Why did Germany had to come up with new tank designs/ideas instead

>>33095233

Because the Panzer IV, like the Sherman was a piece of shit, only capable of doing light infantry support work.

It was totally vulnerable to any AT weapons.

>>33095233
>Tl;Dr I don't understand WWII

>>33095233
>475/month

>flooding the fronts

>>33095233
>IF the mighty IVs weren't enough, they could step up their game with the Panther with it's 75 mm KwK 42 and the Jagdpanther with the 88 mm KwK 43
this is what happened. and germany had neither the machine tools nor the steelmaking ability to make the panther reliable

>>33095233
Wouldn't have helped. They would never have outproduced the Allies. And even if they could have, you would have run out of dudes.

>>33095258
see >>33095262

>>33095273

If a tank can't survive even early war AT weapons, than it can't perform its duties of infantry support.

Every medium tank is a failure. That's why the concept is long dead.

T-35/ Sherman and Panzer IV were all abhorrent vehicles.

By the final iterations of the PZ IV the chassis was already stressed from weight. They simply couldn't put any more on it without wrecking the drive train.

>>33095307
>its duties of infantry support.

>>33095233
Because there was literally nothing else you could do to the tank that hadn't already been done by the Ausf. H. The Germans had been upgrading and making alterations to make the thing competitive for the entire war, but by the end of the war it was couldn't hope to stay competitive with the new generations of tanks being field. It was a 1930s design fighting a war against vehicles that outmatched it on a fundamental level by the mid-40s.

>>33095258
>sherman shit

Educate yourself with something other than brainless documentaries

>>33095233

The Panzer IV was the inferior design compared to the PIII, only saved by its larger turret ring enabling the use of longer-barreled guns. Adding armor, armament and other shit almost doubled its weight and by the apogee of its development (Jagdpanzers wielding the Panther's gun) the stress on its suspension was so great its reliability fell below that of the Panther.

Even without these problems there was no hope of outproducing the Anglo-Soviet war machine churning out equal or better medium tanks at a terrifying pace, and as time passed, the qualified tank crews who made the early Blitzkrieg victories possible became increasingly sparse.

They should have put their money on fixing the Panther's gorillion issues, which was well possible, but by then they couldn't afford retooling the factories and stuck to the flawed models as they were better than having no tanks at all for a while. Of course, not even that would have saved their ass.

TL;DR: Wouldn't have changed a thing.

>>33095233

>Why did Germany had to come up with new tank designs/ideas instead of improvising the Panzer IVs?


The panzer 4 was obsolete by '44 or so. Though it was a great tank for years prior it wasn't really made with forward thinking.


For all it's flaws, the panther WAS comparatively simplistic to manufacture. Shit design aside it was reasonably honest with the strategic situation Germany was finding itself in around 1943 and 1944. Even if the MB design was a better pick and more realistic.


>>33095317

The Panzer 4 was originally conceived of as an infantry support tank, and even later variants with the HV gun were still intended to support infantry. Tanks might be able to do things infantry can't, but you still need infantry to hold a street corner.

>>33095385
>The Panzer 4 was originally conceived of as an infantry support tank
um, no

>>33095389
It was though. Panzer 3's were meant to engage armor, with it's lower profile and higher velocity 50mm gun. The Panzer 4 was outfitted with a low-velocity 75mm howitzer and meant to support infantry.

>>33095385
I'd argue it was obsolete by 41/42. The hull and chassis design were completely inferior and outdated compared to Shermans and T-34s.

>>33095385

>obsolete

Eh, no

>dated

Definitely, yes

>>33095233
The psychological and ideological shock of encountering the T-34 for the first time in battle. It's like you're told you'll be facing cavemen armed with sticks and instead found the cavemen riding Gundams. The Germans even initially just straight up copied the T-34 before deciding on the Panther.

>>33095343

>Sherman

>Protecting the crew from anything larger than HMGs

Nope.

>>33095667
>He watches History Channel
Oh, I am laffin'

>>33095233
Because PzIV was an evolutionary dead end.

>>33095733

Which AT guns was the Sherman totally immune to?

>>33095436
>The Panzer 4 was outfitted with a low-velocity 75mm howitzer and meant to support infantry.
yep, exactly how the germans envisioned blitzkrieg working

>>33096287
>yep, exactly how the germans envisioned blitzkrieg working
Germans didn't envision blitzkrieg anything because such a thing did not exist.

>>33096376
they did envision roles for their tanks, and infantry support was not primarily among them

>>33095962
Note I'm leaving out anything not ever used by the Axis.
2cm KwK 30
2cm KwK 38
Type 96 25 mm AT/AA Gun
2.8cm sPzB 41
3,7 cm PaK 34(t)
3.7cm Pak 35
3.7cm PaK 36
3.7cm KwK 36
3,7 cm PaK 37 (t)
7.5cm KwK 37
Cannone da 47/32 M35
Type 1 47 mm Anti-Tank Gun
4.7 cm Pak (t)
4.7 cm Pak 181(f)
7,5 cm Pak 38/97
Type 38 75 mm field gun
5cm KwK 38
5cm KwK 39
4.2cm Pak 41
76 mm divisional gun M1942
76 mm divisional gun M1936 (F-22)
Type 90 75 mm field gun
Type 3 75 mm tank gun
If we assume the engagement is at 500 meters, add
7.5 cm StuK 40 L/43
7.5 cm KwK 40 L/48
75 mm Reșița Model 1943

File: 28krjmb.png (204KB, 920x680px) Image search: [Google]

204KB, 920x680px

It'd have been interesting if the Germans had instead focused on improving the IV, like their Ausf K proposals.

>>33095436
>>33095385

The Panzer IV was an escort vehicle for the Panzer III. The StuG, as part of the Sturmartillerie were infantry support vehicles.

Specifically, the Panzer IV was a Begleitwagen, or "Accompanying vehicle".It was called this to disguise its purpose under the Treaty of Versailles. In a normal Panzer Battalion, there were supposed to be 3 light companies of Panzer III's and a heavy company of Panzer IV's. Panzer IV's role were to knock out fortifications and infantry formations the Panzer III's came across during an advance. StuG's were specifically tasked with supporting friendly infantry formations.

While it isn't entirely out of the realm of possibility that Panzer IV's could support infantry, it wasn't their primary mission.

Infantry support weapons and vehicles usually had a much larger gun like the sIG series and later the StuH's.

I'm sure though if a German commander wanted to task out his Panzer IV's to an infantry support role, he could have done it.

>>33096567
the panzer iv would never be able to survive having a weight of 27.2 m

>>33096546
Thank you.

>>33096376
please explain

>>33096654
he's shrugging off my joke because "blitzkrieg" wasn't a set doctrine, really, and the three campaigns typically thought of as blitzkrieg campaigns (poland, france, barbarossa) were quite different in detail.

>>33096691
I see. Thank you for your explanation

>>33095307
>if it's not completely immune to AT, it can't do infantry support

...funny, it seems like nobody told that to literally tens of thousands of tank crews on all sides who successfully carried out infantry support all the fucking time throughout the war despite their vehicles not being immune to contemporary AT weapons.

>Every medium tank is a failure. That's why the concept is long dead.

Except it's not, it evolved into the modern MBT.

>T-35/ Sherman and Panzer IV were all abhorrent vehicles.

Literally all of history and logical thinking disagree.

3/10 bait, got me to answer.