PZ IV v. SP guns
 

Does anybody think the Germans would have been wise to discontinue the PZ IV in 1943 and concentrate more effort on producing Stugs and later Jagdpanzer IV?

I don't. The PzKw IV was the work horse of the German Army right into 1945. I don't have a problem with making Stug IV or Jagdpanzer IV. Nice vehicles, but not to the detriment of the turreted Panzer version.

I do believe that as many III chassis as possible should have been converted to production of the StuG III. By 1943 the PzKw III was falling into obsolescence. However, the StuG III performed magnificently right up until Adolf swallowed ammo.

Peace,

Re: PZ IV v. SP guns
 

The Germans were very keen on getting rid of the Panzer IV from early 1943 but the Panthers substandard performance in that year and the expected loss of production in a changeover from Panzer IV to another vehicle (Panther, most likely) could not be tolerated.
That remained a problem all through to 1945. There were numerous suggestion for improving the Panzer IV that all stranded on the fact that it was essentially obsolete just as there were numerous plans for stopping production and replacing it with something else, IIRC mostly by some sort of Sturmgeschütz. But it all stranded on the fact that the German Army needed the tanks and could not accept any production loss. So you can say the Panzer IV was the "workhorse of the German Army", but it was so by default, not by choice.

As for discontinuing Panzer IV production and replacing it with a Sturmgeschütz of sorts it would very much depend on what you hoped to achieve?

In case of the Jagdpanzer IV (that was not available until 1944...) you would get the same firepower in a better protected and lower vehicle. In case of the StuG IV (that was a late-1943 development) you would get the same firepower in a lower vehicle with the same or less protection.

Neither the Jagdpanzer IV nor the StuG IV was of very much use in the Panzerdivisions, as combat experience with the StuG III in Panzerdivisions proved during 1943. They were however excellent for infantry support and as anti-tank weapons. So if you replaced Panzer IV production with Sturmgeschütz production, you would also have made a decision with regards to the future of armoured divisions. Either you would reduce the number of divisions or the tanks in them, or you would rob them of much of their offensive capability.

As for replacing the Panzer IV with Sturmgeschütze in production I suggest the following scenario

- You reduce the number of armoured divisions and possibly the number of tanks as well and then equip them exclusively with Panthers.
- You aim to equip the Panzerjägerabteilung of the infantry divisions with Sturmgeschütze (Jagdpanzer IV preferably), starting with a company but aiming at three companies. Some divisions would of course get Hetzers instead.
- In doing so, you would make considerable improvements in the offensive and defensive capabilities of the infantry divisions.

That this scenario is not completely rubbish can be seen from the fact that this was the way the German army was going during the last years of the war. IIRC it was also the reason why Guderian wanted control over Sturmgeschütz production when he became Generalinspector of Armoured Troops in 1943 (the Panzerjägertruppe was controlled by Guderians inspectorate).
It was also the original idea in the proposals for the Sturmgeschütz in the mid-1930ies, that each infantry division should have a battalion of StuGs attached.

production
 

It's my understanding that the turretless vehicles could be produced more quickly and cheaply than the PZ IV. Could the faclities used to produce the PZ IVs been turned over to production of Sturmgeschutz? Could greater numbers make up for the lack of new PZ IVs?

I guess there was also some issues with who would control the 'Panzers'. The true tanks with turrets were under the Panzertruppe while turretless were controlled by the artillery(?) infantry(?).

Re: production
 

Panzer IV production was replaced by StuG IV production at Krupps in January 1944 and by Jagdpanzer IV production at Vomag starting January 1944 with the last Panzer IV being produced in that factory in May 1944. So the factories could turn out both types.

The turretless AFVs were easier to produce (about 15% difference between Panzer III and StuG III measured in cost according to Pawlas: "Datenblätter..."), and the Vomag factory producing the Jagdpanzer IV did increase production after they changed from Panzer IV to Jagdpanzer IV production, but so did the Panzer IV manufacturers.
But I dont think lesser cost nor desire to increase production was ever considered when replacing the Panzer IV with production of non-turreted AFVs. The StuG IV replaced the Panzer IV in production at Krupps because the Alkett factory making the StuG III had been bombed and it was thought necessary to keep up StuG production. The Jagdpanzer IV appears to have been intended as an improved Sturmgeschütze rather than as a cheaper Panzer IV replacement.

