What could Germany have done to make the Panzer more effective

>>34235492
Sloped frontal plate.
Lower copula
Gun Plate

Larger tracks
Simpler and cheaper construction
More efficient engine
Additional external fuel tanks

>>34235492
They could've put a long barrel gun in the 1st place instead of dicking around untill F2 came. Nothing more could've been done really. It hit it's evolution plateou. Later models supsension was already over stressed so putting more armour would make it less effective.
Germany needed new tanks, but instead of wasting time and money on Tigers they should've just invest and develp Panther.
It was lethal to everything untill late 1944 when is-2 arrvied and it was only on a eastern front. On west it was more than enough.

>>34235492
>What could Germany have done to make the Panzer more effective against the T-34?
Replace it.

>>34235492

A better gun and cheaper manufacturing process.

File: Hetzer_lesany.jpg (367KB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

367KB, 1024x768px

I wonder if the Panzer chassis could have handled the 88mm in a turret. Strip down the armor until it's only mg proof and all, dedicate it to a tank destroyer role.

Or how about just stop making Panzers and make this instead?

>>34235512

The copula is a good feature for the time. It gives the commander much better situational awareness while buttoned up. It's only "bad" in meme vidya games.

>>34235820
>I wonder if the Panzer chassis could have handled the 88mm in a turret.

No, the 88 and its ammo was far too long to fit in the 4's turret.

>>34235492
THE Panzer? Which fucking model of Panzer? You're retarded, clarify what you mean.

>>34235873

Look at the picture he posted.

File: Jagdpanzer38.jpg (311KB, 1920x1280px) Image search: [Google]

311KB, 1920x1280px

>>34235856
Yeah ofc it wouldn't work with the exact same turret that much is clear even to me.

>>34235873

panzer 3 & 4

>>34235917

You seem to be misunderstanding something fundamental about tank design.

The size of the turret is limited by the size of the turret ring that it fits into. The size of the turret ring is limited by the size of the hull. If you change the size of the hull, you have to change the configuration of the running gear and transmission. Etc, etc, on and on, until you've replaced virtually every part in the tank, giving you...an entirely new tank.

That's why they built the Tiger to carry the 88 instead of just sticking it in a Pz IV - they had to.

File: 1382212074466.jpg (118KB, 680x960px) Image search: [Google]

118KB, 680x960px

>>34235917
The Hetzer's an unergonomic mess with a seriously mediocre gun. The StuG is superior and proved itself in combat many times over.

File: 260sz0n.jpg (25KB, 700x390px) Image search: [Google]

25KB, 700x390px

>>34235492
It's was already effective against the T-34 with long 75mm gun.

>>34235512
Pic related?

>>34235953
There were some ergonomic concerns with the Hetzer that could have been ironed out with enough time.

The Hetzer has 100mm of highly sloped armor compraed to the Stug's 50mm of flat armor (or late 80mm) The Hetzer also weighs 8 tons less than the Stug.

File: IMG_1986a.jpg (78KB, 800x600px) Image search: [Google]

78KB, 800x600px

>>34236000
>There were some ergonomic concerns with the Hetzer that could have been ironed out with enough time.
Mate, no. The thing is fucking tiny. It's got Slav-tier crew compartment, with a penetration wiping out the entire crew in one go.
>The Hetzer has 100mm of highly sloped armor
60mm at ~60 degrees, giving it roughly 120mm armour. Nothing special by any means.
>compraed to the Stug's 50mm of flat armor (or late 80mm)
Except that the StuG is not flat. Armour is also not all that matters, especially when its amount is relatively low like in both vehicles and penetrable by most of the things they would be hunting.
Not that any of this is relevant, since the StuG's an assault gun with AT capabilities and the Hetzer is a pure tank destroyer. Trying to replace medium tanks with a TD is retarded, since they don't even fill the same roles.

File: M60.png (406KB, 461x391px) Image search: [Google]

406KB, 461x391px

>>34235952
Just slightly increase the size of the hull near the turret ring by sloping the sides a bit outwards.

It will not interfere with the transmission or running gear at all. And only the sides need to be modified to be able to mount a bigger turret.

