity and un-bomb factories, or create more fuel or trained crews. Tungsten, rubber, ball bearings etc. etc. Despite so many reasonable reservations about the success or not of German heavies; there is a justification for the approaches they took. (Applying from tanks up to other more wild-seeming wunderwaffe). Manpower, fuel, & production under constant & increasing strain - technological solutions gain an increasing appeal. They pushed those solutions to something of a knife-edge, but in many ways they had comparatively little choice.
Ah...OK. Did not know about the longer 75 and the troubles that it Could/Did give the IV Chassis. Good info about Logistics as well.....that never entered my mind. Perhaps if The Panther had been given more time for Development and Testing, they could have concentrated on that and skipped the Tiger 1 and 2. I guess i should have run the idea past Adolf. Thank You
The main problem with German tanks, as I see it, was the generally low durability/overhaul life. The Maybach engines were fairly weak, needing to be replaced at 1250 miles even with the earlier Panzer III's. I suspect the later Panzer IV's were even lower than this. If the Germans could have got their existing tanks to be able to stay on the battlefield longer before needing an overhaul, that would have been their best option, imho. This may have been impossible due to shortages of alloying materials, which prevented them from making really durable components. The great advantage the Allies had, which is largely unrecognized, is that once you put a Sherman or a Cromwell in the field, it could last for up to a year without needing serious overhaul. So these tanks were available all the time, whereas their German opponents might be two weeks on, four weeks off. Possibly even worse than this, with the likes of the Panther.
That French postwar report on their 'surplus' Panthers requiring full gearbox rebuilds every 150KM springs to mind. Thin cylinder walls and tight access on certain big Maybachs, dubious welding quality, etc. etc. The results of pushing against technological barriers. When it worked - marvellous, but when you're applying essentially experimental barely-proven technology to 40-50t vehicles, there's always that risk of fragility & failure. The overburdened nature of late Mk. IVs fills chapters of books. Tyres shredding, suspension collapses, numerous attempts to improve from recoilless guns to lightening, weird drivetrains and entirely new suspension systems, but it's hard to deny that, like the Sherman, they did 'alright'. Pz.IV the only main participant tank to have served the entire war IIRC, and a multitude of useful vehicles based on the chassis.
My own suspicion is that the Panzer IV only lasted so long because the Germans were never offered Shermans on Lend-Lease. Automotively, the Sherman was in a different league.
Great video. Thanks It just makes you wonder what they could have done if they had concentrated on the Pnz-4...... better fuel consumption than the bigger tanks, all the same parts, all the same ammo, all the same training. Who Knows
They concentrated very heavily on it Milking it dry, really. Assault guns, SP artillery, TDs, Hydrostatic drive tests, Heuschrecke thoughts, even some work with recoilless (or maybe more accurately 'fixed recoil') guns. It made it through the war but was eventually overstressed, often distrusted by its crews, hard to up-gun or up-armour. Maxed out. Cleverly maxed-out, but exhausted nonetheless. The tide may have turned against Germany four-five years into their war (Bagration? That's a different thread...), but many could not accept defeat was inevitable, and many didn't even notice. And nobody really knew how long the war might last. D-Day was a close-run thing, and the pressure from the East never completely guaranteed. There's no benefit to them in solely persisting with one increasingly dated tank. No major belligerent nation did that, with good reason. I even (now) believe the increasing focus on somewhat OTT tracked wunderwaffen makes sense for later stage Germany. Maybe doomed to failure, but the envisioned 'efficiency' was in some ways the only path left. The Mark IV was not efficient late war. It was adequate, and losing even that adequacy as the allies fielded better machines. Panther existed for solid reasons, despite really needing another year or two to reach potential.
Yeah, no doubt, if they could have had another year development time with The Panther, and just made those.............well, that would have been an impressive force indeed. A few thousand more, and more reliable Panthers. I suppose the Tiger-1 was a pretty big success, but it was used in a role in was never designed for. Working on those huge tanks, out in the field must have been a nightmare.
I've got an OR report somewhere which IIRC states that the Panzer IV only needed an average of just over 1 round to knock it out, whereas the Panther needed more than 2 and the Tiger needed about 5. So there is a good argument for the Panther in that statistic, although I agree with Von Poop that it was essentially underdeveloped. By the end of the war it was at the same stage the Churchill was at in late1942 - much improved but not quite there yet.