Control over Sturmgeschütz production was handed over from the artillery inspectorate to the armour inspectorate in December 1943 (Guderian: "Panzer Leader" p. 298 and 314).

1
 

The Panzer IV was not obsolate in 1944 or in 1945.. it had acceptable mobility, avarge armor (being able to stop many enemy guns, incluign typical Soviet 76.2mm and US 75mm). It`s gun was capable of knocking out 95% of enemy tanks, with one or two exception, from the front at good ranges. HE capability was good, and the nubmer of rounds carred was also very good.

But there were better designs, such as the Panther.

Re: 1
 

Hi:)!

I think, being obsolate or not of a german or an allies AFV is a bit different. Because of allied number superority in tanks the W ehrmacht needed a tank could fight at more or less safe distance effectivly against the most common medium tank and TD/assault gun types or more. PzIV had a good gun fight against 76mm gunned Shermans/Fireflies and T34,but it was still vulnarable at longer ranges against them. Without Panther support PzIVs couldn't fight IS heavy tanks at long ranges or hordes of T34/85. Situation on ETO was littlely different,because there wasn't an quite effective allied heavy/main battle tank,but TDs. I mean,in 1945 a roughly equivalent tank with Shermans or T34 is strictly not enough alone(!!!) for the Wehrmacht.


"By 23 June 1944, a total of 109 Shermans with 17 Pounders had landed in France along with 6 replacements. At the end of the War, on 5 May 1945, the British 21st Army Group had in their possession 1235 Shermans with 17 Pounder versus 1915 with 75 mm M3 guns."

"On 6 September 1944, only 250 out of 1913 Shermans with the 12th Army Group had 76 mm guns."


"By late 1944 there was usually one M4 Sherman 76mm per platoon. However, the 8th, 9th, 10th, and 11th Armored divisions which arrived in late 1944 were entirely equipped with the M4 Sherman 76mm. This was also true of the divisions which arrived in 1945 (the 12th, 13th, 14th, 16th, and 20th). Of course, combat losses in these divisions were replaced by whatever was available -- which often meant M4 Sherman 75 mm tanks."

By V-day,about 60 percent of US Sherman's carried 76 mm gun.And there were thousands of TDs they could destroy PzIVs at long ranges.

Also the germans knew about the vulnarability of PzIVs and formed mixed Panzer battalions with Panthers as well.By the way the main reason was losses and unsatisfactory numbers in demand of vehicles.

It's a quite hard statement,that PzIV wasn't obsolate in 1945. Both US 57mm ,75mm and soviet 76mm guns could pen the turret from the front and easily the sides,bazookas the sides as well. I wasn' obsolate when Panthers supported it,of course.

Respectfully...Col.Valentine

Re: Re: 1
 

Turret on PzIV versions was 80mm according to the Pz H-J Datenblatt. This thickness of armor was shown to be invulnerable to US 75mm gun at range of 90 meters, if the side angle was more than a mere 17,5 degrees. Which pretty much translates to point blank range.

Same goes to Soviet 76,2mm gun, which had roughly eqaul performance, but worser shells. Soviet test show that 76.2mm gun on T-34 could not penetrate 80mm armor at 200m.

PzIV was supeiror to the 75 gunned Shermans, which consited 74% of the Allied tank force in December 1944. It could just as well knock out any Shemrman variant, excluding the few Jumbos. T-34, T-34/85 was eqaully easy to knock out at long ranges.

New guns that apeared on Allied tanks could fight the PzIV. That hardly makes the PzIV obsolate... chances were equal.

Equal chances by no way translates to obsolate. An obsolate tnka has little chance. The Pz. IV had equal chance against the tanks that made up the bulk of enemy tank strenght.

By May 1945, when the war ended, roughly 50% of all Shermans had a 76mm gun. Unfortunately, Panthers had making up 50% the Panzer streght for a one and a half year by that time.

I can hardly understand how can you rate a tank obsolate just because some , and not even all , and absolutely not the majority of enemy AT weapons couild fight it successfully. Being able to fight an enemy AFV is a MINIMUM requiremnt for an AT weapon... if we apply your standards to Allied tanks, they were ALL obsolate because they were ALL vulnerable to enemy AT weapons.

The Pershing, for example, by your standards, was obsolate before it saw any action; it was vulnerable to enemy AT weapons from front, sides or rear and infantry held Panzerfaust and Panzerschrecks.