>>34236076
>war thunder screenshot
>just change half the tank xd easy peasy
thanks for proving ahead of time that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about and sparing me the effort of typing a post, relying on the thought that'd you actually be able to debate back

>>34236068
>Nothing special by any means.
What? 120mm on a 15 ton tank is nothing special? What the hell are you on about? The Tiger had only 100mm.

Also i do not exactly see what the Hetzer would lack if it were to be put into the assault gun role of the Stug.

>>34235492
They did what they could. The hull and engine was too small for any more upgrades, any attempt to change this might as well just design a new tank instead. The best they could do is churn out more Stugs for maximum cost effectiveness.

>>34236175
Yeah i figured you would sperg about wt pic, but i did it anyway since it was the easiest way to show what i was talking about.

>just change half the tank xd easy peasy
No, Just change the side profile a bit to account for the bigger turret ring, and then as i suggested earlier, reduce the armor thickness to account for the increased weight brought on by the 88mm.

>>34236175
Not exactly. Just google m60 hull and you can see what the other anon is getting at.

File: Apcbc.gif (7KB, 326x174px) Image search: [Google]

7KB, 326x174px

>>34236195
>What? 120mm on a 15 ton tank is nothing special?
It's 60mm though, not 120mm. It's angled.
>Also i do not exactly see what the Hetzer would lack if it were to be put into the assault gun role of the Stug.
>space for ammunition
>visibility and optics
>any sort of ergonomics
>crew surviving on penetration
>crew being able to effectively crew the vehicle
>crew being able to bail out
>fast reloading time
>a notable turning arc for the gun
You know, just the kind of stuff you'd want to have in combat.

89mm gun

File: 1464444057007.png (166KB, 303x336px) Image search: [Google]

166KB, 303x336px

>>34236306
>89
>not 88
>not 90

File: 1489133066281.jpg (42KB, 686x1024px) Image search: [Google]

42KB, 686x1024px

>>34236518
>90
What are you, American?

>>34236533
I would rather be an American than using 89mm gun, also fuck 76mm, 122mm and 152mm gun.

File: 1488823785931.jpg (89KB, 436x600px)

89KB, 436x600px

>>34236557
>also fuck 76mm, 122mm and 152mm gun
There's something we can agree on.

>>34235873
OP's still in middle school-not retarded.

>>34235492
Upgrading the PanzerIII with the 50/L60 gun a couple of years sooner.

File: T-55M8A_Typhoon_main_battle_tank_upgrade_package_for_T-55_Morozov_Ukraine_Ukrainian_defence_industry_military_technology_640_001.jpg (275KB, 640x437px) Image search: [Google]

275KB, 640x437px

>>34235492
Depends when the changes come into effect.

>Early war
Put the Panzer IV back into development with a sloped front plate, the long 75, and stronger suspension. It would probably come out looking like fun sized Panther, and that's the idea. Make sure the turret has periscopes for both the gunner and loader, with as much field of view as possible. Give the commander a low magnification gun sight and turret controls, so he can lay targets for the gunner. A stereoscopic rangefinder would be nice, but not a need to have. The issues the Panzer IV had late war came from not being designed for the role it was asked to fill. This would delay Panzer IV production by at least a year or so, but the Panzer III was sufficient until Barbarossa.

>Barbarossa
Try to solve the problems the Panther had with it's suspension and transmission, and do the turret modifications I listed for the Panzer IV. Other than that, it's more of a industrial production issue. Simplify designs, centralize lines, etc. Move all production of armoured vehicles to Panzer III and Panther chassis for light and heavy vehicles. Drop the Tiger programs entirely in favour of StuG and Jagdpanzer production. Hitler will not be pleased.

>Late War
Maek moar StuG!

Seriously, by Normandy, changing production and design wouldn't do fuck all to change the outcome of the war. Just move pretty much all production to cheaper casemate vehicles, and try to stall the allies long enough to get terms of surrender instead of unconditional.

APFSDS ammo.

>>34237085
There was never an issue with the 75mm gun penetrating the T-34's hull. Germany had a tungsten shortage anyways The improvements to be made to a Panzer IV design-wise mostly include reliability, cost and armour.

>>34236997
This anon gets it. Had it happened in 1939 or 40, the Panzer III would be extremely well regarded.