What Tankgeezer said. I love the Centurion, but it had its drawbacks–being very difficult to service and even do a basic oil change on is one. And and extremely thirsty petrol engine and short range (initially) was the other…
all other western designs concieved in 1944/45. They all were becoming obsolete where the centurion showed it’s advantages
(and perhaps the T54. yet the T54/55 was enormous export succes as well.
And I guess Khadafi’s downfall is still powered with them?)
I never had a “drawbackless tank” in mind 
And and extremely thirsty petrol engine and short range (initially) was the other…
I think the Dutch (and perhaps Israeli’s?) indeed swapped the first generation with turbodiesels.
Again, it was possible
Quote by Steben: "all other western designs concieved in 1944/45. "
The M-26 was hardly inferior to the Cent, or any other tank by the war’s end,or within reasonable time after. The reason that many tanks were withdrawn from service is that in the case of the U.S., and the Soviet Union, they continued to develop models superior to those already in the field. This is due to the cold war, and the one upsmanship of measure/countermeasure that drove the arms race between them.(plus, they could afford to do it) Because the Cent hung around in front line use a while longer is not in itself proof that it was too good to let go. It was no less vulnerable to the munitions of the time, it had contemporary armor nothing more. Maintenance difficulties, and its cranky drive train didnt help it. In the end it was its price tag that kept it popular.
Then there are always only “worse tanks”, and never “better tanks”. In any era.
The M26 was withdrawn and rebuilt as the M46 soon after the war due to its poor transmission causing problems and underpowered engine.
The Cent remained popular due to the ease that just about every other country could improve it (damn that we kept the Meteor engine). After market mods improved its lifespan and abilitys greatly. The last British ones (105 and 165 AVRE’s) had chains on the turret bustle and ERA during the first Gulf War. They were retired soon afterwards though around 1992/3 after 3 were lost in spectacular explosions in 2 days Feb 1991.
:mrgreen::mrgreen::mrgreen:
funny to see T34 kill marks on M46’s in Korea, only 5 years after the last nazi tank did the same …
The IS-3 looks great. I love the shape of its turret.
morph between post-war T55/alike and T34 :mrgreen:
I believe that PzIII/IV would be preferable in that conditions. Still, the Panther was more expensive at about one and a half times that PzIV. But PzIII/IV probably would have been even cheaper. 7.5cm L/48 gun could deal with all the targets on the Western Front and nearly all (except for tanks and assault guns in a IS series) on the Eastern Front. Recoil of the 7.5cm L/70 gun would be long for this tank, but if we remember Hetzer Starr and Sherman Firefly, this problem has a solution.
P.S. I have always discouraged that the transmission of German tanks in front of hull… Not the best solution. This leads to an increase of the height of the entire tank.
I’ll have to check, is there room for the rear transmission on III/IV
I find it absolutely clear that the Panther was needed and was far superior to the IV. The simple issue is, that with more PZ IV the fuel/ammunition/transportation consumption would have risen beyond German capability, not to mention the need in trained crews (That did not exist after 1943).
The logical step was thus to keep producing the Panther (and simlifying it), while giving some resources to the Tiger VIB (and possibly remove the Tiger I earlier).
The other option was to build panzerjägers/sturmgeschutze, but then this also means a drop in performance for any individual tank (less manouverability/survivability).
- Historically the Germans seem to have coped with this problem very soon.
- The Germans had more Tiger I, VIB and Panther running in 1945, than most other tanks!
3/4. The Tiger VIB, for example was designed to fight alone, and fared well. According to Carius they moved the VIB on trains with combat tracks, so why would the Panther be different! - Panther had a consumption of some 20% more than a Pz IV, with much better mobility and speed (and armour and firepower). To pull the Tiger VIB in again, it had less fuel consumption than a Jagdpanther! Heavier was the way to go for the Germans for reasons above.
- True, if it was knocked out. Much more likely for a Pz IV crew to die at the same time…
- Irrelevant by this time, the Germans sure knew where the enemy was going.
EDIT: Can someone explain what is the relevance of cost in RM during the war? Its not like they bought their tanks, or the materials for them…
Money - the equivalent of the materials, labor, and all country’s GDP.
It was far superior to the IV only in defence and long range (making it a better replacement for the Eastern Front than Westen Front) and on paper (assuming it … - uhm - … kept running)
The other option was to build panzerjägers/sturmgeschutze, but then this also means a drop in performance for any individual tank (less manouverability/survivability).