Re: Re: Re: 1
 

Hi!:)

If you had carefully read,you could see that I was talking about the very late war 45 period,not about being obsolate in 1944 in Western Front.:)

PzIVH had never 80 mm turret thickess,but hull,as I said before.
Onwar:ant on other places as well.

Hull 80mm@76° 30mm@90° 20mm@82° 10mm@0°
Superstructure 80mm@80° 30mm@90° 20mm@79° 12mm@0-5°
Turret 50mm@80° 30mm@64° 30mm@75° 15mm@0-7°
Mantlet 50mm@60-90° - - -

And I said that without Panther/heavy PzJager support,PzIVs would't have any or hardly chance to survive and fight effectivly against superior numbers (or more concentrated) of allied TDs and medium tanks (T34/85,M4 76,Su85,M18 etc) in 1945, because they could destroy it at longer ranges as well,not more.:).Equal chances is far too bad for germans,I think. PzIV wasn't obsolate when Panthers supported it.:)But If allies must had fought against PzIVs instead of Panthers they would had been very glad...or someone else.

Actually.PzIV would be clearly outclassed by incoming T44/85(had 90 hull and 120mm turret armor),M26 medium tanks (as PzIV was a medium tank),Panther G could handle them.

T44/85 may resist Kwk40 at 500m when using the unnecessary PzGr39 APCB HE,hull was unprenetable from the front.But it was still not an appropriate enemy for a Panther.And It would have good resist against Pak40 as well.

M26 was superior to PzIV/Hetzer/Stug III Jpz IV/48 and PzVIE and closely equal to Panther G.It's turret could ne defeated only max. 500m from the front by Kwk40/Pak39...the most common weapons on german AVFs. The slightly better Pak40 could pen the turret (theoratically but probably at much shorter range )under 1000m with APCBC HE as about 88mm Flak so it had . So it had a good survivalability against the most common battlefield threats (it was built lower and rear drived than Sherman it was front drived ) that PzIVH/J had not, Pershing was armed a 90mm gun to destroy german AFVs from the front except Tiger II (but that was a heavy tank) more easily to destroy ATGs,infantry after spotted than Shermans,PzIVs could. And I think that is enough for a medium tank.The "heavy tank calling" served only the propaganda war.About the delaying in combat action I think we had talked before. It would save thousends of lifes,no doubt. The only major disadvantage was the turning distance (18,3m Panther G had 10m) and maybe the poor horsepower weight ratio (12Le/t 500 Le/2600 RPM),Panther G had 13,2 Le/t by 600Le/2500 RPM. Pershing had ground pressure 12,5 psi.,Panther G had 12,8 psi.


Actually...any existing more or less advanced WWII AVFs could be easily destroyed by Panzerfausts/Panzerschrecks from sides and rear...like Tiger II and Panther G post post war Centurion,M46/M47 (but they were both war-designed vehicles) as well and nobody'd said they were obsolate. These weapons were excellent of course.

Respectfully...Col.Valentine:)

Re: Re: Re: Re: 1
 

You are wrong about PzIV H-J armor... it was 80mm on turret, 80mm on hull, 80mm on Superstructure. Primary German doicumetns from manufacturer tell this, not internet sites... which would you trust more.

From Kennblatt for Pz IV H-J, Blatt G` 315 I

Panzerung:

Bug: 80mm
Turm: 80mm
Front: 80mm

Seite: 30mm
Dach: 15mm
Schurzen: 5mm

It`s clear. Primary sources are what count, not the distorted inforamtion on internet sites. Probably your data mixes Ausf. G with the Ausf. H.

The tanks you mentioned that supposed to make the PZIV oboslate... T-44, didn`t saw action in any substantial numbers... M-26 ditto.. then tank s you mentioned simply were not there. They were not common. PzIVs were. Shermans with 75m guns were. Shermans with 76mm guns were less common, but were there as well.

The tanks that would make the PZIV obsolate simply didn`t arrived.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1
 

Hi!:)

Certainly meet my opinion,but I don't understand that PzIVH turret thicknees thing because some books mention 50 mm turret thickness as well (for example hart and Hart German tanks of world war II as "standardizeng H...a 80mm steel plate was attached to the hull...front turret and gun mantle was made from 50mm steel plates...",and I know no armor site (hmmm...couldn't they use primary sources as well?) describing PzIVH's turret 80mm thickness... What kind of conspiracy is this? so I don't know:confused: You are right,without manufacturer documents I can't decide it...you should send it if you can and I'll accept of course:)

Actually...did you get my private message here on achtungpanzer?:)

Regards...:)Col.Valentine

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1
 

You shouldn't pay to much attention to Barbie with regards to the Panzer IV Ausf. H-J turret front being 80mm.

The primary documents he is quoting are presented in Pawlas: "Datenblätter...." from 1976 and are copies of documents made by Reichminister für Rüstung und Kriegsproduktion in 1944. They are handwritten and contain a number of peculiarities and the dataformat is not consistent.

In other words, it is a dubious source. Just as a primary document i have which say the US M46 had the same engine as the M4A3.

Now, when Barbie replies to this post he will undoubtedly tell you that Spielberger also quotes 80mm front turret armour for the Panzer IV in his old book from 1975 "Der Panzerkampfwagen IV und seine Abarten". It has been reprinted many times since, but to my knowledge not updated in any way. Spielberger quotes the 80mm for the front turret in the data on p.157-58 in his book, but does not mention such a change in the text, only the increase to 80mm on the front hull.
Incidentally, Spielberger knew these documents and it is possible that he has quoted the 80mm figure from the Datenblätter.

So bottom line is that Barbie got his 80mm front turret armour from a dubious document from 1944 quoted in some books that are 25 years old.

In his 1998 book co-authored by Thomas Jentz, Spielberger has corrected the mistakes in his 1975 book and says the turret front of the Panzer IV Ausf. H and J has 50mm of armour*

Now, I know Barbie is never going to change his mind even if you knock him over the head with a 50mm turret front plate from a Panzer IV, I just want to put a perspective on his claim ;)

Claus B

*Spielberger: "Begleitwagen Panzerkampfwagen IV", Stuttgart 1998

sources
 

Interesting discussion.

All three of you are better read on the subject than me. I just want to reiterate my opinion that sources should be questioned - even 'primary sources'. Even official drawings for a particular model may not be entirely accurate, especially under the hard-pressed wartime production conditions.

Finding existing machines and actually measuring these things would be the ideal way to get answers. Even then, there may have been variations within specific varients depending on where and when specific machines were assembled.

I am very curious as to how uniform production was for various vehicle types and aircraft from all nations during WWII.

Has much research been done on the differences between the same design and model being produced at two different factories for example?

Just curious.

Matt B

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1
 

LOL :laugh:

That`s what I told you how hysterical Claus gets, he still can`t get over his mistake.

He still can`t get over that PRYMARY and MOST RELIABLE documents show he is wrong.

I have documetns that prove my point. Claus has NOTHING. That`s a loosing situation for you, dear Claus.

He had also lied. Spielberger himself never "corrected" his work.. Jentz made modifications to Spielberger`s data, and not Spielberger to his own data. BTW, Claus also knows this. He intentionally presents a false description.

Given that no single priamry document supports Mr. Bonnensens point of view, he is forced to try to discredit the sources that prove him wrong, calling them dubious... what makes them dubious? Well of course the fact that they don`t agree with Claus.. Claus is always right, he never makes a mistake, he`s God himself who come down to Earth to teach mortals to the only correct way of thinking.

He also blends facts and say the documents are hand written and "has a number of peculiarities"... First thing the docs are printed standard forms for AFVs, filled with hand, just like any other German test documents, like Flight tests, from the era. It`s a bit hard to understand why hand filled documetns would be unreliable...

They contain a number of pecularities... well, like, 80mm turret armor. Definition for pecularity, as understood by Mr. Claus Bonnensen: Any fact or data that does not agree with Mr. Claus Bonnensen`s POV and thus can only be incorrect and false.

Mr. Claus says that "In his 1998 book co-authored by Thomas Jentz, Spielberger has corrected the mistakes in his 1975 book and says the turret front of the Panzer IV Ausf. H and J has 50mm of armour"... OK first part that Claus lies about that it was Spielberger, but let`s forget about this.

The question is, BASED ON WHAT did "Spielberger" said it was 50mm... when primary documents tell 80mm, clearly and without doubt?

What does Claus has to back up his point of view? Part from well a developed parrot instinct?

NOTHING.

That`s the point.

Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: 1
 

Hi!:)

Things came upon like this:confused: , without any meningless dogfighting I should ask it on tank.net ...Yes I will do it!:) Perhaps someone who saw any nexisting PzIVH/J in a musem or somewhere else surely can say it.

Hi!Col.Valentine;)