The StuG were a great weapon. Yet, they seemed less cheap than I thought at first.
- Historically the Germans seem to have coped with this problem very soon.
- The Germans had more Tiger I, VIB and Panther running in 1945, than most other tanks!
3/4. The Tiger VIB, for example was designed to fight alone, and fared well. According to Carius they moved the VIB on trains with combat tracks, so why would the Panther be different!- Panther had a consumption of some 20% more than a Pz IV, with much better mobility and speed (and armour and firepower). To pull the Tiger VIB in again, it had less fuel consumption than a Jagdpanther! Heavier was the way to go for the Germans for reasons above.
- True, if it was knocked out. Much more likely for a Pz IV crew to die at the same time…
- Irrelevant by this time, the Germans sure knew where the enemy was going.
- Germans were in defence, the weakness of the Panther and Tiger II was in mobile attack.
- in 1945 the war was over. The discussion III/IV vs Panther must be placed in '41 to '43.
3/4. Support means maintenance effort, of course they would fight alone, as would the III/IV. - I’m not suggesting they should have used only the old IV, but to develop a new III/IV, with the same production methods and technical design as in the later tanks (simple plates welded, not bolted with support beams).
- that’s beyond this discussion
- ok
Hmm damn how stupid of me, I was going trough the pages not even realizing before now that you said “the III/IV”, not the Pz III and Pz IV as opposed to the Panther… :shock:
I understand now, sorry. Better find a “late war discussion”. :oops:
The Panzer III/IV would be cheaper than the Panther, althought probably not better.
I think I’ve read the Panther wasn’t really much more expensive to produce than the late-war vintage Mk IV…
Prices (in RM):
Kubelwagen (Typ 82) - 2 782
Swimmwagen (Typ 166) - 4 667
Light car SdKfz 1/2/3 - 6 000
Medium car SdKfz 15/16 - 10 500
Light armored car SdKfz 222 - 20 000
Armored car SdKfz 231 (8 rad) - 53 000
Light APC SdKfz 250 - 20 420
Medium APC SdKfz 251 - 22 560
Tracked mine SdKfz302 - 3 000
Tracked mine SdKfz303 - 1 000
Heavy tracked mine SdKfz301 - 28 000
—and more interesting—
PzKpfw II - 49 300
Grille (on 38(t) chassic) - 53 000
PzKpfw III - 96 200
StuG III - 82 500
PzKpfw IV - 103 500
PzKpfw V - 130 000
PzKpfw VI - 260 000
All prices WITHOUT weapon, radio equipment, etc.!
For example, Bf-109 - 60 000 RM, full equipped Bf-109 - 100 000 RM
Panther had 80mm front armor, Jagdpanzer IV/70 had 80mm.
Regarding tank prices most people have a wrong idea of the cost of a Panther tank :
From ‘Kursk 1943: A Statistical Analysis’’ ,p61 - the price of the tanks without a gun and radio : Pz IV – 103.462 RM ,Pz V – 117.100 RM .
From “Waffen und Geheimwaffen des Deutschen Heeres 1933-1945” p41 price of Pz IV F2 – 115.962 RM , p46 Pz V – 117.000 without gun ,however in p52 the price of kwk 42 is given as 12.000 RM.
Hope this information is helpful.
What the chart(s) show is the real reason why the Stugs and other tank destroyers were increasingly favored by a losing army fighting on the defensive…
Price comparison is a little difficult to compare alot of the time as people pick the price that reflects what they are trying to promote. Over the life of a vehicle the unit price generally reduces (I can not remember the figures at the moment but the T34 in 1940 cost almost twice what it did in 1945).
Depending on the specification (ie model) the cost in money, material and manhours can be very different. Ease of manufacturing, use of strategic materials, man hours per vehicle are all needed to make a real comparison, pure unit cost does not tell the whole story.
Found this example of unit costs
The cost to produce a T-34-85 tank was initially about thirty percent higher than a Model 1943, at 164,000 rubles; but by 1945 it was down to 142,000 (Harrison 2002:181). During the course of the war, the cost of a T-34 tank had been reduced by almost half, from 270,000 rubles in 1941 (Harrison 2002:181), while in the meantime its top speed remained about the same, and its main gun’s armour penetration and turret frontal armour thickness both nearly doubled